Ultra-wide

ronnus

ronnus

Messages
968
Name
Ron
Edit My Images
No
I've never used an ultra-wide lens before, so thought I'd quite like to get one to try out. It was on my list after a tele-zoom and macro, and I'd pretty much made up my mind to get the Sigma 10-20mm.

However having saved up for it, I've now got itchy feet. If I buy new, it'd be on a par with my 16-85mm cost-wise, and my fear is that I won't get the use out of it to justify the cost. The 16-85mm gets used all the time. Have kept my eyes open for used 10-20's, but when they do come up the price is just too close to the new cost.

Probably part of the problem is not knowing exactly what I want to do with it. I take a lot of pics indoors and like the idea of being able to get more in, but the 16mm end of the 16-85mm seems to do a decent job. I'm not much into landscapes, but am I right in thinking that's not really what a UWA is best for?

So, should I buy one? Should I hold out for a used one? Should I try and hire one? Does every camera bag need one? Is is yet another "d'oh!" purchase risk? :bonk: :bang:

Opinions very welcome :)
 
I have a sigma 10-20 it's a great lens, I use it for landscapes and cityscapes mainly.

I would consider trying one before you buy, what pics do you take indoors?
 
A UWA can be used for anything, even sports!!

Its possibly the most creative lens out there, but you need to actually use it creatively, not just 'to get everything in'. As such they are quite hard to use!

A great Ken Rockwell article on using UWA's;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

I love my Canon 10-22!
 
odd jim said:
A UWA can be used for anything, even sports!!

Its possibly the most creative lens out there, but you need to actually use it creatively, not just 'to get everything in'. As such they are quite hard to use!

A great Ken Rockwell article on using UWA's;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

I love my Canon 10-22!
Click to expand...

I quite often take Ken Rockwell with a pinch of salt but I agree with what he says about UWA lenes.
I agree with you on the Canon 10-22.
 
There have been several debates on here with regard to UWA's and there use for landscapes.
I don't always use mine for landscapes but more often than not is it my first choice.
When it comes to photos with lots of mountains, for me using mine gives a much better feeling of 'expanse'.
The same applies to architecture and building interiors where mine is also favoured.
Quit often some people tend to buy and sell these quickly because they didn't know what they wanted them for and soon find the wider end is too much for them.
It's a lens you can be very created with (try taking a portrait with one) so it's not restricted to landscapes etc.

If you opt for a Sigma I would either try one in a shop and if it's fine buy it or buy a used one from here as it's a good indication that you will get a good copy.
The last thing you want is to get a bad copy from an online retailer and have to send it back.
When I bought my Canon 10-22 I was seriously considerinf the Sigma but the nail in the coffin for me was when a member posted that he tried four in a shop and the fourth one was the only good copy.
Recently I was tempted to buy a Sigma 150-500 OS but in a thread I started, another member posted that he had to take his first one back because of focussing problems and that was enough for me to decide that Sigma haven't improved their QA.
Not everyone has had problems with Sigma, in fact Marc (fabs) has owned several without a problem.
I opt for less hassle and if it costs me more money I accept it.
 
Useful info here guys, thanks... one question: How exactly will I know if I'm buying a good copy or not if I've never used that type of lens before!? Is it to do with mechanics/AF/operation etc, or is it purely about IQ?

I've seen this mentioned a lot with offbrand lenses, I bought my Tamron 90mm unseen so have no idea if it's a good copy or not, but I'm bloody happy with the pics I've got with it!
 
Last edited:
Just check its not unusually soft along one side, easy to spot on a UWA!

They're not "off brand" lenses just because they sent made by Canon or Nikon etc, they are built by leading lens manufacturers. That makes them sound like cornflakes!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Just check its not unusually soft along one side, easy to spot on a UWA!

They're not "off brand" lenses just because they sent made by Canon or Nikon etc, they are built by leading lens manufacturers. That makes them sound like cornflakes!
Click to expand...

Heheh point taken :D And ta for the advice... is it normally easy to spot that kind of softness on the lcd?
 
It won't be so easy to see it on the LCD, but I think if you are already looking for it and zoom in you should be able to check.
 
Or consider a tokina 11-16.... your choice and I guess you've alreaedy discounted it... some pics on flickr link in the siggy - there is a set for tokina (right hand side and down > sets > tokina).

Found its really useful for big things, buildings, statues, also for cars (getting close but still getting it all in).

well worth while addition to a camera persons bag :)
 
odd jim said:
A UWA can be used for anything, even sports!
Click to expand...

Or birds....

Nene.jpg
 
Not discounting tokina, but don't know of a dealer in Edinburgh.

I've only discovered the "two J's" and Calumet so far, obviously I'd prefer have a play with a lens first before dropping the £££ :)

If one comes up used locally I'll certainly have a looky, ta for pointing it out!
 
Having owned the Sigma I did find it suffered distortion and I'm not sure if its ideally suited to your requirements - I sold mine and now own a Pentax DA12-24, same as the Tokina 12-24 and personally much prefer it, especially the lower distortion

just my thoughts

Simon
 
I love my Nikon 10-24mm but I think it will be out of budget for what you want from a UWA.

I also was thinking about a sigma 10-20 but people having bad copies put me off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top