wide angle for crop, mostly sports stuff

so i am realizing as i work that i am in need of a wide angle for occasional use. my main subject matter is sports events. i need it for group shots, wide bleacher shots, story telling shots, establishing shots, etc...

i deal with pretty low light situations so i was wondering if it is worth it to try and get the widest aperture possible rather than the slower zoom wides that are 3.5/4---5.6

i want to keep it cheap since I dont need highest quality possible but still want a solid performer of course.

i dont want to spend more than $400 honestly

the lenses im considering:

samyang/rokinon 8mm fisheye (its nice and wide but maybe tooo wide dont really want a fisheye but its cheap)
samyang/rokinon 14mm 2.8
sigma 10-20 4-5.6
tokina 11-16 (if i can find a used one since its too much to buy new but would be nice)

am i overlooking or missing anything? im kind of thinking that the samyang 14 2.8 would possibly be the smartest since its kind of wide but not UWA and the 2.8 is helpful under bad stadium lighting at night and bad court lighting. although with the majority of shots i would take with the wide i dont need as fast a shutter speed so it could be dropped to compensate for a smaller aperture. not sure which route to take as i my sigma 30 is great but sometimes it is actually a little long if taking a impromptu team shot on the field/court as a sometimes find myself having to get much further back to get everyone in the shot

I'd go with the 14m f/2.8. While you may not need the 2.8 given your subject matter, it's definitely a nice thing to have regardless. I wish my 10-22 was a 2.8. I also hear great things about the Sigma 10-20 as well so either of those should be well suited for you.

I have the Tokina 12-24F4 and it is a sharp lens. It is a little higher than the Sigma, but it is a constant F4.

artyH wrote in post #13332554
I have the Tokina 12-24F4 and it is a sharp lens. It is a little higher than the Sigma, but it is a constant F4.

+1 for the Tokina 12-24mm. I have the Mk-I version and have had no flare problems with this lens...

The 12-24 would seem like a good choice. You don't want too wide anyway otherwise the people at the edge of the frame will be distorted.

Sirrith wrote in post #13332848
The 12-24 would seem like a good choice.

I use this lens quite a bit. I shoot youth sports and this lens is ideal for the needs mentioned in the OP.... I never had a wider lens than a 28mm prime and didn't think i had any need for anything wider for sports, but once I got the Tokina I found it very useful.

There are faster lenses, but I wouldn't use a wide lens for action shots (unless they were set-ups and I could use lighting). It's fast enough to use for team shots in a poorly lit gym.

I like to see the 12-24 get such love because the first thought I had when I read the thread was "what about the Tok 12-24??". Tokina's wide angle lenses have a good reputation, and the constant Ap is a bonus!

i forgot about tokina. but thats mainly because i really really want to spend no more than about $400 since im not making a lot of money doing sports and its not my goal to become a professional sports shooter so i need a wide angle to get me by since i shoot for my school and get paid in scholarship money. they really dont want many wider shots they specifically want tight action shots which is what i get but i like to get other shots as well for fun that are not tight action shots ( i shoot with 70-200 mkII +1.4X)

You can try the 12-24, but like anything, f/4 is going to be a challenge for action work in a gym.

I also understand your reluctance to spend much. Really only gym sports allow many angles where a very wide angle lens is of much use, and I find that these shots can make for the occasional 'fun' look but they are not core to what I'm shooting.

I used the 16-35 II (well beyond your price range) on 1.3X for these. If you can find an 11-16/2.8 for $400, but it! Suitable lens choices are tough here.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13336351
Suitable lens choices are tough here.

yea im seeing that and its stinks.

right now its up to whether i find a 11-16 f2.8 at a good price or im just going to get the samyang 14mm f2.8. because with what i do the difference between 2.8 and 4 as well as working with 4-5.4 is huge.

thanks for all the suggestions guys. now i just have to hunt down a 11-16 2.8, and if im unsuccessful ill settle for a 14 2.8, but i think the 11-16 would be a great addition to my kit

I have a Sigma 10-20 f3.5 and I use it second most next to 70-200 L. I bought this last year just to have it and it became one of my favorite lenses. May not be the best for low light but I still like it even at 3.5
All the photos in the link are shot either with 10-20 or 70-200
www.endurancepicture.c​om

Brian_R wrote in post #13336579
yea im seeing that and its stinks.

right now its up to whether i find a 11-16 f2.8 at a good price or im just going to get the samyang 14mm f2.8. because with what i do the difference between 2.8 and 4 as well as working with 4-5.4 is huge.

thanks for all the suggestions guys. now i just have to hunt down a 11-16 2.8, and if im unsuccessful ill settle for a 14 2.8, but i think the 11-16 would be a great addition to my kit

Given the choice between the 14mm and the 11-16, especially for sports, I would take the 11-16 all day.