Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Advice on a new wideangle lens

  • 31-05-2011 2:34pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 811 ✭✭✭


    Guys,

    i am looking for some feedback as I want to purchase a new wide angle lens.
    I have a tamron 28 to 75 F2 but looking to get

    Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 or older F4 model or the Sigma 12-24mm.
    shooting with canon 40d.

    anyone any feedback on these lens or other similar lens that they current use and would recommend?

    Thanks in advance,

    Derek.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭daycent


    Hi Derek,

    I can't speak for the 10-20, but I have the 12-24 and it's really nice on the 40D. It's mad wide on full frame with really soft corners, but it's not a problem on a crop body. Might be slightly more usable than the 10-20 maybe, as in, having the extra bit on the long end might be a better option....

    Just my 2c...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    10-20 was a great lens, if you have an intentions of full frame the 12-24 would be a better bet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,138 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    I have the Sigma 10-20 F/4.0-5.6 - for my Sony A550. For what I've been shooting with it, I've never seen the need for the 3.5 version, but YMMV.

    Personally, any time I use this lens, I'm using it at it's widest, so I actually wouldn't mind the Sigma 8-16 ultra-wide. I don't think anyone really uses the narrow end of a super/ultra-wide. Anyway, I have a Tamron 18-270 which handles that end better.

    A lot of people on the Sony forum on dpreview.com rave about the Tonika 11-16 F2.8 (also available for Canon & Nikon). It's supposed to be very sharp, and with a constant F2.8 available, great for low light.

    Shooting this wide can be great fun and a bit of a challenge - once you don't overdo it, or try to take portraits of your wife: they don't appreciate the distortion ;-)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    I have the older Sigma 10-20 and get a lot of use from it. It's just so versatile and very handy for landscapes as well as shooting indoors. It keeps the distortions to a minimum (when I want them I move to the Fisheye)

    This is all on a 1.5 crop body.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭NakedDex


    I picked up a Sigma 15-30 a while ago, after getting tired of waiting for the Tokina 11-16 to become available with an F-Mount (apparently they can't make them quick enough...). I'm not entirely sure why I managed to go to an entirely different focal range instead of, say, the Sigma 10-20, but I'm loving the 15-30 regardless.
    I still do have a lingering craving for that 11-16, because it is a fantastic lens and impressed me every time I had the opportunity to use one, but I've found the Sigma to be a cracking lens too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 811 ✭✭✭Balfey1972


    Thanks for the advice guys, appreciate it.

    Keith I think the 12 to 24 might be the option as hopefully the full frame camera will be the next purchase.

    D.


Advertisement