Which wide angle lens? (1 Viewer)

Duke Leto · Aug 26, 2009

A few with Nikon D70 s / D200 / D300 with a Tokina 12 - 24

My fav local place D200

Woodbridge Tide Mill with a D70s and the River Deben

And Modern art D300

Local property D200

All taken with a polarising filter attached

Andrew · Aug 27, 2009

Yes, I was thinking of the 18-50 f/2.8 EX. I shall try to see if I can test one in the field. The 10-20mm produces some nice landscapes as evidenced here but I am impressed by the Tokina 12-24mm too. Looks like a visit to line them all up against each other to test their build quality and images. Thanks for the answers and pictures.

Andrew · Aug 27, 2009

pduxon said:
yeah you can get a large building at the wide end 10mm is VERY wide. in but the 10-20 will have a fair amount of distortion converging verticals and all that. so you may need to do more post proocessing..........

How do you mean? I hope I have not asked too big a question but I thought converging verticals were a redeeming feature of wide angle shots especially architectural ones. Mind you I do see a lot of cool architectural images taken around 50mm and even cropped after.

Another point on the f/2.8, I presume this would help me greatly when taking night/dusk shots thus is a useful addition to have?

postcardcv · Aug 27, 2009

Andrew said:
I am also looking at the Sigma 10-20 for the Canon 40D so can I ask, when you are close to say a church or a nice building can you get the whole into the frame when going down to ground level for instance?

I am also thinking of the Sigma 18-50 EX which has macro but with a dedicated macro already on the list I wonder how useful the macro function would be?

10mm is very wide, even from fairly close you can get the whole of a building in frame. If you want ultra wide then the 18-50 just won't cut it, the difference between 10mm and 18mm is huge! If I get the chance in the next day or so I'll do some test shots of my local church at 10mm and 18mm and post them on here.

Andrew · Aug 27, 2009

Thanks for that offer Peter, I certainly look forward to the comparative shots. Thanks for the answer too.

Wide appeals to me with the option of including clouds and slowing the lens right down with filters for dynamics.

I believe I may be able to position myself on regular flight paths of geese or waders and get nice atmospheric shots with a 10-20 type lens?

pduxon · Aug 27, 2009

Andrew said:
How do you mean? I hope I have not asked too big a question but I thought converging verticals were a redeeming feature of wide angle shots especially architectural ones. Mind you I do see a lot of cool architectural images taken around 50mm and even cropped after.

Another point on the f/2.8, I presume this would help me greatly when taking night/dusk shots thus is a useful addition to have?

f2.8 is helpful for low light.

here is an example of converging verticals. Photo straight as it came out of the camera.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RuWQRU_RPRI/AAAAAAAAFJU/QGB_zANcaZ0/s1600-h/dsc_0085.jpg

obviously the Rotunda is straight!!

and another

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RuWQRU_RPQI/AAAAAAAAFJM/yMPgzttlVYk/s1600-h/dsc_0084.jpg

now what I think is cool is the way the picture has a 3d type quality. You don't get that with 70-xxx zoom. Horses for courses

anyway here is a photo at approx 17mm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/R9rC5lmqPgI/AAAAAAAAIHw/SpaX5WcsESM/s1600-h/DSC_0035.JPG

here it is at 10mm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/R9rC5lmqPhI/AAAAAAAAIH4/VCCWkpnTiR8/s1600-h/DSC_0036.JPG

never mind the quality FEEL the width.

CharleyBird · Aug 27, 2009

Nice shots - I like the 10mm interior of the church, and it's always interesting to see how a camera's metering handles the light. I quite fancy an affordable ultra wide.
The lens is tempting me; browsed around a bit and wondered, in your opinion would it be worth getting the f3.5 constant version of the sigma?

P.S. Usually go here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX
for nikkor lens reviews:t:

pduxon · Aug 27, 2009

CharleyBird said:
Nice shots - I like the 10mm interior of the church, and it's always interesting to see how a camera's metering handles the light. I quite fancy an affordable ultra wide.
The lens is tempting me; browsed around a bit and wondered, in your opinion would it be worth getting the f3.5 constant version of the sigma?

P.S. Usually go here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX
for nikkor lens reviews:t:

only review I've seen is http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sigma/reviews/cameraaccessories/sigma-1020mm-135-dx-usm-lens.aspx

the new sigma is £180 dearer. you have to WANT that constant f3.5.

depends what you think is affordable!!

there's plenty of choice two 10-20's from sigma, an 11-16 and 12-24 from Tokina. and a 10-24 (which is alot cheaper from Grays of westminster than w/express) and 12-24 from Nikon.

Andrew · Aug 27, 2009

Excellent reply Pete, thanks. Those two pics of the Rotunda clearly prove it is what I want. The perspectives scream for the control of your mind in all zones of the image, I love it.

Use of filters with this lens makes for an exciting playing field!

Looks like this is the one I will probably go for if a macro does not get my dosh shortly.

Going to check out what this 10-24mm is about now.

Thanks for the advice and pics.

pduxon · Aug 27, 2009

Andrew said:
Excellent reply Pete, thanks. Those two pics of the Rotunda clearly prove it is what I want. The perspectives scream for the control of your mind in all zones of the image, I love it.

Use of filters with this lens makes for an exciting playing field!

Looks like this is the one I will probably go for if a macro does not get my dosh shortly.

Going to check out what this 10-24mm is about now.

Thanks for the advice and pics.

the 10-24 is a nikon. canon do a 10-22.

wide angles are fun. they are harder to use but the results when good are worth it.

postcardcv · Aug 27, 2009

Well I was beaten to it, but here are a couple of shots of my local church from this afternoon. First is taken at 10mm the second at 17mm (I tried for 18mm but couldn't quite get it right!) shots taken from about 10-12m. Not great photos but they do show just how much difference and extra 7mm can make.

Andrew · Aug 27, 2009

Ah, yes I see. The Canon 10-22 is a bit too much for me.

I see nothing wrong with a Sigma as long as you have the EX glass.

nirofo · Aug 28, 2009

Andrew said:
Thanks for that offer Peter, I certainly look forward to the comparative shots. Thanks for the answer too.

Wide appeals to me with the option of including clouds and slowing the lens right down with filters for dynamics.

I believe I may be able to position myself on regular flight paths of geese or waders and get nice atmospheric shots with a 10-20 type lens?

Yeh, you'll be able to count the dots in the sky, just like dust on your sensor?

nirofo.

Andrew · Aug 30, 2009

Ha, ha. There is a golf course by the Exe where Brent Geese fly over a dividing road by mere feet so they should be part of the shot I hope!

yossi · Sep 4, 2009

The Sigma 10-20 is a nice lens, but I have tested lately the new Nikon 10-24mm and it's better and sharper. It's more expensive though (Nikon, you know...)

Which wide angle lens? (1 Viewer)

More options

Duke Leto

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Andrew

wibble wibble

Andrew

wibble wibble

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Andrew

wibble wibble

pduxon

Quacked up Member

CharleyBird

Well-known member

pduxon

Quacked up Member

Andrew

wibble wibble

pduxon

Quacked up Member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Attachments

Andrew

wibble wibble

nirofo

Well-known member

Andrew

wibble wibble

yossi

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread