Want to go wider than 17mm....

Bobsyeruncle

Bobsyeruncle

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17,422
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been using my Sigma 17-50mm a lot, and for me it's a great lens.
For some landscape shots I'd like to go a bit wider.
I was thinking about one of the sigma 10-20mm lenses but have read some mixed reviews.
I've read some good things about the Tokina 11-16mm but have never owned/used any Tokina lenses before.

Any thoughts, suggestions etc will be gratefully received

Thanks :)
 
Sigma 12-24mm? Sigma 8-16mm?

I had the 12-24mm and thought it was very good and distortion free. I think they've updated it since I had one though.
 
woof woof said:
Sigma 12-24mm? Sigma 8-16mm?

I had the 12-24mm and thought it was very good and distortion free. I think they've updated it since I had one though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
I did think about the 8-16mm but I don't think it will take filters, and that put me off.
Wasn't sure if 12mm would be wide enough?
It there a lot of difference between 12mm and 17mm?
I'm using a D7000.
 
I had the Sigma 10-20mm (fixed aperture version, note there are two lenses with this focal length range) when I still had my 40D and it was an excellent performer providing you kept things sensible. The fault I kept finding with people that didn't like it was that they were stopping down far too much. Between f/5.8 and f/8 it was excellent, to f/11 it was very good, from f/16 down it started to show some weakness around the edges of the frame - usually asymmetric, on mine the left-hand side was worse than the right. But given how quickly you got get hyperfocal as you stopped down, this was generally caused by the usual "f/22 and focus a third into the frame" crap technique that Practical Photography and other magazines/websites were preaching at the time.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I've been using my Sigma 17-50mm a lot, and for me it's a great lens.
For some landscape shots I'd like to go a bit wider.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on how much wider you want to go. Fisheye can be fun...

14049404880_cafef5d061_b.jpg


...well some people think so...

15657677778_2d3c10aa72_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had the sigma 10-20mm a few years ago, got some beach photos. Got some good lovely blue skies with long sprawling clouds. Got some interesting indoor photos, just a little too distorted though. I found the lens too heavy, so I sold it in the end..
 
Have the Sigma 10-20mm 3.5-5.6. if I remember correctly it used to get better reviews than the F3.5 version
 
On a crop sensor the sigma 10-20 is great value.

I use a Samyang 14mm on D800s and it's spectacular
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Thanks for the reply.
I did think about the 8-16mm but I don't think it will take filters, and that put me off.
Wasn't sure if 12mm would be wide enough?
It there a lot of difference between 12mm and 17mm?
I'm using a D7000.
Click to expand...
Yes, the difference between 12 and 17mm is very noticeable. Using filters will limit you choice and rule some lenses out.

Not sute that going FF will get you all that wider will it? And on the subject of going wide, wides are IMO some of the most difficult lenses to use well, thought and care is needed.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I was thinking about one of the sigma 10-20mm lenses but have read some mixed reviews.
I've read some good things about the Tokina 11-16mm but have never owned/used any Tokina lenses before.
Click to expand...

Having owned both, I would go with the Tokina 11-16 over the Sigma 10-20 any day of the week - the sharpness and contrast was miles ahead on the 11-16, with the bonus of it being a constant f/2.8.

Having had to go through some old photos recently for something, the ones taken on my D300s were so much better from the Tokina - crisper and displaying less mushiness.

You could also consider the new Tokina 11-20.

Gary Coyle said:
Simplest answer is to go Full Frame
Click to expand...
What would that solve in the OP's dilemma?
 
He wants wider,hes limited to probably the 10-20mm which in reality is 15mm on a crop sensor, on full frame he can get a true 12mm with the Sigma 12-24mm MKI which gives zero distortion and has several options at 14mm

Hes not wanting fisheye so the 10-20mm is his widest choice on DX

Of course theres the option of stitching images
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Thanks for the reply.
I did think about the 8-16mm but I don't think it will take filters, and that put me off.
Wasn't sure if 12mm would be wide enough?
It there a lot of difference between 12mm and 17mm?
I'm using a D7000.
Click to expand...

Yes! Check the viewing angles of these focal lengths, a mm can make a lot of difference at short focal lengths.

Note that the Sigma 8-16mm can take filters. It has a fixed petal hood, and the lens cap comes in two parts, a tubular shroud which covers the petals and contains a filter thread, and a lens cap which snaps into them. The catch is that at its widest this vignettes off the corners. At what focal length this vignetting starts to happen will depend on the exact crop factor of your camera. If someone asks I can check it out for my Sony A77, nominally a 1.5 crop. It's a lot bigger and heavier than the Sigma 10-20mm, which I used to have, but optically superior, as well as very usefully wider. You can stand in the corner of a large room and photograph all four walls.

I found with 10-20mm that I took a lot of shots at 10mm, confirming my subjective impression that I often wound it wide open, tried to get back bit further, and ended up wishing it was a bite wider. That happens much less often with the 8-16mm.

I agree with the other observation in this thread that most of the complaints about the bad optical performance of these lenses comes from people who haven't a clue how to use them. Just as there is with very long lenses, using very short focal lengths requires learning how they behave and how to get the best from them, and there's a lot of nonsense published by armchair experts who spend more time pontificating on the web than actually trying stuff out on their own cameras. For a start AF can be extremely unreliable -- depending very much on how clever your own camera's AF is with very short lenses.
 
I used a sigma 10-20 on my D 7000 for a number of years, I thought it was great. Changed to full frame last week and now I need to sell it unfortunately.
 
Gary Coyle said:
He wants wider,hes limited to probably the 10-20mm which in reality is 15mm on a crop sensor, on full frame he can get a true 12mm with the Sigma 12-24mm MKI which gives zero distortion and has several options at 14mm

Hes not wanting fisheye so the 10-20mm is his widest choice on DX

Of course theres the option of stitching images
Click to expand...

Let's face it, the Sigma 8-16 is the same idea as 12-24 on FX so no need to go FX just for real width.

10 or 11mm is very wide and I'm sure would suit the OPs requirements.
 
FWIW, I understand that the older, variable aperture version of the Sigma 10-20 is better optically than the newer fixed f/3.5 one. Not sure if the Sigma 8-16 comes in 4/3 fitting, if so, that might explain the filter thread in the bucket cap - the 12-24 has the same system so filters can be used when it's fitted to crop bodies but it vignettes a lot at the short end on FF and I suspect the same will be true with the 8-16 on Dx/Canon crop. As said above, the difference between 12mm and 17mm is pretty mahoosive!
 
Stu Meech said:
Having owned both, I would go with the Tokina 11-16 over the Sigma 10-20 any day of the week - the sharpness and contrast was miles ahead on the 11-16, with the bonus of it being a constant f/2.8.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I've read a lot of good things about the Tokina, and like the idea of the constant f/2.8
I think the sigma 8-16mm would be a contender, but I need to decide if I can accept not being able to use filters.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Are you sure? The sigma website says it can't take filters
Click to expand...

You're right, which surprised me. As I said the lens cap comes in two parts, a tube which fits over the fixed petal hood with a 72mm filter thread on it into which fits a standard lens cap. I checked the vignetting on my 8-16mm with this tube in place and found that it still does vignette a tiny bit off each corner at 16mm. I also found that many people have devised their own DIY filter holders based on the same enclosing tube idea which work with no vignetting right down to 8mm. The lens cap holder tube which Sigma supplies is longer than it needs to be and obviously not designed for the purpose.

Here's one described with photographs in dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3214933

There are commercial versions too.
 
I used to like my variable aperture Sigma 10-20 and you must be able to get them pretty cheap second hand now. I never noticed the distortion it's supposed to be known for, maybe I'm just not that fussy. I never missed having a fixed 2.8 aperture, I just didn't find it important on a wide lens.
 
This shot (not long exposure BTW) was taken with a 20D and Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5-5.6, which I consider to be a decent lens.


Going to a UWA can be fun, but it's easy to get frames full of nothing and on a crop it's easy to forget about the effects on vertical perspective.
 
I have the Sigma 12-24, f4.5-5.6 II DG HSM on a 5D Mark 2 and I like it. It does not take filters and the lens cap comes in two pieces as someone said. It does everything I want, it is sharp and it is sturdy. A couple of quick examples I could lay my hands on.

05d777280ec9baedcbaf1a5462ac1eb8.jpg
81f93cc6a7fb314e997e3359a8089fca.jpg
d0f2fd1e05a7d67ab7b264e38c5319d0.jpg
3a66c817558544d75a2aceffa31b5c1e.jpg
 
samdebeer said:
I have the Sigma 12-24, f4.5-5.6 II DG HSM on a 5D Mark 2 and I like it. It does not take filters...
Click to expand...

The Sigma 12-24mm can take filters at the longer end if you leave the bucket half of the lens cap in place and screw your filter or filter holder to it, difficult to describe and as a picture tells a thousand words I've posted a picture below. It'll get in the way and vignette at wider focal lengths and I can't remember at what point it doesn't vignette but the option is there at the longer end. There's also the option of using blu tack or just holding a filter against the fixed lens hood and of course you can use gel filters at the other end of the lens with the little holder provided, that's not something that I ever bothered with but the option is there if you feel the need.

 
Last edited:
On a crop I'd get the tokina it's a great landscape lens you can also use for Astro should the desire ever take you.

If you are shooting canon you should also consider the new 10-18mm which is a ridiculous bargain for uwa landscapes!
 
a1ex2001 said:
On a crop I'd get the tokina it's a great landscape lens you can also use for Astro should the desire ever take you.

If you are shooting canon you should also consider the new 10-18mm which is a ridiculous bargain for uwa landscapes!
Click to expand...
Is the simple solution, optically better than the older 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20s (allegedly) and cheap as chips.

Btw I had the Sigma 10-20 variable and rarely used* it straight because the distortion was horrid.

*actually I used it loads, for dance floor pictures, long exposures where optical accuracy wasn't necessary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top