Wide angle lens

grahamc

grahamc

Messages
2,321
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
A mate and I are both looking at a load of different wide angle lenses, and are unable to choose.

I am using a Nikon D300 and intend to use the wide angle for landscape and car rig shots.

Mate has a Canon (:cuckoo:) 40D and intends to use for landscape.

Now minus the canon and nikon specific lens (which are both silly money) this is the list of lenses that we have:

Sigma 10-20
Tamron 10-24 (this one is relatively new and is getting good reviews)
Tamron 11-18
Tokina 11-16
- REMOVED - Tokina 12-24 - Due to the fact that my walkaround is 16mm-> so does not give me much

Anyone with recommendations, personal experience, anything?
 
I use the Sigma 10-20 and tbh I cannot fault it. It's a great piece of kit.
 
you're missing the Sigma 12-24 off this list. It is a full frame lens though so of the available Sigma's you're better off with the 10-20 if you are going to stick with dx.

Some people love the Sigma's. My copy was OK, but it was a lens I found difficult to enjoy using.

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
you're missing the Sigma 12-24 off this list. It is a full frame lens though so of the available Sigma's you're better off with the 10-20 if you are going to stick with dx.

Some people love the Sigma's. My copy was OK, but it was a lens I found difficult to enjoy using.

Hugh
Click to expand...

I am sticking with DX for now, so lenses need to suit.

Thats what I am afraid of with the 10-20...
 
I had the Sigma 10-20 (Nikon), didn't like it, considering either the Nikon 12-24 or the Tokina one at the moment, but I don't really have a pressing need or want for a UWA, so I'm waiting to see what comes up.

The Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 get good reviews and if the build quality and images from the 10-17 fisheye that I had (the one Whitey is selling atm) are anything to go by then I'd be more than happy with either...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I had the Sigma 10-20 (Nikon), didn't like it, considering either the Nikon 12-24 or the Tokina one at the moment, but I don't really have a pressing need or want for a UWA, so I'm waiting to see what comes up.

The Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 get good reviews and if the build quality and images from the 10-17 fisheye that I had (the one Whitey is selling atm) are anything to go by then I'd be more than happy with either...
Click to expand...

have heard mixed reports from the 10-20, main reason for posting this thread.

Only heard good things about the 11-16...

Personally I love WA, my walk around goes to 16mm :)
 
I was in the same dilemma last week, it was down to the Sigma 10-20mm and Tokina 11-16mm. As many posters have mentioned the Tokina has been getting a lot of rave reviews. That was my first choice lens, especially with f2.8 but trying to find one in stock and at a reasonable price is tough. By chance I found a Sigma 10-20 on ebay and won it at a reasonable price, it’s now sitting on my desk teasing me!
 
Much as I think you can do better optically than the Sigma 10-20, as you use a 16-85 VR I'd probably get a Sigma 10-20 as the different between 16mm and 12mm isn't vast. Gives you 6mm extra, vs. 4mm from the others.

From what I've seen of the Tamron 10-24, the older 11-18 is better (excellent lens btw)
 
grahamc said:
have heard mixed reports from the 10-20, main reason for posting this thread.

Only heard good things about the 11-16...

Personally I love WA, my walk around goes to 16mm :)
Click to expand...

The Tokina seems to be widely regarded as a perfect addition to the Nikon 17-55, which is what was attracting me to it
 
I have used the following lenses
10-20
Sigma and Nikon 12-24
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye

The best, probably the Nikon 12-24 followed closely by the Sigma 12-24, If you get a good 12-24 Sigma then you wont be disappointed and wouldnt have to look any further
 
I own a tamron 11-18mm. It doesn't do well in reviews for some reason, but love it to death. Sharp as a prime, but can have some minor fringing at the edges noticeable in sunlight (fixed in 2 secs on PS). Think it's been succeeded now though by the 10-24mm
 
paleblue said:
I own a tamron 11-18mm. It doesn't do well in reviews for some reason, but love it to death. Sharp as a prime, but can have some minor fringing at the edges noticeable in sunlight (fixed in 2 secs on PS). Think it's been succeeded now though by the 10-24mm
Click to expand...

I never understand why as its really really very good.

Probably a combination of price vs limited zoom range.

But optically its super.
 
puddleduck said:
I never understand why as its really really very good.

Probably a combination of price vs limited zoom range.

But optically its super.
Click to expand...

Yes I think so. I would never want to go higher than 18mm on an UWA anyway. Possibly the f4.5 is a turn off for some people too.
Good to see there's at least one other person who's a fan of it! :thumbs:
 
paleblue said:
Yes I think so. I would never want to go higher than 18mm on an UWA anyway. Possibly the f4.5 is a turn off for some people too.
Good to see there's at least one other person who's a fan of it! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

David Kilpatrick of BJP fame also reckons its a better lens than the Sigma 10-20, and also better than the newer Tamron 10-24 (can't comment on that)

So at least 3 of us appreciate it :lol:
 
puddleduck said:
Much as I think you can do better optically than the Sigma 10-20, as you use a 16-85 VR I'd probably get a Sigma 10-20 as the different between 16mm and 12mm isn't vast. Gives you 6mm extra, vs. 4mm from the others.

From what I've seen of the Tamron 10-24, the older 11-18 is better (excellent lens btw)
Click to expand...

Very good point! removed most of the 11 & 12mm -> ones

Which leaves the sigma 10-20 and the tamron 10-24 :thinking:

whitey said:
I have used the following lenses
10-20
Sigma and Nikon 12-24
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye

The best, probably the Nikon 12-24 followed closely by the Sigma 12-24, If you get a good 12-24 Sigma then you wont be disappointed and wouldnt have to look any further
Click to expand...

as above, the 12mm minimum does not actually give me much considering my main lens... and the nikon 12-24 is silly money compared to all the other WAs.

paleblue said:
I own a tamron 11-18mm. It doesn't do well in reviews for some reason, but love it to death. Sharp as a prime, but can have some minor fringing at the edges noticeable in sunlight (fixed in 2 secs on PS). Think it's been succeeded now though by the 10-24mm
Click to expand...

very tempted by the successor, purely for something slightly different to the norm, going to go see if I can find any reviews. I saw one in a mag where the tamron was rated 86% vs sigma 82%.

11-18 is £276.61 at onestop, so I think I might keep this one in the running, the wild card ;)
 
I have now heard varying reports about the 10-24, same as the sigma. bit of a lucky dip as to whether you get a good one....
 
This is great, I'm in the same dilemma myself at the moment.

Not that I really need a wide angle lens at the moment but for some reason I have this urge that I HAVE TO HAVE ONE:eek:

And let's face it, you can never have enough equipment:whistling:
 
I really enjoy shooting with WAs. Especially since I moved to the D300, which auto focuses some of the lenses that did not on my D40.

And the car rig shots require one :)
 
whitey said:
I have used the following lenses
10-20
Sigma and Nikon 12-24
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye

The best, probably the Nikon 12-24 followed closely by the Sigma 12-24, If you get a good 12-24 Sigma then you wont be disappointed and wouldn't have to look any further
Click to expand...

Getting a good one may be a problem, I sent two back before Sigma came up with one that was consistent across the frame. Great lens esp. on FF but challenging to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top