using a fixed wide angle

fontmoss

fontmoss

Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Not sure if this should be in talk photography or equipment?

Bought DSLR at christmas and played with a mates 10-20 sigma which was a lot of fun but was thinking about a sigma 14mm fixed. Heard that it can be a steep learning curve/best avoided in the early days to throw money at a lens like that but advice welcomed. Would i be better off getting a f2.8 mid range zoom first?

flickr in signature if want a look at what ive taken thus far
 
cant go to focus, i live in madrid but ta maybe ill look at something more useable first
 
primes have zooms...








...they are called legs :D
 
here here! :D
 
fontmoss said:
Not sure if this should be in talk photography or equipment?

Bought DSLR at christmas and played with a mates 10-20 sigma which was a lot of fun but was thinking about a sigma 14mm fixed. Heard that it can be a steep learning curve/best avoided in the early days to throw money at a lens like that but advice welcomed. Would i be better off getting a f2.8 mid range zoom first?

flickr in signature if want a look at what ive taken thus far
Click to expand...

Steep learning curve?
Probably easier than a zoom... You just move until the framing is right. Don't have to worry about which bit of the zoom is best optically, either!

I think zoom lenses are more versatile and less hassly, but you can never beat the fun or optics of a prime.
 
i think having an ultra wide lens means you have to take care a lot more about what subjects your taking, i use mine more for close up work than of landscapes, if you just start taking pics of mountains with it your pics are going to look like snaps
 
just looked at your flickr, and you dont do mountains LOL
 
I find mine is way better for abstract stuff. I love my 10-20 to bits but unless it's an epic landscape that can't be captured by panorama for whatever reason, the 10-20 is pretty rubbish for landscapes. It's wicked for extreme sports, portraits, cityscapes, and everything apart from landscapes pretty much!
 
foodpoison said:
the 10-20 is pretty rubbish for landscapes
Click to expand...

I love my 12-24 to bit for landscapes - so please expand on why a 10-20 is 'rubbish' for such ???

Though I agree with you that such nutter wides are great for extreme sports, action, architecture, fashion, err... anything really - except wildlife perhaps :thinking: but there must be someone on here who's shot a wild animal on a 10 mm???

Oh yes - I did - a rabbit on a 10.5mm fisheye :D

DD
 
I find it hard for landscapes to take use of ultra wide lens that bring enough foreground interest, normally just end up with the intended view clumped really small into the middle of the picture, where as moderate wide/tele and pano stiching would be better. Same thing happens with cityscapes across the water, too much water and sky and the intended buldings become too small. Close up ultra wides are good to get the scene in, but alot of the time the distortion is annoying with converging lines.
 
foodpoison said:
I find mine is way better for abstract stuff. I love my 10-20 to bits but unless it's an epic landscape that can't be captured by panorama for whatever reason, the 10-20 is pretty rubbish for landscapes. It's wicked for extreme sports, portraits, cityscapes, and everything apart from landscapes pretty much!
Click to expand...


Really? i just bought one and think its brilliant for landscapes.
2 people, 2 different opinions.
 
Well it's personal opinion, but I feel that the details of the landscape just aren't captured as well as I'd like them to be, and that often it's far too wide. I prefer using telephoto lenses for landscapes due to the perspective you get. I can't explain it nor do I know the technical term for it :p

However, some of my favourite shots (non-landscape) have been captured with my 10-20 :D
 
good to see some debate, nope i dont do landscapes at least not yet. now if i had a wide angle.....;)

i thought itd be good to have something silly wide as im thinking of getting a 24-70 sigma or even just keeping kit lens and using my 50mm all the time (which is what i do now) ad have the 14mm as something different in tight situations like bars. i could be wrong. i guess the fisheye lenses are more of a steep learning curve than a 14mm fixed. im still intrigued by them, maybe ill go find one to play with
 
Only reason i went for a wide angle was because after using a 18-55mm for so long when you look though a 10-20 you can see the advantages, helps with good lead in lines too.

Sigma 10-20mm brilliant lens.
 
yeah 10-20 is a possibility, more useable than a fixed prob but marginally slower, 3.5 - 4.5 i think
 
jerry12953 said:
I can't imagine using anything as wide as 14 on full frame though.:)
Click to expand...

I use 12mm on a FF camera (12-24mm zoom), and it's a useful lens, but quite specialised, as it can distort perspectives so much.

I use it for shots like below, in this shot, I wanted the pier looking a lot longer than it really is.

Back to ops original question, while prime lenses generally are faster lenses, zooms are a lot more versatile, and if you are serving your apprenticeship with a DSLR, then a wide-ish zoom is probably the best bet, and consider a prime when you have a bit more experience under your belt?

pb176471.jpg
 
Les McLean said:
I use 12mm on a FF camera (12-24mm zoom), and it's a useful lens, but quite specialised, as it can distort perspectives so much.

I use it for shots like below, in this shot, I wanted the pier looking a lot longer than it really is.

Back to ops original question, while prime lenses generally are faster lenses, zooms are a lot more versatile, and if you are serving your apprenticeship with a DSLR, then a wide-ish zoom is probably the best bet, and consider a prime when you have a bit more experience under your belt?

pb176471.jpg
Click to expand...


That makes it look as long as it used to be. Very nice shot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top