Wide angle lens

[slysam]

Hi all
I shoot a lot of landscapes, my current camera is the Sony A77 and my main two lenses are the Sigma 18-125mm and Sigma 24mm prime but I was thinking of the Sigma 10-20mm or something similar. Would this be a good choice for landscapes and do you use one?

 

[pete.rush]

Ultra wide lenses take quite a bit of getting use to, they're not as easy to get decent shots as you think and are quite limited for me personally. There are several ultra wide lenses on the market, sigma being one, tokina being another. I had the canon 10-22mm lens, but never really got on with it and sold it because I never really used it in anger, but there's many that like UWA lenses.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

 

[woof woof]

Whenever I hear the view that wide angle lenses are hard to use (or limiting???) I quickly ease my mind by remembering that photography is a visual art and that we see the shot we're about to capture through the VF / on the EVF etc. Or if we haven't got a 100% VF/EVF we see 97% of it Therefore, if you don't like what you see through the VF don't press that button... recompose the shot.

It is possibly true that wide angle lenses need thought but they can be some of the most creative lenses you'll use.

Another view that I have "issues" with is that wide angles aren't for "getting it all in" and that you need to get up close to your subject and avoid acres of nothingness. I disagree with this. "getting it all in" or even including large areas of nothingness could be perfectly valid artistic choices.

Everyone should have a wide angle IMVHO

 

[Nod]

I would find it hard to enjoy photography as much as I do without my UUWA (12mm on FF is considered ultra, ultra wide, apparently) or my even wider fisheye. Yes, both need a little more thought but sometimes, footzoom isn't possible and a wide lens is the only option should you need to get it all in. The fisheye is more of a toy, I'll admit but it is one I play with a lot, so has a permanent place in the bag.

Could I live without them? Yes, of course I could but my life would certainly be the poorer for the lack!

 

[Nawty]

I think the issue (for me anyway) is that people assume landscape = UWA, which it doesn't. Not in the slightest.

Yes, my UWA is my favourite lens too but it is also rather specialist and only suitable in certain circumstances.

 

[Digifrog]

I would opt for the Tokina 11-16 over the Sigma 10-20. Slightly better IQ imo.

 

[hollis_f]

Whenever I hear the view that wide angle lenses are hard to use (or limiting???) I quickly ease my mind by remembering that photography is a visual art and that we see the shot we're about to capture through the VF / on the EVF etc. Or if we haven't got a 100% VF/EVF we see 97% of it Therefore, if you don't like what you see through the VF don't press that button... recompose the shot.

With longer lenses, most of the time I can 'see' the shot without having to look through the viewfinder. But that was impossible with the UWA, especially early on.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I would opt for the Tokina 11-16 over the Sigma 10-20. Slightly better IQ imo.

that. Making full use of those all MPs is quite a challenge. Sigma could barely spread over 8 of them.