Ultra-Wide help!

Sn00bies · Jul 4, 2009

I'm preparing for a photography major application next January and have the next 6 months to make 10 of my "best work" shots. I have a lot of ideas brainstormed, and many would require a wide angle I believe. Plus I love to shoot landscape a lot anyway. My current gear is on the long end since I also enjoy wildlife and incognito close-ups. I have the 50/1.8 and 55-200 VR. I sold my 18-55 non-VR with my D40X to upgrade to the D200 body for $600 (Thanks BestBuy I love you!). My main goal is to get a good ultra-wide. The two that I have considered thus far (and feel free to let me know of any others that are of comparable quality) are Tokina's 12-24/4 and 11-16/2.8. I'm a sharpness nut and I heard the 11-16 is extremely sharp, and if it's that much better than the 12-24 I may pick it up. I wouldn't mind getting something as wide as 10mm but I so far haven't seen any rave reviews of a 10mm-Xmm of the same price range. The other thing I'm taking into consideration is later getting a normal zoom somewhere in the 18-80 range to cover the gap.

So my question is, what are your thoughts on the currently available ultrawides? Is the 11-16 that much better than the 12-24? I realize the speed factor, which at the moment isn't a big deal doing landscapes, but if I do indoor wedding which I may in the future years I could utilize that. And what normal zoom would you put up against the 18-55VR? I've read good reviews on it since the addition of VR. Plus it's not costly at all. If I did go with the 11-16, the 18-55 would compliment it nicely, but if the 11-16 isn't worth the extra $200 then I could find something like 24-80+ish to pair with the 12-24. Thanks in advance for your experience and advice!

bigtwinky · Jul 4, 2009

I have heard great things about the Tokina 11-16. But personally, I don't find that a 5mm focal difference is enough. Might as well get a prime lens.

The constant 2.8 is good, but again, I find that I use my Canon 10-22 in situations where I normally have a tripod, so that 2.8 isn't a big thing.

I have heard great things about the Sigma ultra wides.

Sn00bies · Jul 4, 2009

I actually just found a comparison of the 11-16 to sigma's 10-20 at Tokina 11-16 vs Sigma 10-20 New Pics--LARGE!: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review and found the sigma to be much better color, and perhaps sharper? The testing images aren't very comprehensive so I can't tell much from them... does anyone have experience with sigma's 10-20? I like the idea of going to 10mm, but quality is of highest importance really.

JustAnEngineer · Jul 4, 2009

There's some funny business with the millimeters there. The angle of view is wider with the Tokina.

Would the 14mm f/2.8 prime lens interest you?

Sn00bies · Jul 5, 2009

JustAnEngineer said:
There's some funny business with the millimeters there. The angle of view is wider with the Tokina.

Would the 14mm f/2.8 prime lens interest you?

What exactly do you mean by funny business? I've read some sources saying the jump from 12 to 11 with the two tokinas (or even 10 on the sigma for that matter) is huge, but the other people say it's only 4-6 degrees in a picture that already has 100deg angle view so it's not that big of a deal. Also, I thought about getting a prime. I've so far loved the one and only prime I have, being the 50mm/1.8, but my only worry is not having zooming capability - which leads me to a question I've been wondering a while about. Say you have a 10mm prime, and take a picture like this :

For all intents and purposes, if you just moved up with your 10mm couldn't you get the same picture as shown in the 12mm crop? Or would the crop somehow be different since you're just moving forward still a 10mm focal length lens? As I understand, you could get the same pic as shown in the 12mm crop by just stepping forward with the 10mm lens. So the only point to having a zooming ultra-wide is if you don't have room to move forward/backward with a prime is that right? I'm probably trying to analyze this to much but that's just how my mind works. However, you almost always have room to move forward unless you're up against a fence, so if I got a super-wide prime like a 10mm, stepping back is irrelevant because even a zoom 10mm wouldn't help in that situation to zoom out wider... but I could 98% of the time step forward to get the effect of having a 10-20mm zoom but just having to move the camera forward... am I right or just confusing/confused?

icassell · Jul 5, 2009

I love my Sigma 10-20mm

fwellers · Jul 5, 2009

Sn00bies said:
JustAnEngineer said:

There's some funny business with the millimeters there. The angle of view is wider with the Tokina.

Would the 14mm f/2.8 prime lens interest you?

Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by funny business? I've read some sources saying the jump from 12 to 11 with the two tokinas (or even 10 on the sigma for that matter) is huge, but the other people say it's only 4-6 degrees in a picture that already has 100deg angle view so it's not that big of a deal. Also, I thought about getting a prime. I've so far loved the one and only prime I have, being the 50mm/1.8, but my only worry is not having zooming capability - which leads me to a question I've been wondering a while about. Say you have a 10mm prime, and take a picture like this :

For all intents and purposes, if you just moved up with your 10mm couldn't you get the same picture as shown in the 12mm crop? Or would the crop somehow be different since you're just moving forward still a 10mm focal length lens? As I understand, you could get the same pic as shown in the 12mm crop by just stepping forward with the 10mm lens. So the only point to having a zooming ultra-wide is if you don't have room to move forward/backward with a prime is that right? I'm probably trying to analyze this to much but that's just how my mind works. However, you almost always have room to move forward unless you're up against a fence, so if I got a super-wide prime like a 10mm, stepping back is irrelevant because even a zoom 10mm wouldn't help in that situation to zoom out wider... but I could 98% of the time step forward to get the effect of having a 10-20mm zoom but just having to move the camera forward... am I right or just confusing/confused?

I can't say that I fully understand it either. But what you are talking about is "foot zooming". You can get a wider field of view by moving back, and a narrower one by moving forward. The difference is that when you move, your perspective changes also.
When you have a zoom lens, you change your FOV without changing your perspective ( your position in relation to the subject ).

Sn00bies · Jul 5, 2009

fwellers said:
I can't say that I fully understand it either. But what you are talking about is "foot zooming". You can get a wider field of view by moving back, and a narrower one by moving forward. The difference is that when you move, your perspective changes also.
When you have a zoom lens, you change your FOV without changing your perspective ( your position in relation to the subject ).

Can you think of any extreme cases where this would be a bad thing with the change of perspective? In most cases I wouldn't think you'd be able to tell the difference between a 10mm foot-zoomed forward from point A to look like 12mm, and a 12mm at the actual point A. Like with this landscape example I posted last post for instance. I CAN, however, think of one example of a potential downfall in one of my main pictures for my major, where I'll be on one side of the sidewalk backed up against a building and my wife facing me on the other side on the curb, and I'll be trying to capture her still, with blurred pedestrian traffic passing by her, but if I have to walk up too far to her because I can't zoom from a distance, no one will be inclined to walk between the tripod and her.

I see this as an infrequent occurence though... but perhaps there'd be more issues with a wide prime than I realize.

I'd still be curious of people's first-hand opinions on the sigma 10-20 or the tokina 12-24. Like do you ever wish you had wider than 12mm with the tokina? or is the sigma at 10mm not as good as you would hope / built quality not great?

Icassell... what have you experienced with your sigma? I can see you love it, but what shortcomings have you found with it?

icassell · Jul 5, 2009

Sn00bies said:
Icassell... what have you experienced with your sigma? I can see you love it, but what shortcomings have you found with it?

Actually, I can't think of any. I guess the only thing I wish were different is that I would like to get a 5D MK II one of these days and the sigma is for a crop sensor camera (EF-S mount). It's built very well and focus is quick and right-on. Having a 10mm opens up all sorts of interesting ideas (I wish I had something even wider).

AlexColeman · Jul 5, 2009

Wider is addictive, both the 11-16 and 10-20 are good choices, I have heard better things about the tokina, but last I checked they are hard to find in stock. This might, might be a sign of an update. When I shot DX, I used an 11-16 at a meetup and loved it.

Sn00bies · Jul 5, 2009

Did you consider Tokina's 12-24 at all before you bought your sigma? If so, why did you choose the sigma? If not... what other ultra wides did look at before buying the sigma, and again what was your ultimate determining factor to get the sigma over any other?

icassell · Jul 5, 2009

I wanted 10mm so I only looked at the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma. The sigma was considerably less expensive and the quality seemed great. I just wish there was something even wider without going to fisheye.

AlexColeman · Jul 5, 2009

A Nikon 14-24? Oh wait..... :lol:

Montana · Jul 5, 2009

AlexColeman said:
I have heard better things about the tokina, but last I checked they are hard to find in stock. This might, might be a sign of an update.

I doubt it, the Tokina 11-16 is new.

JerryPH · Jul 6, 2009

Sn00bies said:
The testing images aren't very comprehensive so I can't tell much from them... does anyone have experience with sigma's 10-20? I like the idea of going to 10mm, but quality is of highest importance really.

Yes, I own it... and really like it.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/2264260296_9947caf27c_o.jpg

I also tried the Tokina 11-16.

The Sigma is very sharp, it gives a warm and contrasty feel. It has a very usable 10mm range, which though small, is very usable, especially in small rooms. Distortion is there, of course, but nothing that cannot be addressed in post quite easily. There is also a newer version out that is F/3.5 all the way through.

The Tokina is faster at F/2.8, but less contrasty, weaker colour saturation and has a duller feel. The 5mm range is truly next to useless, it seems to make even less of a difference than that 5mm appears it should give.

The Tokina is also more expensive and harder to find, but yeah, after playing with both, I would definitely get the Sigma over the Tokina in this case, any day of the week.