Wide angle lens

[Tesh]

Hey all,

hope you are all well...
Just would like your expert opinion on some lens.
From my reading on here there are a few Wide Angle lens worth looking at:

Tonkina 11-16 ~£450
Cannon 10-22 ~ £599
Sigma 10-20 ~ £400
Sigma 8-16 ~ £699

Any others?
Which of the above is a lens you use / recommend? I have a 500d and quite new to this but really getting into it!I tend to take travel shots so will be great to use one of the above...
My wife has kindly asked that i give her a Xmas list and i've been lookin at these a while (she said include wide angle lens!!!), i think shes in for a shock when see sees the price!!! lol

Of the above lens can you guys advice of key differences that as a novice i would see/ feel. Also is there a worth while difference between the 2 and 10 range?

Finally, taking the cost into account which one would you go for....

Thanks SO much in advance,

 

[Dao]

Take a look at this

Juza Nature Photography

 

[Tesh]

Thanks Dao
i take it you use the sigma?

Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a fixed 3.5
and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is variable

Sorry for such a basic question but is there any easy was to explain this f-stop

In practical terms - Wikipedia is good but some of the detail is beyond me!

 

[Tesh]

Thanks Dao
i take it you use the sigma?

Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a fixed 3.5
and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is variable

Sorry for such a basic question but is there any easy was to explain this f-stop

In practical terms - Wikipedia is good but some of the detail is beyond me!

I'm also reading on the net.. not just being lazy and asking here!
thanks!

 

[Dao]

Thanks Dao
i take it you use the sigma?

Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a fixed 3.5
and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 is variable

Sorry for such a basic question but is there any easy was to explain this f-stop

In practical terms - Wikipedia is good but some of the detail is beyond me!

Actually, I do not own any of the lens listed on that site. The widest lens I had is a 14mm f/2.8 prime lens from Tamron.

The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is newer than the f/4-5.6 version. The newer version has a constant max. aperture of f/3.5. In other words, the max. aperture of the lens is f/3.5 when focal length is set at 10mm, 20mm or anything in between. With the older version, max. aperture is f/4 when focal length is set at 10mm while 20mm will be f/5.6.

You can find some amazing photos from this site.

10-20mm.com



Note: Smaller the aperture number, wider the aperture. f/1.8 > f/2.8 (aperture size)

 

[Tesh]

Thanks Dao


10-20mm.com

some amazing photos there!!!!

 

[Tesh]

thanks all for comments!

im thinking sigma 10 - 20.... but i cant decide between the 2 f3.5 and the f4-5.6


as a novice not sure i would pick up i the minor points of difference between them all......

 

[Chamelion 6]

thanks all for comments!

im thinking sigma 10 - 20.... but i cant decide between the 2 f3.5 and the f4-5.6


as a novice not sure i would pick up i the minor points of difference between them all......

I have the Sigma 3.5 and I very highly recomend it. I personally think the constant apature alone worth the extra expense... but in addition the lens has been optically enhanced.

 

[djacobox372]

thanks all for comments!

im thinking sigma 10 - 20.... but i cant decide between the 2 f3.5 and the f4-5.6


as a novice not sure i would pick up i the minor points of difference between them all......

I don't think the 3.5 is worth the extra money.

Think of it this way, a larger aperture has two desired effects, both of which are pretty pointless on a ultra-wide:

1) narrows your dof; however, You're never going to be able to achieve a very narrow dof at ultra-wide angles, it's just impossible. At 10mm you'll have a near infinite dof even at f3.5.

2) allows for faster shutter speeds; however, at 10mm you can handhold shots at 1/10th of a second, making fast shutter speeds unnecessary unless you want to freeze action (skate-boarding photographers would benefit form a fast ultra-wide).

 

[Chamelion 6]

Except with a constant aperture lens, zooming in or out is not going to change your exposure. That's a consideration if your shooting on the move.

And the 3.5 has other improvements over the older lens. Both lenses are good, but when you take it all together, the 3.5 is worth the extra money if you can afford it and plan to use the lens much. I use min probably 70 to 80% of the time.

 

[Tesh]

thanks guys!

appreciate all your advice!

i'm feeling the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Jessops have it!
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...7913/show.html
at 469! i little bit more then i expected!

 

[nmsnapshots]

I bought the Sigma 8-16mm a few weeks ago and love it! It's a very fun lens to shoot with, images are nice and crisp. I have been very impressed with it's performance so far.

The only negative thing I noticed is that I have to pay extra close attention to not getting my shadow or shoes in the picture!

 

[Overread20]

thanks guys!

appreciate all your advice!

i'm feeling the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Jessops have it!
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...7913/show.html
at 469! i little bit more then i expected!

It's a poor price - check it against others:
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens from £372.53, UK Specialist Price Comparison Site, Camera Price Buster

heck you can get the f3.5 for less than that price:
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM Lens from £448.00, UK Specialist Price Comparison Site, Camera Price Buster