Wide angle lenses...options?

Steelo

Steelo

Messages
2,778
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to buy a wide angle lens for my landscape work, and was just wondering which lenses to consider? Canon fit...

My first choice is a Sigma 10-20, but are there others I should consider? Can't quite stretch to the Canon 10-22....

Any others worth considering?
 
altho my sigma hasn't been out of the bag since i went to Mexico it would say its the better of the options unless you have the money to stretch to the canon. dont forget when you get with a ultra wide angle lens things look further away than they are so what where your feet are on cliff tops
 
I'm trying to go through something similar, only Nikon fit. I'm thinking if the sigma, but just wondering if the new version is worth the extra.

Which sigma were you thinking of?
 
AlfyB said:
I'm trying to go through something similar, only Nikon fit. I'm thinking if the sigma, but just wondering if the new version is worth the extra.

Which sigma were you thinking of?
Click to expand...

It's generally thought that the newer constant f/3.5 version isn't worth the extra and in some ways isn't as good as the cheaper option.
 
daugirdas said:
Tokina 12-24mm is miles better than sigma and very affordable.
Click to expand...

In what ways is it miles better? I have other Sigma lenses and they are superb...

AlfyB said:
I'm trying to go through something similar, only Nikon fit. I'm thinking if the sigma, but just wondering if the new version is worth the extra.

Which sigma were you thinking of?
Click to expand...

I don't think the extra for the constant f/3.5 is worth it, if I was going to spend the extra, i'd push and get the Canon 10-22 (I've hired this lens before and it is unbelievably good)
 
Nawty said:
It's generally thought that the newer constant f/3.5 version isn't worth the extra and in some ways isn't as good as the cheaper option.
Click to expand...

The fact the Canon covers the most used(by most people anyway) wide end with 3.5 without the soft corners of the Sigma makes it even less impressive for me.

Plus your looking at 82mm filters aswell which is likely going to cost a fair bit more than 77mm.
 
Moreorless said:
Plus your looking at 82mm filters aswell which is likely going to cost a fair bit more than 77mm.
Click to expand...

you only need a a protector filter for the sigma if you tilt it forward or backwards if has the effect of a circular polarizing filter darkening the sky for you so keeps the cost down a bit
 
beeje25 said:
you only need a a protector filter for the sigma if you tilt it forward or backwards if has the effect of a circular polarizing filter darkening the sky for you so keeps the cost down a bit
Click to expand...

Er, a protector won't, in any way, act like a polariser at all!
 
Steelo said:
In what ways is it miles better? I have other Sigma lenses and they are superb...
Click to expand...

Sigma makes some great lenses but in the UWA sector for crop sensors, Tokina definitely have the best value lenses, although 'miles better' might be s slight exaggeration :).

IQ on the Tokina 12-24 is in a par with the Canon and Nikon versions (which are undoubtedly the best - that's the 10-22 and 12-24 respectively) and build quality isn't far behind either. I haven't used the f/3.5 version of the Sigma but had some work to do if its to lead this sector on IQ and build. Price seems to be its plus point, plus it has the Tamron in last place, so to speak....
 
Last edited:
I had the Siggy 10-20 on my Canon crop. Didn't use it much, VERY impressed when I did (older version)
 
Hi Martin

I've the Sigma 10-20mm (F4-5.6) and I'm very pleased with the results. I've no issues with the lens and would def recommend it.
 
I really like my Sigma 8-16 at least it is properly wide :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top