Price!
$200 difference... that would do it!
Availability, too, right?
Isn't the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 hard to get?
I have the Sigma 10-20mm f4 and it's plenty enough for me.
Price!
$200 difference... that would do it!
Availability, too, right?
Isn't the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 hard to get?
I have the Sigma 10-20mm f4 and it's plenty enough for me.
Actually, it's a f4-5.6, but who's counting ...
Actually, it's a f4-5.6, but who's counting ...
Sorry, yeah.
Whatever, it's enough for me and that's all I was saying.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: on the Sigma 10-20. I have one and love it.
The 18mm is fine for many circumstances, but I have found that with the smaller sensors that you may be wanting for a wider lens in a number of circumstances... a friend of mine go out and shoot together quite a bit and he gets really annoyed at what he can't accomplish on city skylines and whatnot, where I have no troubles at all.
BTW, this lens is also AMAZING when taking pictures of interiors of rooms and whatnot (which is the primary reason I purchased it)
Here's an example of a couple shots I took with mine... (these were both actually zoomed in a bit)
![]()
![]()
I am not sure since I have not tried any 2.8 before but 1-2mm difference, I would be able to still step back a few steps to take iti guess...
since we're still on topic ...
all of you wide-shooters .. which is more ideal for most situations?
1. have a wide lens + a fisheye lens
2. have a wide lens OR a fisheye lens
3. have only either a wide lens OR a fisheye lens
I am considering both, I am definitely between option 1 and 2 ... 90% of my wide takes will probably just regular wide lens, and only 10% or less of the time i might go nuts doing fisheye .. should I be getting one if its going to be only used so minimally? how do you just this consideration?
thank you