Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Jul 2012 (Tuesday) 10:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What ultra wide should I pick up?

 
jdhill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
232 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 24, 2012 12:32 |  #16

jimewall wrote in post #14762675 (external link)
If you specifically need a f/2.8 go the Tokina, otherwise I don't think it makes much of a difference. I went with the Sigma 10-20 because it was sharp and the least expensive. I am not typically a wide angle person, so I saw no reason to pay more (for me). When I do use one, I typically stop down. Again - stopped down I would think it makes little difference on the choice.

You're a smart man, Jim! Sounds like the Sig 10-20 will work for me as well.

I can save some dough on going with the Sigma and use the money I save to go for a 24-105L lens for my walk around lens. May even get rid of my 18-135 to help me with the cost for the L lens.

Thanks again for your help everyone! Just like to talk things through and get people's perspective before going forward on a purchase like this!


John
Feedback

Canon 6D | Canon 24-105mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 70-200 f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
noisejammer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,053 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto ON
     
Jul 24, 2012 13:11 |  #17

Contrary view...
I really don't think that a wide angle lens is necessary for landscapes. These lenses are best used when you try to enhance the perspective in an image. Used for landscapes, it's awfully easy to create an image filled with nothing. I suggest you read this article. (external link)

There's a second reason for using a moderate focal length - that's image scale. Features on a 10mm lens appear 1/3 as large as they do on a 30mm lens. This means that an image from a UWA is likely to have very little intrinsic detail compared with what can be achieved using good panorama technique. Rather than buying an UWA, my earnest recommendation is to get a really good tripod, ballhead and L-bracket. A cable release and using your camera in manual with the mirror locked up are also important.


Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,373 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4393
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jul 24, 2012 14:40 |  #18

noisejammer wrote in post #14762911 (external link)
Contrary view...
I really don't think that a wide angle lens is necessary for landscapes. These lenses are best used when you try to enhance the perspective in an image. Used for landscapes, it's awfully easy to create an image filled with nothing. I suggest you read this article. (external link)

I quit reading Mr. Rockwell's article when he said,

"Ultrawides require you to get very close and personal to anything you are shooting."

I'll try not to keep that in mind next time I shoot the Tetons.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,288 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1744
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 24, 2012 14:44 |  #19

LV Moose wrote in post #14763370 (external link)
I'll try not to keep that in mind next time I shoot the Tetons.

Give that mountain a hug dude :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
schris
Member
163 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Jul 24, 2012 14:54 |  #20

Looks like you already decided, but another vote for the Sigma 10-20. It's great outdoors, and at f/4 you can get decent indoor architectural shots, as long as you're not shooting anything that's moving.


70D | Rokinon 8mm | 15-85mm | Sigma 30mm | 85mm 1.8 | 55-250mm | 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdhill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
232 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:22 |  #21

schris wrote in post #14763452 (external link)
Looks like you already decided, but another vote for the Sigma 10-20. It's great outdoors, and at f/4 you can get decent indoor architectural shots, as long as you're not shooting anything that's moving.

Thanks for the info, I feel a lot better hearing the reassurance!


John
Feedback

Canon 6D | Canon 24-105mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 70-200 f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Craign
Goldmember
Avatar
1,196 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 77
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Kentucky
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:32 |  #22

artyH wrote in post #14762638 (external link)
Don't forget the Tokina 12-24F4. It is a sharp lens, and a constant F4. For my purposes, it was fine.

With you on this. Sharp, great color, well built. Constant f/4 is nice.


Canon 7D Mark II w/Canon BG-E16 Battery Grip; Canon EOS 50D w/Canon Battery Grip; Canon SL1; Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4 PRO DX II; Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS; Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS; Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS; Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM; Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS; Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM; Canon Extender EF 1.4x II; Canon Extender EF 2x II; Canon Speedlite 430EX II Flash
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Webber
Goldmember
3,185 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Corralejo, Fuerteventura....Canary Islands Spain
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:32 |  #23

LV Moose wrote in post #14762169 (external link)
I own the Canon 10-22 and love it. But the Tokina 11-16 is supposed to be a very nice lens as well.

Have both ;)


Canon 7D, 40D,100-400 IS L, EFS 15-85 IS, EFS 10-22-With Faulty USM, 055XPROB+488RC2, 430 & 580 II Flash, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8-:cool:
Photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,604 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 694
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:37 |  #24

jdhill wrote in post #14762157 (external link)
I recently made a trip to Colorado and realized my 18-135 wasn't wide enough to capture the beauty of the Rockies - had to resort to pano.

I've been researching some ultra wide lenses, but am wondering if a 17-40L would be wide enough. I'm stuck between the 17-40L and 10-22, but am also open to hearing what everyone has to say about the offerings from Sigma and Tokina. With my budget being $600, what's my best option?

I'll be using this lens for Chicago architecture shots as well as landscapes shots in future trips to Colorado and Scotland.

Any help and advice is greatly appreciated! :)

17-40 is only 1mm wider than your kit lens. That would be a waste of money if you need wider. 10-22 is a spectacular ultra-wide zoom, and probably more like what you are looking for.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
Avatar
4,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: Channelview, Tx
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:38 |  #25

All of the pics in this gallery (external link) were taken with a 17-40 on the 7D. Wider may have been better but that is what I had and what I used. That was the Pikes Peak train ride.
Mike


MaxPreps Profile (external link)

My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,604 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 694
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:42 |  #26

MT Stringer wrote in post #14763680 (external link)
All of the pics in this gallery (external link) were taken with a 17-40 on the 7D. Wider may have been better but that is what I had and what I used. That was the Pikes Peak train ride.
Mike

His point is that he already has the 18-55. Going to a 17-40mm gains him virtually nothing on the wide end, and he loses 15mm on the long end. That makes zero sense.

I spent most of 20 years hiking and driving through the Rockies from Montana to New Mexico with my old Minolta SRT while I lived in Denver. Never had anything wider than 28mm on that 35mm SLR. Got lots of good photos. Missed out on lots too by not being able to go wider. Now I have the option, so I use it. Not exclusively though, because it's too wide for many things. That why I have the lens selection I have. I'm covered from 10mm to 280mm.

By the way, I had a 17-40mm two years ago and sold it to buy the 17-55mm f2.8. The 17-55 is a better match on a crop body and the extra speed and IS help me get shots I couldn't do with the 17-40.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,229 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2740
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 24, 2012 15:58 |  #27

i think this review did a good job of comparing most of the UWA..
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=34 (external link)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrickR
Cream of the Crop
5,935 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Dallas TX
     
Jul 24, 2012 16:00 |  #28

I think the Sigma 10-20 is a sound choice. The Toki 12-24 would probably be my choice because I really like my Toki 11-16 and the 12-24 is supposed to be very nice as well.


My junk
The grass isn't greener on the other side, it's green where you water it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snowblower
Member
123 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jul 24, 2012 16:35 |  #29

I had the luxury to be able to use both Canon 10-22 & Tokina 11-16 extensively on a 7D. I'm hung up on Canon so I picked up the 10-22 for myself. I went cheap with my daughter and got her the 11-16. Bottomline you can't go wrong with either. The Tokina was a little sharper in the center but the Canon held up better (flairing, etc.) in the brighter light and has a greater zoom range. If I had to choose between one I would probably flip a coin to decide. I think they are that close in comparison.


Canon 1D-X Mk II | Canon 1D-X | Canon 5DIII |Canon 8-15 F4L Fisheye | Canon 16-35 F2.8L | Canon 24-70 F2.8L II | Canon 35 F1.4L II | Canon 50 F1.2L | Canon 85 F1.2L II | Canon 70-200 F2.8L II IS | Canon 400 f2.8L | Canon 200-400 f4 IS Extender 1.4xL | Canon 800 F5.6L | Speed Light 600 EX II x6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paulkaye
Senior Member
Avatar
559 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Leamington, UK
     
Jul 24, 2012 16:36 |  #30

noisejammer wrote in post #14762911 (external link)
Contrary view...
I really don't think that a wide angle lens is necessary for landscapes. These lenses are best used when you try to enhance the perspective in an image. Used for landscapes, it's awfully easy to create an image filled with nothing. I suggest you read this article. (external link)

There's a second reason for using a moderate focal length - that's image scale. Features on a 10mm lens appear 1/3 as large as they do on a 30mm lens. This means that an image from a UWA is likely to have very little intrinsic detail compared with what can be achieved using good panorama technique. Rather than buying an UWA, my earnest recommendation is to get a really good tripod, ballhead and L-bracket. A cable release and using your camera in manual with the mirror locked up are also important.

Aside from the reference to Dear Ken, I agree with this. Just using a WA lens to 'fit more in' is a recipe for uninspiring shots. That's not to say that a WA isn't useful for landscapes, just that it needs careful composition to get the best out of the subject (in fact, Ken R is right in that regard - something near is essential to give a sense of depth).

Having said that, I wouldn't be without a UWA zoom - it's one of those essential bits of photo gear that we all need.

Regarding the Sigma 10-20, watch out for decentering issues. It's a fairly common problem with this lens (do a Google for it).


Paul
_______________
5DII, 50mm 1.4, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, 24-105L IS, 70-200L f4 IS, 100-400L, 100 f2.8 Macro
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,955 views & 0 likes for this thread
What ultra wide should I pick up?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is photom88
3939 guests, 340 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.