Wide Angle --

i own a 10-22, wow, amazing lens

I was looking to upgrade my kit lens too now you mention it! But cant afford both a super wide and kit replacement, so its deciding which to get first realy

Its looking like deciding between the:

tokina 12-24 for about £300 and selling the damn fisheye
sigma 10-20 for about £300 and selling the damn fisheye

or

17-40l for about £450 and dealing with the damn fish eye
17-35 sigma with a faster apature for about £260, dealing with the damn fish eys then getting wide angle later in year.

hmmmm damn winds my head up!


River Cottage

If you have to sell the fisheye to afford your other choices, keep saving and use the kit lens.

The Zenitar fisheye does not do anything the other lenses you are considering do, and it opens many creative doors for a very low price. I do not use it as a low-light lens, and frankly none of my autofocus lenses focus particularly well in low light without focus assist, and that only works at close range. None of the ultra-wide zooms within your budget provide the speed needed for good low-light focusing (such as you'd get with, say, a 1.4 lens).

When you have reasonable light levels, the Zenitar is quite easy to focus. In fact, the depth of field even at f/5.6 is so wide that you can usually focus at the hyperfocal distance and just leave it. To illustrate that point a different way, the 12mm and 15mm lenses made by Voigtlaender for the Bessa rangefinders have scale focusing, providing no direct means of viewing the focus at all.

This image was made with the Zenitar on the Canon 10D:

Many thanks, your post has been a great help! I may bear with the zenitar, i normaly have it at f2.8 which is prob the result of crappy images, may have to start using a tripod and longer shutter for darker still shots may plump for the kit replacement

Many Thanks!


River Cottage

My Sigma 10-20mm has pretty much replaced my kit lens, I haven't used it once since I bought the Sigma. The next widest lens I use is the 50mm f/1.8.

People may complain about the 20mm-50mm range that I don't exactly use anymore, but I've never been in a situation where I've though 'Hmm, I could really do with 37mm focal length right now!' etc.

A cropped image with my Sigma at 20mm is probably still sharper than a complete shot with my kit lens at 55mm.

If you are serious about going full frame the I suggest the Sigma 15-30 EX. It is quite sharp and will cover the full frame nicely. You can check out comparisons with other WA lenses here:http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

Many thanks guys, after quite a bit of thought and research, im going with the tokina, i think i can do without the extra 2mm, most of my work is either rather wide or of a length that i am happy to use my 50mm with

Many Thanks again


River Cottage

RiverCottage wrote:
Many thanks guys, after quite a bit of thought and research, im going with the tokina, i think i can do without the extra 2mm, most of my work is either rather wide or of a length that i am happy to use my 50mm with

Many Thanks again


River Cottage

Great choice for now, but don't forget it will be useless on a full frame camera. Assuming you are still going to go FF in the next year.

Thanks I was considering the 17-40l as a good kit replacement for now and using it as wide angle for future use when going full frame but i think it may be some time before going full frame unless the new 20d will be (which i doubt) so swung for the better reputation/build quality of this one

..my first expensive lens! im scared!


River Cottage