Going wide angle - but which one?

[Overread]

Ok so its time to start thinking of going wide with things and getting into wide angle work! I was originally going to get a sigma 10-20mm f3.5 (its price over the f4-5.6 is not much higher so I'd rather go for the option of constant aperture optics).

Reviews I've read (in addition to the below) have always stated that the sigma 10-20mm retains a high level of optical quality whilst also being slightly cheaper than the canon and other market options.
Juza Nature Photography


However sigma have released a new 8-16 f4-5.6 lens that looks somewhat interesting for getting into ultra wide stuff without going fisheye. I've heard and read less about this newer, and higher priced lens though it appears to get some very good reports:
Juza Nature Photography

Especially with edge sharpness and quality.

At the moment I only have my 18-55mm kit lens (that I generally don't like using) so the ultra wides will offer me something more than I can currently do. I also plan on having a 24-105mm in my setup so, unless I get totally addicted to wide angle, that means a difference of either 20-24mm or 18-24mm depending on which option I go for (unless of course someone suggests another wide angle lens option).

So what are peoples thoughts here about these wide angle lenses?
Also - if anyone has used any of them with extension tubes I would be greatly interested to hear the results.

 

[Lipoly]

No personal experience, but for more reference:

Canon:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Retest @ 15MP / Review

Sigma:
Sigma EX 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM - Review / Test Report

They both sound like great lenses.

One thing that doesn't make sense w/this review is if the Sigma was rated at same star level (whats in a star?), and even better in build quality, how could it get 1/2 star less in price/performance? Oh well...maybe just a review oversight.

 

[j-digg]

Youll be using mostly for landscape work Im sure? The Tokina 11-16 is another option that I have been wanting for awhile but mainly for concerts etc so you may not need the 2.8, unfortunately its not readily available for Canon, and if you want it now youll end up paying for it....

Have you compared the MFD on the lenses youve listed? That can have a pretty major impact ( that people tend to forget about/overlook) on UWA landscape shots for close foreground elements. Other than that things to consider and compare are distortion and flare resistance. I didnt check the links , so Im not sure they compare these criterion there.

 

[chammer]

Sigma's 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 seems to get decent reviews and suggestions from others...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-12-24mm-4-5-5-6-Aspherical-Cameras/dp/B0001VQ11U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278026640&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras:…[/ame]


It's by no means cheap, but it does work on full frame bodies as well (if that's something you need to think about in the future).

 

[Overread]

j-digg thanks for the point on minimum focusing distances, its something that I didn't think to consider. Checking out the sigma's alone they appear to range between 22cm (8-16mm) and 28cm (12-24mm) so not too different landscape wise I suspect.

The fullframe point is decent as well, though whilst I do keep my gear fullframe compatible I suspect that my largest will be 1.3crop (canon 1DMIV!) type rather than full fullframe. If I do get a serious landscape bug chances are fullframe might get a look in but then I suspect I will end up looking at different glass and possibly even primes. For now I consider the ultrawideangle to be fine to slip into being a crop sensor only lens (my next camera body will likley be a 7D or whatever is the upgrade to the 7D)

 

[kundalini]

Going wide angle - but which one?

Nikkor 14-24mm...... oh wait........ sorry dude, you shoot Canon.

<slowly backs out of room while still facing the angry mob>


peace, brother.....

 

[Fedaykin]

The Tokina 11-16 is highly regarded...

 

[Overread]

It appears I somewhat underestimated the no filter aspect of the 8-16mm - I assumed that it mean no screwthread filters but that filter holders would fit - however it appears that even filter holder setups won't attach to the lens

Filters for lenses that can&#8217;t take filters&#8230; | gear.benjacobsenphoto.com

Unless one gets a little bit creative with the mounting!

Going wide angle - but which one?

Nikkor 14-24mm...... oh wait........ sorry dude, you shoot Canon.

<slowly backs out of room while still facing the angry mob>
peace, brother.....

*lights is burning torch and fetches his mob pitchfork!*

The Tokina 11-16 is highly regarded...

Aye I've been reading about this lens, sounds like a popular choice indeed.

 

[Arch]

The Sigma 10-20 really does perform well for me... its keeps great detail and i don't often have a problem with vignetting.
The 8-16 does look good though... a tempting alternative.

 

[bazpaul]

hey guys!!

Funnily enough i'm in the exact same position at the OP....i have the kit lens and wanna go wide angle and was considering the same lenses. I really cant make my mind up though 10-20mm or 12-24mm .....is there any major difference. I would like to shoot a lot of landscapes.....do you think that i would then need the 10mm .....rather than needing the last 4mm in the 12-24mm.

Even on the street and with friends i would alwaya shoot at 18mm...so i dont think i need much more than 24mm.

Finally, an important question....i read somewhere that at their maximum (20mm for the 10-20mm) focal length and at the minimum (10mm) every lens will not be a sharp and will not produce as good results as using it an an intermediary focal length.....is this true???

Are shots at all focal lengths on this lens gonna be identically sharp??? i only ask because on my 18-55mm kit lens (piece of crap i know) i only get mediocre results at 18mm

any help is greatly appreciated!!

 

[Fedaykin]

hey guys!!

Funnily enough i'm in the exact same position at the OP....i have the kit lens and wanna go wide angle and was considering the same lenses. I really cant make my mind up though 10-20mm or 12-24mm .....is there any major difference. I would like to shoot a lot of landscapes.....do you think that i would then need the 10mm .....rather than needing the last 4mm in the 12-24mm.

Even on the street and with friends i would alwaya shoot at 18mm...so i dont think i need much more than 24mm.

Finally, an important question....i read somewhere that at their maximum (20mm for the 10-20mm) focal length and at the minimum (10mm) every lens will not be a sharp and will not produce as good results as using it an an intermediary focal length.....is this true???

Are shots at all focal lengths on this lens gonna be identically sharp??? i only ask because on my 18-55mm kit lens (piece of crap i know) i only get mediocre results at 18mm

any help is greatly appreciated!!

With most zoom lenses yes the wide and long ends tend to be a tad less sharp than intermediary focal lengths, but this varies between models.

I'm assuming you mean the Sigma 10-20 and 12-24 right? Here's a comparison between the two: Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Lens - Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results