Best full frame UWA

hewhoknows

hewhoknows

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,077
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have 2 bodies, a D7000 and a D3. I do alot of interior photography and currently use the D7000 with a Tokina 11-16mm lens.

However, im looking to use my full frame camera to shoot interiors and wondered what the best UWA lens would be in a mid price range bracket?

I thought the Sigma 10-20mm would be good but ive heard it vignettes when at 10mm?
 
Stick your 11-16 on a D3 and make sure there is no DX crop mode on, or whatever it is called. It will work just fine at 16mm, or wide if you crop down to 8x10 ratio.

Sigma 10-20 is really a worse solution, they vignette a lot more, and are nowhere near as sharp.

Samyang 14mm is a very interesting solution, probably on the wider side, but they are very sharp and cheap (may need focus scales adjusted if you get unlucky)
 
Or even the old one! Pretty sure it's the only affordable FF UWA but the usual Sigma caveat applies (although theie EX range is less susceptible to the QC problems). I can confirm that the 10-20 vignettes horrifically on FF and will give an equivalent FoV to a 15mm lens when fitted to a Nikon Fx body in Dx mode. Unfortunately, I lost my Flickr password which is where the 10-20 shots are - I'll try to remember to find and post them when I'm on the other machine!
 
10-20 is a waste of time on FF. I too have some shots on flickr of its results.

The 12-24 is super crazy wide, but does distort a fair bit and needs careful attention paid to composition.
 
Please define "best". The sigma is great although performance seems to be uneven (I had one that had a weird optical abberation which seemed to appear to the left of the frame at 17mm or so which exactly matched the slrgear review sample: http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sigma12-24f45-56/ff/tloader.htm). Normally people consider the Nikon 14-24 the "best", but it's certainly not the cheapest.....
 
Distort? Sorry but I beg to disagree! It shows some extreme perspective but is remarkably well corrected for all distortions. I agree with the super crazy and care needed parts though.
 
If you're shooting interiors and can afford to stop down to f8/11 (i.e. on a tripod) then the original Sigma 12-24 is fantastic, due to the ultra-wide coverage and total lack of distortion - set it up correctly (i.e. parallel to the floor, no tilt etc.) and straight lines will stay straight, even at the edges. Remarkable lens really, I understand the new version is not quite as well corrected for distortion but is a bit sharper.
 
If mine were any sharper, I would need a titanium liner to keep it from slicing through my bag!

While I love how well the Sigma UW corrects distortions, I love the way my 8mm fisheye has the distortions!
 
Going by the thread title I would have said that the Zeiss 15 was the best UWA for FF and the Zeiss 21 the best WA for FF. I understand though that for many 21 isn't quite wide enough and the 15 way too expensive. The Nikon 16-35 is a superb UWA and would sit well with the D3. I had the exact same dilemma when I went with the D800. My choices were

Zeiss 21/2.8
Nikon 16-35 f/4
Zeiss 18/3.5
Zeiss 15/2.8

I chose the 16-35 over the Zeiss 18 as IQ was slightly better and discounted the Zeiss 21 (unfortunately) as I felt it wasn't wide enough. The Zeiss 15 was out of my budget range and wouldn't hold my Lee filters.... but boy, if I had the money!!!
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
If mine were any sharper, I would need a titanium liner to keep it from slicing through my bag!
Click to expand...
I was never that impressed.. It was OK, but the 17-40 was definitely sharper and more contrasty. I think it's down to expectations rather than lenses being out....
 
Given Sigma's QC issues, it could be that.
 
heidfirst said:
I believe that's the old 12-24 - I don't think that they have tested the new yet.
Click to expand...
That is correct.... but I was posting to show how the old one behaves (mine had exactly that sort of performance).
 
The 16mm short end of that is the same as the long end on the lens the OP is currently using, so the chances are that the 16-28 isn't wide enough! (Sounds odd for that to be the case but it is!)

The 12-24 gives over 90° coverage from side to side on FF, so if you stand in a corner, you can get almost the whole room in shot including the walls that meet behind you.
 
Thats for your feedback guys, from a little research and your comments think ill be looking for the Siggy 12-24 and see how that fairs.
 
It's an astonishing lens and I hope you'll be happy with it.
 
Must look into that sigma lens myself though, one thing I do not have is an UWA, and I don't want to pay big for one.

Looks very good indeed

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/310...-56-ex-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review?start=1

That's impressive distortion control right there, compared to other UWA lenses!

Only thing against this one seems to be the variable aperture, [for indoor use without flash say, like a church/interesting building] if it was f/4! but then it would be twice the price perhaps?

Is there much difference between the MKI version and MKII? foundboth on amazon, £100+ the difference! on photozone it seems the MKI fares better re: distortion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top