# Wide Angle......Whats good and bad.



## Tweaker (Jul 3, 2009)

Im in the Market for a wide angle and would like to know what you guys like and why?

Zach


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 3, 2009)

Extreme wide angle <14mm ... too much curvature ... distortion get detracting.
Fish eye ... circular image ... lens gets boring too quickly.
Rectilinear wide angle 14-16mm ... does not have the curvature ... just enough wideness.

The focal lens are based on 1.5x crop factor.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2009)

What do you like Tweaker, afterall you're in the market, not us 

I like the 10-20mm range on a 1.5x camera.


----------



## Dao (Jul 4, 2009)

Are you using a DX sensor camera or a 35mm film/ FX type camera?

I use 17mm with the 17-50mm F/2.8 for wide angle shots.  If I want a little wider, I use the 14mm F/2.8.

Why, because it has the focal length I need.


----------



## Tweaker (Jul 5, 2009)

I have been looking at the Sigma 10-20.  I shoot a D90.

Zach


----------



## Dao (Jul 5, 2009)

Just for your information, there is a new version of 10-20mm lens from Sigma.

Yes, the 10-20mm lens is nice.  I always want to get one whenever I visit this site 10-20mm.com


----------



## Tweaker (Jul 9, 2009)

Anybody have any luck with the Tokina Pro DX 12-24 F4  ??


----------



## Tweaker (Jan 10, 2010)

Well to bring this back up,,, I have made a purchase. Tokina 11-16 f2.8.  I really haven't had a chance to get out and play with it yet, But from just messing around with it I'm very happy.

Zach


----------



## krisb23 (Jan 15, 2010)

Dao said:


> Just for your information, there is a new version of 10-20mm lens from Sigma.
> 
> Yes, the 10-20mm lens is nice.  I always want to get one whenever I visit this site 10-20mm.com



Oh my gosh - those pics on that site are amazing and now I totally want to get that lens...it's pretty steep though - like $650.  I'm still trying to figure out my versatile lens purchase...24-70mm?


----------



## icassell (Jan 15, 2010)

I love my Sigma 10-20.  Mine is the f/4-5.6 version which I bought before the f/3.5 version came out and it has never been too slow for me.  I've  heard some say that it's actually a sharper lens. It's $479 at Amazon -- considerably less than the faster version.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1263587351&sr=8-1


----------



## brianT (Jan 15, 2010)

I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6.  It's a great lens-- decently sharp.  The geometry distortion bugs me sometimes so I end up fixing it in post.

I think the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is better though.  Actually, I have no need for a wide angle to have any zoom function.  A 10mm prime would probably deliver better image quality and would be less expensive to buy.  With my Sigma, most of the shots are at 10mm anyway.

Because I use the wide angle lens for mostly landscape I usually shoot at around f/11 or f/16.  At f/4 the bokeh is very ugly in my opinion but I suppose it's not the way a wide angle is supposed to be used.


----------



## icassell (Jan 15, 2010)

brianT said:


> I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6.  It's a great lens-- decently sharp.  The geometry distortion bugs me sometimes so I end up fixing it in post..




That's more a function of focal length than the particular lens.


----------



## icassell (Jan 15, 2010)

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 @ 10mm:


----------



## AliasPros (Jan 15, 2010)

I have the sigma 10-20 also and love it... also have the 15mm Canon 2.8 and just picked up the 20mm USM canon... Ooooh the suspense and waiting from BHphoto!!! 

ALIAS


----------



## R6_Dude (Jan 26, 2010)

brianT said:


> I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. It's a great lens-- decently sharp. The geometry distortion bugs me sometimes so I end up fixing it in post.
> 
> I think the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is better though. Actually, I have no need for a wide angle to have any zoom function. A *10mm prime would probably deliver better image quality and would be less expensive to buy.* With my Sigma, most of the shots are at 10mm anyway.
> 
> Because I use the wide angle lens for mostly landscape I usually shoot at around f/11 or f/16. At f/4 the bokeh is very ugly in my opinion but I suppose it's not the way a wide angle is supposed to be used.


 

Thats a very good point.  I mean...the reason one would even buy a UWA is for just that UWA.  However, I don't think Canon makes a non fisheye version. 

I just read (through a search from tpf) off a site www.juzaphoto.com which compared all the UWA (tamron, tokina, sigma, canon) and the sigma came out on top for value.  Obviously the Canon wins it all, but by a slight margin. 

Now i'm confused, Sigma or spend the extra 150-200 for a Canon...


----------



## icassell (Jan 27, 2010)

R6_Dude said:


> Now i'm confused, Sigma or spend the extra 150-200 for a Canon...


It's your call, but I decided to save the difference to buy my 430EX  ... And, if you don't get the f/3.5, the Sigma is $479 and the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 is $727 on Amazon ...


----------

