Which UWA Lens Do you Use

[mikew09]

Just about to go and buy an UWA and pretty much sold on the Sigma 10-20 and though it might be interesting to see some stats on the more common lens that I considered for landscape type photography and such.

[jim]

There are very few options in this poll, which makes it something of a miracle that I was able to vote in it. But I was, so I did.

[Tannin]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)

[Xenedis]

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

I tend to rarely deviate from the 16mm focal length.

[ricktas]

I chose Sigma 10-20 cause from the list, its the one I own but my main WA lens is the Nikon 17-35

[Speedway]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)

$474 v $800 is a pretty good reason in my book and the reviews rate them pretty close.
Keith.

[Kym]

I chose Sigma 10-20 cause from the list, its the one I own but my main WA lens is the Nikon 17-35

But that's on your D3, what would you use on your D200?

[mrDooba]

I use the Tokina on my 5D2 and I'm really quite happy with it.
I can't rattle of techy stuff but it's nice and sharp and does the trick

[Tommo1965]

none of the above

but I do use a nikon 17-35

[terry.langham]

Gravy me. Or add the Tamron 11-18mm, not that I wouldn't have had the Canon 10-22mm if I could afford it.

[CAP]

Just got the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and pretty happy with it so far.

[mikew09]

Mike, why would you have the Sigma 10-20 when you could have a Canon 10-22? (I'm not having a go at you, just wondering why.)

Hi Tannin, mostly cost. Has not be great for pocket money since the GFC so every penny counts. I did consider the canon but pretty expensive in comparison and for all the research I have done seems only marginly better. I will still barter the price as always but doubtful they will drop it enough tomake it a choice.

[William]

You know my vote Mike, Sigma 10-20

[agb]

Are there two Sigma 10-20, one f 3.5 and the other f4-5.6. So which one are we talking about? $680 vs $520

[William]

I was talking the f4-5.6, I dont see the reason for f3.5 if your just shooting landscapes and using a tripod , Maybe some Architectural indoor stuff may need the f3.5

[mikew09]

There are very few options in this poll, which makes it something of a miracle that I was able to vote in it. But I was, so I did.

Hi Jim, yep, this was intentional as I only was interested in the UWA's that fitted into my possible now or future choice list.

Cheers,

Mike

[mikew09]

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

I tend to rarely deviate from the 16mm focal length.

Yep, if I ever get financial again I would think this will be the lens for a 5D upgrade.

[mikew09]

You know my vote Mike, Sigma 10-20

Hi Bill, yep and seen your excellent work mate. Helped with swaying me to the siggy.

[mikew09]

Are there two Sigma 10-20, one f 3.5 and the other f4-5.6. So which one are we talking about? $680 vs $520

For me - there is not a great deal of different between the two from what I have seen in reviews and the larger aperture is not in my requirements for the 10-20. Hence just listed the generic in the poll.

[mikew09]

I was talking the f4-5.6, I dont see the reason for f3.5 if your just shooting landscapes and using a tripod , Maybe some Architectural indoor stuff may need the f3.5

Exactly Bill - tht is waht I wanted to say