Wide Angle Choices / Help

dizzledazzle

dizzledazzle

Messages
387
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
So ive been getting work from our estate agent photographing properties and creating floorplans, ive been getting away with using a 17-50mm sticking to the wide end but need to go wider. The obvious choice would be the Sigma 10-20mm or 12-24mm.

However, there is also the 8mm Fisheye which i have wanted for some time now. The question i have is that using a D80 with cropped sensor, i wouldnt get the "fisheye" effect but would i still get a near 180degree viewing angle? or would i be better off with the 10-20mm?

also, final question, out of the 10-20 and 12-24, which gives the best IQ? there must be something "better" about it as the price difference between the to is very different!

Thanks!
 
I have found, after using the 10-20 that I'm getting too much in the frame and sometimes have difficulty in getting good scene shots closer to the 10mm scale.....

Nothing wrong with the lens but I am learning, generally, more is not better. However, there are times when I want lots a frame (ie indoor room shots, or urban scenes) so for that flexibility I'll never get rid of the lens.

So unless you know you need that extra oooommmfff from the Sigma, perhaps you may want to consider the better glass of the Nikon or even go prime with a 20mm, say. I'm thinking of a 17-55 or 17-50 (Tamron) for scenes and aiming for tighter cropped shots, yet still giving the impact of the location.

Just a thought.....
 
...also I took shots of my house for selling and the Sigma has done a fine job capturing everything at 10mm. Had someone question one of the shots saying looked distorted and forgot completely about it had all of my sitting room on....

If you can justify buying the lens because of the potential workload then go for the Sigma (+10mm potential). I think the Nikon would be wasted since you wouldn't notice the difference on typical estate agent photo reprints.....
 
I've had the 10-20 and 12-24 and although the 10-20 was slower, I found the quality of shot more impressive to the eye (this was on a crop body).

I would recommend shooting as wide as you can, then correcting the distortion in Photoshop.

Cheers,
James
 
Thanks guys, i was using my friends Tamron 17-50mm which i have to say is amazingly sharp, even at f/2.8 but i do need wider.

Its interesting that you think the 10-20 is better IQ wise than the 12-24mm, i wonder why its so much more expensive than the 10-20.

As much as i would the Nikon version, i really cant afford it atm and am very happy with the quality i get from my other Sigmas, so will stick with them for now.
 
You won't be dissapointed at all, just £200+ poorer and the filter and the polariser and the new bag to fit another lens into and the new cleaning kit since you manage to keep touching the glass when putting the cover on since it doesn't fit as snugly as the Nikons......
 
I had this question to a TPF member who was selling their 10-20 having replaced it with a 12-24. Their reply in short, if you can get a good one, then a sigma 10-20 can be very sharp and often has less distortion than the 12-24. However, build and image quality is generally better on the 12-24 and the distortion can be corrected in PS for the barrel distortion in short time anyway.

So, if you have the money, go Nikon, if not...then Sigma and there are always willing buyers of it even after you have used it.
 
Only used the 12-24 sigma, but I like it and the IQ on mine is good as far as I am concerned. used on both a canon 10D and now 5D. Would cerntainly make rooms look a lot bigger and they really are! Think I got some somewhere on my harddrive taken indoors on the full frame, will see if I can dig them out and make them the size for posting on here.
 
I'm currently looking at the Nikon 10.5mm which is supposed to be very good. Apparently Tokina do a 10-17mm f/4 but I haven't looked into it yet.
 
the 12-24mm is also more expensive because it can work on full frme unline the 10-20mm.
 
Hacker said:
I'm currently looking at the Nikon 10.5mm which is supposed to be very good. Apparently Tokina do a 10-17mm f/4 but I haven't looked into it yet.
Click to expand...

Don't look - order one :D (OSD or Kerso @£370). Can't wait for mine! :clap:
In answer to the OP, I've got the Sigma 10-20, its as sharp and as fast as needs be.
 
I have the Tokina 12-24 and IMO it's a stunner. razor sharp f4 across the range and really well built, much better than my Sigma ex lenses. Search out my idsworth posts for examples. ;)
 
dizzledazzle said:
Thanks all, im going to go the 10-20 route as i cant justify spending another £100+ on a few extra mm, plus i dont have full frame yet, so now to find a bargain!

Thanks for all your help!

(y)
Click to expand...

Great choice, loving mine and picked up for under £200 from OSD without duties. Don't forget to allow another £40 for a CP filter too (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top