Which UWA Lens Do you Use

[mikew09]

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

My usage will pretty much be landscape stype photos as for general shotting I use my Tammy 17-50 which I consider a great lens. So I reckon the distortion will should not be a big issue (like you say), hmm but I had better watch tht shadow as I have managed to get it my shadpw in frame with my Tammy at 17mm. I did see a shot once were the person on the left of frame actually had one foot looking about twice the size of the other , so something to consider.

[dulvariprestige]

Also watch for tripod legs coming into the frame too, can easily happen when you have the tripod way down low and the legs extended all the way out, a good photographer will see this before taking the shot, I guess that's why I usually have a leg in at least one of my first frames

[mikew09]

Also watch for tripod legs coming into the frame too, can easily happen when you have the tripod way down low and the legs extended all the way out, a good photographer will see this before taking the shot, I guess that's why I usually have a leg in at least one of my first frames

Good tip

[gqtuazon]

Sorry for the late reply here. I am an UWA junkie and for UWA I would suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for an APS-C camera. It comes with either Canon or Nikon mount so no worries there. My buddies highly recommended this lens since the lens is par focal which means that it retains it's focus when used with video as you zoom in or out. Not too many lenses can do this except for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRI that I've tried. The pro lenses from Canon or Nikon usually tend to retain their value better compared to the other 3rd party lenses unless you are taking about Carl Zeiss lenses. Since you intend to get a Full Frame camera body in the future, the Canon would be the better choice so that you don't need to worry about selling and buying another full frame capable lens in the future. I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VRII which is a very good lens for my wide angle or landscape use. I'm not a pro but I find this lens very versatile whenever I use it either outdoors or indoors such as shooting inside a museum. Here is a review about this lens from photozone using a Canon camera as a reference.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/37..._1116_28_canon


Some sample images using the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VRII which is claimed by Nikon to have up to four steps difference when using VR or IS.


Peace Park, Nagasaki Japan by gqtuazon, on Flickr


12Apr11_37 by gqtuazon, on Flickr


Venus fountain by gqtuazon, on Flickr

Inside a museum



Sample shot using a Nikon DX camera.

[mikew09]

Thanks Glenn, interesting information. I think maybe I should at least test that lens against the sigma as the price is variable. Thanks for the details.

[mikew09]

Hmm - today I had this conversation with a work buddy and his opinion is to save and go for the 16-35 L as it is likely I will move to a 5D within the next 18 months. Hmm, I admit things are looking up and there is possible some correctness in his comment. Here I go again - the master of indecision. Happy to save a bit longer and go L glass but will the 16 mm be wide enough in the time being. I actually thought I had this decided.

[Xenedis]

Mike,

If it's any help, I've been shooting full-frame since 2006, and I've had my 16-35/2.8L II since 2008.

I shoot a lot of 'scapes, so it's the lens that gets the most use.

While I'd love the view of the 14/2.8L II, that has no easy way of attaching filters (GND/ND types).

My 16-35 delivers great results. You'll find it to be quite wide; sometimes you end up with more in the scene than you want, but that is easily fixed.

Unfortunately, this lens would be seriously under-utilised on an APS-C camera. The 10-22 would be a good choice which would give you basically identical framing.

18 months is a fairly long time. If you're not going to move to a 5D before then, an ultra-wide lens designed for the APS-C format would be a better investment at this stage. You can later sell it.

I just wouldn't bother with the 16-35 on an APS-C camera if true 16mm (10mm in the new money) is what you want.

[ashey]

Iv,e had the 10/20 Sigma and found that it performed extremely well on my 40D, but have since sold it as I now use 5D MK 11 for landscape shots with canon 17/40. I don,t think you can go wrong with the siggy on a crop camera.

[mikew09]

Thanks Guys for putting back on track - I think I just needed a reminder of why I was looking at the siggy.

[mikew09]

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

"Currumbin Beach"

Hi Bill, I have just been discussing a topic in one of my other threads about natural photography and how some of us (NOT knocking anyone) have a style that tries to keep our photos as natural to the real frame as possible. I was commenting on the struggle as I learn to get the shot and keep the pop without moving away from reality.

I was thinking about this shot in this thread as a great example of the shot, being a maginficient photo but is so natural - if I was there on the beach at the time the shutter flapped it would look just like this. It has brought me to a new level of mind set in my photography and reminded me of what a well captured photo this one is - so well done again mate.

[William]

Thanks Mike , I'll take that as a compliment from you Yep, Your right , No processing on this one , Except for a sharpen and a little Contrast adjustment , If you get the Siggy, You'l be amazed at how close you can get to the FG Subject @10mm , To get that shot , I'm probably only 6 inches above the water !! , Get it mate , You'll enjoy the experience - Bill

PS : Oh, Maybe a foot above the water

[mikew09]

Thanks Mike , I'll take that as a compliment from you Yep, Your right , No processing on this one , Except for a sharpen and a little Contrast adjustment , If you get the Siggy, You'l be amazed at how close you can get to the FG Subject @10mm , To get that shot , I'm probably only 6 inches above the water !! , Get it mate , You'll enjoy the experience - Bill

PS : Oh, Maybe a foot above the water

Yep, definately a compliment mate. This is the style I am hoping to develop - I think Tony called it non-fiction photography. And yea, lock that lens in eddie". I will start the haggle with my usual store in the next week or two.

[richardb]

For price/performance reasons a TOKINA 11-16mm f2,8 should better be included in your UWA lens survey.
A Fantastic lens, borrow first to test it, and you will love it. That's how how I got mine.
Check out Ken Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

[dulvariprestige]

Yesterday I sold my 10-22 canon, because next week I was Planning on getting a 5dMKII and a tokina 16-28mm, funny how things can turn 180 in under 24hrs, so now I have to get another UWA for the 7d, so I've decided to get the tokina 11-16, going by all the reviews and images I've been looking at over the last couple of hrs, I'm pretty excited about getting one, fingers crossed.

[mikew09]

Thanks to everyone for the helpful posts. Finally decided on the sigma 10-20 and purchased on Monday. Very happen with the lens, tack sharp (must have a good copy) and feels nicely built in my hands. Certainly has met early expectations - :-)

[bargain]

I'm surprised not to see the Sigma 8-16mm mentioned a bit more. Got this lens for my gf's 60D and it's really quite spectacular. 8mm is crazy wide. Love it.

[mikew09]

Hi bargain, I think quite a number of photogs use an UWA lens for landscape type photography. I am pretty sure the 8mm lens has a fixed hood (not removable) that stops the fitting of a filter holder and grad filters, that is a show stopper for a landscape photographer I would think and I would say the reason less owners of the sigma 8-16mm

[fabian628]

cant vote but i use the 15mm fish and 17-40

[Bchip]

I use the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and love it.

[mikew09]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Starting to get a feel for the Siggy now and I just love it.