First UWA?

well, i am looking for an ultra wide angle lens.
mainly for landscapes and cars. It'll be a nice addition to my small, limited setup.

but, i have been reading and reading, and i just do not know which would be best for me to start off with, below i have picked some out but i didn't know they were this pricey lol.

right now, i have the 18-55mm EF-S IS II and a telephoto lens.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_mm_f_1_4_Asphe​rical.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …4mm_f_2_8_Super​_Wide.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2_Wide_Angle_EF​_24mm.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2_Wide_Angle_EF​_24mm.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2_Wide_Angle_EF​_28mm.html

this will be my most expensive purchase yet.

if you have any other websites that have them cheaper please do share. that goes for suggestions as well.

thank you in advance.

You said you were looking for an UWA.
The only UWA on your list is the samyang 14mm. Your kit lens is wider than all the others.

Look into the sigma 10-20 instead. Its a good budget UWA.

Sirrith wrote in post #14709842
You said you were looking for an UWA.
The only UWA on your list is the samyang 14mm. Your kit lens is wider than all the others.

Look into the sigma 10-20 instead. Its a good budget UWA.

doing so right now, thank you.

Really like my Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6. Nice lens at a nice price.

Try the Tokina 11-16 Pro...good as a prime!

Ditto for the Sigma, I really like mine though I believe the canon version is a bit nicer but having not tried it myself I can't comment, however it is a lot more!

Just bought my Sigma today, so far it has been a ton of fun!

The canon is in a class by itself.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=3

you can see for yourself. however for the price the sigma is pretty darn good. its much better than the Tamron version that has significant CA issues and is VERY soft wide open.

It really depends on your budget but beware the difficulty of using an UWA effectively. Getting everything into one frame is often a very bad way to do things - you'll get far better landscape results if you stitch a few images from a quality 35 - 50 mm together.

For landscapes, I'd be inclined to recommend the 40/2.8 pancake, a good tripod (something like the Manfrotto 055B or better), a bubble level for your hot shoe and a cable release.

UWA for a crop camera (yours wasn't specified, but must be a cropper if using it with the 18-55) is largely going to be a zoom lens. There are few truly wide primes for crop.

Zooms you can choose among....

- Canon 10-22 (best of the bunch.... and the most expensive)
- Tokina 12-24 (IMO the 2nd best, better built than the Canon, slightly less flare resistant but still good, considerably cheaper than the Canon - though not as wide - less than the Toki 11-16, too... this is the lens I bought)
- Tokina 11-16 (f2.8, but a very narrow range of focal lengths and prone to flare)
- Sigma 10-20/3.5 (a newer model, fairly expensive)
- Sigma 10-20 variable aperture (less expensive, decent build, older version I tested flared quite a bit)
- Sigma 8-16 (widest available, lots of distortion in such a wide lens, not cheap)
- Tamron 10-24 (broadest range of focal lengths, somewhat soft toward the 24mm end)

Sure, you can stitch images together. It's extra work, though.

amfoto1 wrote in post #14711500
Sure, you can stitch images together. It's extra work, though.

I am also in the market for a UWA, however I have found that the few times I wanted to use one I had planned to make a large print from the picture. And with my entry level camera, its not an easy task. Now stitching together shots gets me ALOT more megapixels to work with.

I just took a Seattle skyline shot two weekends ago, got the same image in one capture then zoomed in and took 20 shots of the skyline and stitched together .... SO much happier with the stitched photo.

However I still plan to get a UWA when the bank account allows

amfoto1 wrote in post #14711500
UWA for a crop camera (yours wasn't specified, but must be a cropper if using it with the 18-55) is largely going to be a zoom lens. There are few truly wide primes for crop.

Zooms you can choose among....

- Canon 10-22 (best of the bunch.... and the most expensive)
- Tokina 12-24 (IMO the 2nd best, better built than the Canon, slightly less flare resistant but still good, considerably cheaper than the Canon - though not as wide - less than the Toki 11-16, too... this is the lens I bought)
- Tokina 11-16 (f2.8, but a very narrow range of focal lengths and prone to flare)
- Sigma 10-20/3.5 (a newer model, fairly expensive)
- Sigma 10-20 variable aperture (less expensive, decent build, older version I tested flared quite a bit)
- Sigma 8-16 (widest available, lots of distortion in such a wide lens, not cheap)
- Tamron 10-24 (broadest range of focal lengths, somewhat soft toward the 24mm end)

Sure, you can stitch images together. It's extra work, though.

I have a T3i.

amfoto1 wrote in post #14711500
Sure, you can stitch images together. It's extra work, though.

Of course it's extra work... but the product is generally far better too.

If you use an UWA merely to "get it all in" you will generally end up with inferior photos. UWA is not the same a panoramic.

UWA is a specialty lens, and I picked up a way to describe its best use (I think from Ken Rockwell

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

RTPVid wrote in post #14712198
If you use an UWA merely to "get it all in" you will generally end up with inferior photos. UWA is not the same a panoramic.

UWA is a specialty lens, and I picked up a way to describe its best use (I think from Ken Rockwell

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

)...So, paraphrasing,... You don't use an UWA to get everything you see in the picture; you use an UWA to get the viewer in the picture.

So, if you are stitching things together to make a panoramic shot, that is not a good use for an UWA anyway.

I think I follow what you’re getting at here, I understand a UWA is not so much for a standard panoramic, but to make the viewer feel like they are standing in the middle of the picture ... am I correct in this interpretation of your post?