Which UWA Lens Do you Use

[Tannin]

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.

Cheers Mike. I agree that the extra sharpness of the Canon is probably not noticeable most of the time. I would feel more comfortable with the Canon build quality, but the main reason I wouldn't swap my 10-22 for a Sigma 10-20 is the extra 2mm. It makes a huge difference if, as in my case, your next lens up is a 24-105 (or similar). Even when I had an 18-55, I used that extra length quite a lot - anything that saves lens swapping is a good idea!

So the Tamron 10-24 would be even better ...... except that it gets very poor reviews. I'd love the extra length, but not at the cost of poor IQ.

But at those prices you quote ..... hmmmm ... it's a big difference.

PS: no point whatever in having constant f/3.5. With any ultra-wide, you could glue the aperture down to f/8 and practically never change it unless the light is really bad and you are hand-holding, in which case you just go to whatever wide-open happens to be.

Enjoy your new lens!

[mikew09]

Cheers Mike. I agree that the extra sharpness of the Canon is probably not noticeable most of the time. I would feel more comfortable with the Canon build quality, but the main reason I wouldn't swap my 10-22 for a Sigma 10-20 is the extra 2mm. It makes a huge difference if, as in my case, your next lens up is a 24-105 (or similar). Even when I had an 18-55, I used that extra length quite a lot - anything that saves lens swapping is a good idea!

So the Tamron 10-24 would be even better ...... except that it gets very poor reviews. I'd love the extra length, but not at the cost of poor IQ.

But at those prices you quote ..... hmmmm ... it's a big difference.

PS: no point whatever in having constant f/3.5. With any ultra-wide, you could glue the aperture down to f/8 and practically never change it unless the light is really bad and you are hand-holding, in which case you just go to whatever wide-open happens to be.

Enjoy your new lens!

Yep, pretty much mu thoughts to Tannin. I did consider the Tamron as I have the SP AF 17-50 f2.8 which I really like but the reviews were not favourable. I have been saving for the 24-105 so have a little extra cash but would have to get the Canon price down quite a bit to get it in budget. Will see how I go but the Sigma seems to be held in high regards and well within budget.

See how we go once I start to haggle the price :-)

[nightbringer]

Sigma 8-16mm, though I use it more as an 8mm prime these days XD

[Xenedis]

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

(16-35/2.8L II)

It's a fantastic lens. I use it almost exclusively for 'scapes.

I've only ever used mine on full-frame DSLRs; it'd be a waste on an APS-C camera. If you move to FF, it would be a good choice (assuming money isn't an issue).

[mikew09]

Hi Xenedis, FF will be my next upgrade, most likely end of 2012. If I keep going down my current genre of photography the FF and 16-35 will be the combination I would think. Takin me a while but Landscape is fast becoming my primary photographic interest. Hopefully be back on track by mid next yr and pocket money for my interest will be available again .

[ving]

i use gravy...

[Scotty72]

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.)

Because I have used both and the Siggy 10-20 3.5 is better

[Scotty72]

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

I actually found a use (admittedly not common) for f/3.5. Shooting ice hockey at UWA then waiting for them to shoot past you at very close range

[crf529]

What an UWA not used for landscapes and fixed to f/8?! Heresy! Lol...

Seems to be the general mindset of most people though unfortunately, they can be very cool for a variety of other uses (sports included).

[Xenedis]

What an UWA not used for landscapes and fixed to f/8?! Heresy! Lol...

Seems to be the general mindset of most people though unfortunately, they can be very cool for a variety of other uses (sports included).

Bands/musicians too.

I've used mine for that.

[mikew09]

I actually found a use (admittedly not common) for f/3.5. Shooting ice hockey at UWA then waiting for them to shoot past you at very close range

Got point you have raised Scotty - the broader use of a UWA is often forgotten I think.

[Scotty72]

I actually found a use (admittedly not common) for f/3.5. Shooting ice hockey at UWA then waiting for them to shoot past you at very close range

For eg. _MG_0768.jpg

[dulvariprestige]

^^^ But this was shot @ 6.3

I used to own the sigma, but was able to upgrade to the canon

[Scotty72]

Was it? Oh well. But, it shows the UWA can be used for sports.

Oh! if you are talking about the Canon 10-22... you surely meant a downgrade... right?

[mikew09]

That is a good example of the angle of view of the 10-20 Scotty, makes me want one even more. Often I find it hard to get the feel for field of view with photos with a UWA but the ice hockey shot certainly shows this - ta.

[mikew09]

Hmm, also looks like the gap is closing between the siggy and the canon

[William]

That is a good example of the angle of view of the 10-20 Scotty, makes me want one even more. Often I find it hard to get the feel for field of view with photos with a UWA but the ice hockey shot certainly shows this - ta.

Here's another for you Mike of the Siggy wide open @10mm , f8, to show FOV

"Currumbin Beach"

[dulvariprestige]

Was it? Oh well. But, it shows the UWA can be used for sports.

Oh! if you are talking about the Canon 10-22... you surely meant a downgrade... right?

[mikew09]

Wooohh Bill, that is a corka mate. Good display of FOV. I read on some reviews that the siggy can get a little soft at the edges but I am not seeing it that soft in shots posted on the forum. What does impress me is how sharp the photos are from the siggy. Have seen the saem from the canon too but at twicw the price.

[William]

There is a few things you have to watch using a UWA, One is the Vertical distortion on the sides , Like in the above shot the person on the right should be standing straight, But thats fixable in PP, The other thing is your shadow keeps getting in the way in some situations , Also if shooting in Portrait orientation you can get a shot of your feet as well as the sky , Dont laugh, It's happened to me