Hawaii - Sigma 8-16mm or Sigma 30mm F1.4?

This may seem obvious however I can't seem to decide which would be better. I would love the convenience of a small compact low light lens like the sigma 30mm F1.4. However, the landscape of Hawaii probably does scream for UWA.

I currently have a Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS and 100mm F2.8L IS. I am unsure if I should bring the 100mm L. Maybe it would be good for a luau depending on how far away we sit but otherwise the 30mm F1.4 would be good. I thought maybe some of the local flora might be worth setting up a macro shot for...but unsure if I will want to slow down my wife-to-be. For walking around, I'd love the convenience of the 30mm, allowing me to take shots indoors and out, it could also probably capture some landscapes.

The Sigma 8-16mm is a great lens for the money in my opinion. However, I have very little experience with UWA photography and I find that it is something that needs to be practiced to be perfected. It'd different than a more "normal" focal length. I would try to get it early and practice but I'd be worried I still wouldn't consider myself good enough with it to use it and it'd end up in my bag. Plus 17mm isn't THAT bad for landscapes...sure its no 8mm...but those are the trade offs I guess.

For those that have been to hawaii(maui and maybe kuaui) what do you recommend I take with me and what do I leave at home(if anything).

how often do you go to hawaii? I'd bring them all and see how things go. take one out one day, another the next... even if one ends up spending the whole trip back in your hotel room, you know you won't find yourself saying "wow, I sure wish I'd brought the ...."

Get both man! Also take everything! Theres also some great birds out there as well...but from your lens set up in guessing your not much of a birder.

When are you leaving?? If your leaving soon...You would be better off getting a used 30mm that has already been calibrated by Sigma. IMO

There are going to be some great landscapes there!...seriously.

Thats is a really hard choice! Theres alot going on at night that the 30mm would be great for. But the views are also great!

What kind of camera do you have?? I have a 7D and sometimes in low light im at ISO6400 F1.4 and 1/30th of a second... It wasnt even that low of light IMO... I really just dont know...

I think the landscape picture are going to be what your going to want the most! The use the 17-55 with the on board flash maybe....

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10402906
Get both man! Also take everything! Theres also some great birds out there as well...but from your lens set up in guessing your not much of a birder.

When are you leaving?? If your leaving soon...You would be better off getting a used 30mm that has already been calibrated by Sigma. IMO

There are going to be some great landscapes there!...seriously.

Thats is a really hard choice! Theres alot going on at night that the 30mm would be great for. But the views are also great!

What kind of camera do you have?? I have a 7D and sometimes in low light im at ISO6400 F1.4 and 1/30th of a second... It wasnt even that low of light IMO... I really just dont know...

I think the landscape picture are going to be what your going to want the most! The use the 17-55 with the on board flash maybe....

I have a 50D and with LR3 can use up to ISO3200 in low light comfortably. The compact formfactor of the Siggy is tempting as an easy to carry around town type lens.

That said, 8mm....wow...

I've never found much purpose for my shooting for longer lenses. Sure, on occasion a 250mm might have come in handy(maybe a cheap 55-250 is in my future) but it definitely wouldn't comprise the vast majority of my shooting). I'm not a sports/bird/animals type of guy for the most part.

Honestly, I wouldn't be without a UWA, thats why I have 2 and am gonna soon get the 8-16 to make it 3.

I'd suggest the Tokina 11-16 given your current gear and want for some low-light handling. My Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM (i.e. the lens that inspired its little brother the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC EX HSM) is a really fine lens, but fast its not. Low-light isn't usually a problem for most with UWA because the 1/(focal length x crop factor) rule of thumb still gets you handholdable shutter speeds at every focal. But still limits you when you wish to work with faster shutter speeds. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 never leaves me wanting for shutter speeds even indoors.

The 8-16 will be a very specialized lens for me... just like the 12-24 has been. Its gonna be basically a 8mm UWA prime.

I say get both ranges covered in any case.

nureality wrote in post #10402976
Honestly, I wouldn't be without a UWA, thats why I have 2 and am gonna soon get the 8-16 to make it 3.

I'd suggest the Tokina 11-16 given your current gear and want for some low-light handling. My Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM (i.e. the lens that inspired its little brother the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC EX HSM) is a really fine lens, but fast its not. Low-light isn't usually a problem for most with UWA because the 1/(focal length x crop factor) rule of thumb still gets you handholdable shutter speeds at every focal. But still limits you when you wish to work with faster shutter speeds. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 never leaves me wanting for shutter speeds even indoors.

The 8-16 will be a very specialized lens for me... just like the 12-24 has been. Its gonna be basically a 8mm UWA prime.

I would only really want a fast "normal lens" a faster UWA lens doesn't have THAT much impact on me, other than obviously being a bonus if included. I think I would take the 8-16mm over the tokina. I had the Tokina for a day or two to try and felt that it wasn't big enough of a difference from my 17-55mm to justify me spending the money at that point. Money played a big role in that decision though...so maybe that caused me to be a bit biased at the time.

Both sound like a great and if you could afford both then go for it. Personally if you are only getting one now, I would probably get the 8-16 first. The UWA shots you would be able to get sounds awesome. Plus your 17-55IS shouldn't be so bad as a walk around.

nosser wrote in post #10403538
Both sound like a great and if you could afford both then go for it. Personally if you are only getting one now, I would probably get the 8-16 first. The UWA shots you would be able to get sounds awesome. Plus your 17-55IS shouldn't be so bad as a walk around.

+1!!

I agree...get the 8-16....i think you would have fun with it!

The only way your going to shoot wide angle is to use it...one of your days there just take the UWA and thats it...you will be surprised by the shots you get!

If I was going on a trip to Hawaii, I would bring my entire kit.

Hawaii would be a GREAT place to "practice" using an UWA! As much as I love my 30/1.4, I'd totally get the UWA for Hawaii. There's usually plenty of light so the 17-55 should suffice for "normal" shots.

Not everything in Hawaii screams UWA -- just depends where you are.

Places where UWA is absolutely necessary: NaPali Coast, Waimea Canyon, inside of Haleakala, and on top of Mauna Kea.

Places where UWA has not been useful (in my experience) -- Oahu, anywhere on Maui other than Haleakala, and in Volcanoes National Park (even inside the craters, the UWA just makes everything look too small).

DrPablo wrote in post #10406270
Not everything in Hawaii screams UWA -- just depends where you are.

Places where UWA is absolutely necessary: NaPali Coast, Waimea Canyon, inside of Haleakala, and on top of Mauna Kea.

Places where UWA has not been useful (in my experience) -- Oahu, anywhere on Maui other than Haleakala, and in Volcanoes National Park (even inside the craters, the UWA just makes everything look too small).

Well this throws a wrench into this. I was leaning 8-16mm but now I'm not sure. I was thinking UWA might also be useful on the road to Hana...

We MAY also be going to Oahu or Kauai...decision is still out on that

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10406457
Well this throws a wrench into this. I was leaning 8-16mm but now I'm not sure. I was thinking UWA might also be useful on the road to Hana...

We MAY also be going to Oahu or Kauai...decision is still out on that

I'm on Maui now and just did the road to Hana yesterday (even took the back route home). I didn't see much that required a UWA. I'm sure I could have used it if I had it but i certainly didn't "need" it. What I do need that I didn't bring are filters. Im blowing out skys left and right. Only time i wished for anything wider than 17mm was standing on a beach looking at another Island and trying to fit it all in one frame. My 30 1.4 however was worth its weight in gold at last nights Luau. Absolutely no way I would have gotten anything without a flash if I didn't have it (and my 85 1.8 ).

jptsr1 wrote in post #10408133
I'm on Maui now and just did the road to Hana yesterday (even took the back route home). I didn't see much that required a UWA. I'm sure I could have used it if I had it but i certainly didn't "need" it. What I do need that I didn't bring is filters. Im blowing out skys left and right. Only time i wished for anything wider that 17mm was standing on a beach looking at another Island and trying to fit it all in one frame. My 30 1.4 however was worth its weight in gold at last nights Luau. Absolutely no way I would have gotten anything without a flash if I didn't have it (and my 85 1.8).

Shoot RAW and use a Graduated filter in Lightroom/PS to bring back the color in those skies? I find you can generally bring it back a stop to a stop and a half without it looking too odd.