UWA Lenses - How much do/have you use(d) them?

I've been really intrigued by UWA lenses lately and have been looking into possibly getting one (the Sigma 10-20 4-5.3). However, I've never used one before and am trying to figure out realistically how much use it would get. I don't really take too many landscape photos or anything. I do take a fairly good mix of stuff though. I just think the perspective from an UWA is pretty awesome.

So my question to anyone who owns or has owned one is: how much do you actually use it? And what type of photos do you find yourself using it for?

I've seen lots of great examples of what they're capable of in some of the UWA lens example shot libraries, but am trying to get some realistic feedback.

I think most folks here will tell you that you should not be without an UWA. I've rented a Canon 10-22, and have owned a Sigma 10-20. Both were fantastic lenses and very sharp (especially the copy of the Sigma I had), but found it was not for me. I found the 10-20 to honestly be to wide for my individual shooting needs, and most of the time was shooting in the 14-16 range, or wanting to be past 22mm. I got tired of having to constantly switch back and forth from the UWA to my walkaround (a Sigma 17-70 at the time), and was not getting the use I thought I would from the 10-20 and could not justify the cost of it and having it sit in my bag idle most of the time. I ended up with a 15-85 in lieu of the 10-20/17-70 combo, and could not be happier. It's plenty wide for my needs.

I will say though the Sigma has a really short minimum focus distance, so you can get extremely close to a subject (almost touching the lens hood), and have a lot of fun playing with perspective and distortion.

I would honestly say that an UWA would get a use or two on a trip... Something along the lines of a random landscape or architecture shot that I happen upon. It would almost immediately go back into the bag after the shot though.

Well I started my journey a year back with kit lens. Later on I switched to 18-200. I did not like the results of this lens and bought in addition Tokina 12-24 & Canon 50F1.4.

Tokina virtually became my walk around lens for indoor group photos, walk around lens while visiting a outdoor place. Infact you cannt beat UWA for indoor/outdoor environmental portraits/groups.I virtually used the lens 80% of time and Canon 50mm the balance of time.

Now I have sold both 50 & 18-200 and bought 24-70. I feel now my usage of 12-24 will reduce. So overall I find 12-24 excellent general purpose lens excepting for close up of persons.

Very often... on the other hand, I use all my lenses...

themadman wrote in post #11690226
Very often... on the other hand, I use all my lenses...

Yup yup! The 17-40L on my 5Dii is pretty much my go-to lens when I'm traveling.

Only really on holidays to areas such as European cities, and the occasional play around. I'm not a big fan, but I guess when you need one you need one, and I also respect that some people are very very good at using them and the perspective you can achieve with them.

I use my ZE 21 and 35-70 for 90% of my pictures. (now. when it warms up, mp-e 65 added in there.)

I bought a Sigma 10-20 a few weeks ago, intending to use it on a trip to France next year. I have found it very useful for scenic shots like old buildings, cars and landscapes. Whether or not you would use it depends of course on what your interests are. The Sigma was $300 cheaper than the Canon 10-22, comes with a hood (a $60 option with Canon) and it's own soft case. Comparing the two, I found the Sigma just as sharp as the Canon.

In past I had a Sigma 10-20 but didn't use it much, as in your local place you are used to the environment and cannot take too much UWA pictures.

For travel it's nice to take now and then a wide shot as nice memory, but I didn't find worth keeping it for using once in a year (and even then, on holiday most take their standaarzoom with them).

For people that go a lot on holiday and see a lot of the world it's great although.
I once doubted to sell my 35 1.4 for a 16-35, but I can take vertikal panorma's also with this lens, in that way I don't have to buy a UWA lens for the times I use it.

I once borrowed a Canon 10-22 to use with my 20D, but that session only proved to me that I do not need an ultra-wide lens in my kit. I find 16mm plenty wide on my 20D (equivalent field of view to a 25.6mm on a 35mm film format camera) for 99.9% of what I do, and having another lens for the remaining .1% just is not worth the cost or weight to me.

My Canon 20-22 doesn't get a lot of use on a day to day basis. However, through my work I travel a lot and I would not leave home without it. It is great for cityscapes, landscapes or getting some great shots in tight quarters. I never leave the hotel without it in my bag.

I bought the Tokina 11-16 and only used it occasionally,it is a great and really sharp lens but once I bought my 17-55 It never saw my camera again.I sold the Tokina and really don't miss it, but I'm not really a landscape shooter.

I have the Tokina 11-16mm and it's a great lens. I don't use UWAs much since I am more a portrait shooter, but I will not let it go. When I do need it, it does the job.

Here is a quote from one of the member here -
( It's better to have it and not need it, Than to need it, and not have it. )