wide angle lens question

A

Ansel

Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
if u only want a wide angle lens to do landscape photography is it worth paying extra for a faster lens eg the sigma 10-20mm 3.5 ?
since landscape work involves using small apertures anyway for wide depth of field, what good is 3.5 to you?
 
i prefer landscapes too

but sometimes you *want* to throw the background out ...like this, so f4 or lower comes in handy
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 at 70mm f4.5.....[rubbish shot, but shows what i mean
.
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
Ansel said:
if u only want a wide angle lens to do landscape photography is it worth paying extra for a faster lens eg the sigma 10-20mm 3.5 ?
since landscape work involves using small apertures anyway for wide depth of field, what good is 3.5 to you?
Click to expand...

be aware that 10-20mm comes with it's own problems......"link"
Ken Russell (c) UWA

you will also have to think carefully about mounting Cokin style square filters [grad ND's for landscapes] to avoid getting vignetting at 10mm

what is your kit or walk-about lens...?
the Sigma 17-70mm I got here on TP is a great lens for landscapes at 17mm
 
Ansel said:
if u only want a wide angle lens to do landscape photography is it worth paying extra for a faster lens eg the sigma 10-20mm 3.5 ?
since landscape work involves using small apertures anyway for wide depth of field, what good is 3.5 to you?
Click to expand...

Hi

I've heard very mixed reports on the F3.5 version, personnaly, I'd go for the "standard" Sigma 10-20mm if thats what you're after and save some money or look at the Canon 10-22mm, you could put the money saved from buying the Sigma to some other lens you would like - sorry need !
 
KR rated the Canon UWA is the best ....better than "cough" Nikon "cough"

"I'd buy the Canon 10 - 22 mm lens in an instant if I had a Canon digital camera. The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including the Nikon."
 
I had a Canon 10-22 when I shot Canon and it's a stunning lens, I'm rarely struck by ultra wide landscapes though to be honest, I thinkn that's something mid range suits best, with ultra wides the important stuff often seems to get very lost with masses of foreground and sky.
 
SparkUK said:
I had a Canon 10-22 when I shot Canon and it's a stunning lens, I'm rarely struck by ultra wide landscapes though to be honest, I thinkn that's something mid range suits best, with ultra wides the important stuff often seems to get very lost with masses of foreground and sky.
Click to expand...

yes the only ones i like are those shot in portrait mode of streams flowing out of mountains

not enough though to spend £400.......:shake:
 
I used my Canon 10-22 for mostly buildings... inside and out and for distorted perspective model shoots and the like. I guess this has gone off topic to be honest, ok... IMHO you can't beat or even get near to the Canon 10-22mm on a crop sensor Canon body, you'll find even if you're not shooting at f3.5 then the quicker lenses will be sharper at say f5.6 than a lens that is wide open at that aperture just becasue it's not at its limit (this is a general commetn though and not in referrence to any particular lenses if that makes sense)
 
Ansel said:
if u only want a wide angle lens to do landscape photography is it worth paying extra for a faster lens eg the sigma 10-20mm 3.5 ?
since landscape work involves using small apertures anyway for wide depth of field, what good is 3.5 to you?
Click to expand...

Your right you don't really need fast glass for W/A landscape shooting.
there are not many lenses that perform to there best ability wide open.

Like you say most but not all are taken with a mid to small aperture setting.
I have some fast wide primes but rarely ever shoot wide open.

Where fast apertures really come into there own with ANY lens is when your focussing in low light.
The wide aperture allows for more light to fall onto the AF sensors which in turn allows them to respond and focus quicker.
 
Last edited:
I had a Sigma 10-20 (not the 3.5mm) and now have a Canon 10-22mm

Think I can honestly say I have never used either at anywhere near wide open, in fact more like quite the opposite

The Canon is definitely the nicer lens and I had a decent sample of the Sigma, prefer the colour and contrast along with the (I think) better detail.

Sure either would do a good job along with the Tokina variants, but don't think its important how fast an UWA lens is
 
many thanks for replies, very useful info
would be really cool if somebody made a cheap prime somewhere between 10-15 mm , same sort of quality as canon 50mm 1.8 for less than £200,
would def solve a problem.
 
Ansel said:
many thanks for replies, very useful info
would be really cool if somebody made a cheap prime somewhere between 10-15 mm , same sort of quality as canon 50mm 1.8 for less than £200,
would def solve a problem.
Click to expand...

Unlikely ever to be cheap as such a lens on a DSLR must be a retrofocus design, to achieve the back focus register, which will always cost money.

I do not care for ultrawide lenses, I Prefer the projections available for stitching two or more shots.
 
Last edited:
When I bought my Sigma 10-20 I had similar questions, the best fast uwa being the tokina 11-16 f2.8 from what I read but you only really need the faster lens for low light hand held shooting (depending on subject), the rest of the time you'd use a tripod normally (but moving objects, which would be a more unusual use for an uwa imho is one situation).

Hope that helps.

Andrew.
 
Yardbent said:
but sometimes you *want* to throw the background out ...like this, so f4 or lower comes in handy
Click to expand...

regardless on any UWA you won't be throwing the background out unless you've focussed extremely close. it'd have to be like f/2 or lower for even some bokeh.
 
It's funny I have a 10-20 4.5 sigma and tend to use it at 10mm all the time, I like the extremes it gives.
Put a polarizing filter on and even the sky looks great.
 
I've often wondered if they could make a super slow super cheap landscape prime, say a 15mm f16, that could be cheap and light because it would have very small optics.

Just a thought,

Stuart
 
Yardbent said:
i prefer landscapes too

but sometimes you *want* to throw the background out ...like this, so f4 or lower comes in handy
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 at 70mm f4.5.....[rubbish shot, but shows what i mean
.
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
Click to expand...

I wish my "keepers" were as good as your "rubbish":lol:

pete
 
Yardbent said:
be aware that 10-20mm comes with it's own problems......"link"
Ken Russell (c) UWA

you will also have to think carefully about mounting Cokin style square filters [grad ND's for landscapes] to avoid getting vignetting at 10mm

what is your kit or walk-about lens...?
the Sigma 17-70mm I got here on TP is a great lens for landscapes at 17mm
Click to expand...

Nice link, thanks. Just got my 10-20 and it was a very good read.
 
It might be worth remembering that you get the same DoF regardless of the focal length of the lens and that all that changes is the size of things within the frame and that can create the effect of more or less DoF.

To the original question I'd say that having a wider aperture available (as long as it's optically good) means that it's at least available should you wish to use it, for whatever reason. You can always stop a wide aperture lens down but if you've got a relatively small aperture lens you can't open it up any more than it's maximum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top