Which wide angle

Kanikula

Kanikula

Messages
98
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
Im stuck for which new lens i want :(

Im looking at buying either the Sigma 10-20mm or the Sigma 12-24mm but i really dont know which would be best?

Iv currently got the Nikon D50 but will be upgrading in the next 6 months to a D200. Help!
 
10-20, love it! 12-24 if you ever plan on going full-frame, but it doesn't take filters because of the front element. I've never used the 12.24, but the 10-20 is excellent at getting some really different shots
 
As always with these threads about the superwide zooms, I shall step in and be the lone voice of decent. :lol:

Both of those sigmas will let you tackle shots that you can only get with silly wide lenses and in that sense they are great. When it comes to image quality and most particularly detail in shots, they are both pretty woeful. Now often that's not going to matter much in the shots they make as it's the unique perspective and sense of space that the photo hangs on.

There are times though, like shooting interiors for example where things like detail and sharpness are important and it's in these situations that ALL the superwide zooms fail.

Just a point worth keeping in mind, depending on what you'll be using it for. :)
 
dazzajl said:
When it comes to image quality and most particularly detail in shots, they are both pretty woeful.
Click to expand...

Not always!
1412094585_2272157ecd_o.jpg


That is taken using a Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm - tons of detail in it (speacialy when printed) and I dont think the image quality is too shoddy either. A lot of Pete's 10-20 shots have a ton of detail in them too. I think it just depends on how you use them. Dont know about the 12-24 but the 10-20 is a great lens to play around with :)
 
OK then, in the interest of balance - have this shot from the 12-24mm. I got mine just in time for going on holiday last year and I'm so glad I did - it does truly wonderful things with skies and I have to say I was hugely impressed with the IQ from it too - as has been said a lot seems to be about how you use it.

9083StacksatGarryHDRTP.jpg


If I was buying again now, I'd buy exactly the same again. :)
 
Looks like ill be opting for the 10-20mm then! Thanks for the help and the sample pics :)
 
as has been said a lot seems to be about how you use it.
Click to expand...

I know what people here have acheived with these lenses but a processed and sharpened 800 pixel image on the web is no indication of the quality of a lens. Supplying an image for a double page magazine use, which will obviously be required un-sharpened is quite something else.

It seems to be an unavoidable fact that the engineering solutions required to make a zoom lens that goes out to 12 or 10mm are not conducive to great image quality. That doesn't mean that you cant make great images with them though.
 
dazzajl said:
I know what people here have acheived with these lenses but a processed and sharpened 800 pixel image on the web is no indication of the quality of a lens. Supplying an image for a double page magazine use, which will obviously be required un-sharpened is quite something else.

It seems to be an unavoidable fact that the engineering solutions required to make a zoom lens that goes out to 12 or 10mm are not conducive to great image quality. That doesn't mean that you cant make great images with them though.
Click to expand...

So then Good Sir Knight,

Where wouldst thow point us in our search for such a holy grail?
 
Where wouldst thow point us in our search for such a holy grail?
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:
Ahhhh, well that's the trouble. I don't think there is such a thing as a superwide zoom with excellent image quality. It just doesn't seem possible to get around the design requirements. I think if it were possible, we'd see canon looking to take a share of that market.

Am I right in thinking that Nikon do make something similar. Obviously, the smaller the image circle the better the opportunity for good IQ. For full frame or even 1.3 crop, it doesn't seem possible...... yet.

I suspect that the cheaper sigma 10-20 is actually better than the 12-24 for just that reason.

My personal plan, which frankly isn't going to suit many, is to get a larger sensor digiback and the new Mamiya 28mm. Even that though is only going to get me in the neighbourhood of a 17-40. Will be super crisp though and actually be a downsize to a double spread.
 
Dont want this to sound argumentative, but I dont think the super wide lenses can be dismissed as all being soft. http://www.jlproductions.co.uk/uploads/TalkPhotography/IMG_5040.JPG - that is a large jpeg straight from my 350D (same shot as above). It is untouched, litterally straight from the camera. It isn't amazingly sharp, but then thats not the image you would send off for a double page spread. You would process from RAW and give it a bit of a sharpen etc. I have that shot printed at 20x30inch and it is really not soft after simple processing and saving in tiff!
(also this has a cheap cokin ND grad infront of it which isnt going to help sharpness)
 
played with a 10-20 the other day, pretty nice it was too. seriously thinking about getting it for my back up 20D with travel and w/a fun in mind...
 
Dont want this to sound argumentative
Click to expand...

It's really not. I could sit back and happily bat this back and forth all night. We can dissagree surely. :):)

Now that's an interesting shot to post in defense of the superwides, as I'd put that as barely passable. It's almost exaclty what I'd have expected if you'd have used my 12-24.

Sure you can sharpen it up, add a high pass filter too to get something that will make a nice big wall print.....

.... but when you send work off to clients you often don't get to sharpen it first. When an image is going into a publication or becomming part of a ad campaign that's over several media, such important things as shapening aren't left to whims of a poor snapper. That's when I cringe at the superwide, when I know the client is going to get image almost raw and I can't hide the truth.

If you think about it, you just can't really expect good detail from these lenses. Our cameras have a fixed number of pixels. The wider the lens, the larger the area of scene being shared amongst those pixels. You have to reach a point sooner or later when the amount of area you are trying to squeeze in starts to push past where you can see all the detail break down. I think that 10/12mm is pretty near to that point for the size of pixels we have in our cameras.
 
dazzajl said:
If you think about it, you just can't really expect good detail from these lenses. Our cameras have a fixed number of pixels. The wider the lens, the larger the area of scene being shared amongst those pixels. You have to reach a point sooner or later when the amount of area you are trying to squeeze in starts to push past where you can see all the detail break down. I think that 10/12mm is pretty near to that point for the size of pixels we have in our cameras.
Click to expand...

Does it not just boil down to the wideness of the lens as oppose to pixels? I know what your trying to say (i think). Surely the issue is just that the FOV is that wide, the whopping bit of curved glass on the front of the lens does all the damage?

Its late and i really can't think of the words to explain what i mean, but hopefully someone will understand my ramblings!
 
the whopping bit of curved glass on the front of the lens does all the damage?
Click to expand...

Yup, it does plenty. Hence smaller image circle, smaller bit of curved glass and the better lens.... by my thinking.

Also, think of it this way. Stick a 50mm lens on your camera and take a picture of a table in front of you. Now change that 50mm lens for a 12mm one and take a shot from the same place. Those same pixles are now coping with the table, plus lots of floor, walls, and whatever else ithe camera will see. The more you cram into the frame, the less detail you have left to go around.

In a way, I supose it's not really fair to blame the lens as such, it's just a symptom of superwides but wherever the reason the quality still suffers.
 
would that come under the resolving power of the lens then? I see what you're getting at but 'tis a little muddled. its not cramming more in per pixel but more the fact that the glass elements are more curved to catch a wider view and then direct this down the lens onto the same size area - regardless of focal length. So, the distortion occurs as a 'fault' of the curvature of the glass rather than the pixels - as they work fine with a 50mm or greater length lens, no? I say fault loosely as it is accepted there will be some distortion, and rightly mentioned there are some lenses that handle this better than others...even within the same manufacturing line, so its down to QC in these cases.
 
If the OP is still pondering the choice, I'll just chip in and point out that 10mm is lots wider than 12mm. It doesn't sound much, but it is.
 
Just to play the other side of the card, I've recently sold 4 canvas prints with photos from my Sigma 10-20 on at 1 metre wide each. The head of the North West Development agency has bought one for their head office. I've had 10mm shots in magazines (Professional Photographer and DSLR User) and in 2 calendars. Another shot beat over 23,000 images to be in the top 20 of the BBC Britain in Pictures comp, soon to be displayed in the National Media Museum. Oh and Bench also licensed 2 for use all over Europe. Think that should say it all really. If you want uber sharp build a wide angle shot with a 50mm f/1.8 :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top