Help on buying lens with crop factor consideration...

[nathaniel]

by the way, widest (fisheye) lens for Canon FF is: EF 8-15mm/f4L (180 diagonal FOV). doesn't take front filters.

a more affordable option would be the sigma 8-16 (doesn't take front filters), or for those that take front filters, can consider: 10-22 and tokina 11-16/2.8. anything wider, you can do a panorama & stitch.

you can correct the distortions during PP with software, but you will lose part of the image.

 

[SkimMilk]

FOV, not DOF.

FOV = field of view, which refers to the angle of view.
DOF = Depth of Field, which refers to what is in focus.

Hahaha! I'm half asleep! Thanks for correcting me!

 

[melthazor]

I did a little research on the lens 8-16mm and 10-20mm by Sigma.

The 8-16mm (like one of you mentioned) has a large protruding lens which makes the lens unable to take filters. And the 10-20mm is slightly less protruded, allowing it to fit a filter on it.

I definitely want something where I can fit a filter on. So I decided to go with the 10-20mm. However, I learnt that there is a faster lens on the market @ f3.5 and a slower lens @ f4. Many say (read in forums) that they prefer the f4 lens compared to the f3.5, and that the f3.5 would be handy for people who take night shots. Which should I get?

Also, as I checked the pricelist on clubsnap for sigma lens, it shows about $200 +- more for the f3.5. I'm wondering if it's worth it?

Plus, why is the sigma lens on artworkfoto's site priced at $600+? Is there an older model of the 10-20mm f4 version? Because in the pricelist I saw, it's about 800+ and I have been personally quoted 1k plus at shops (not sure if they quoted the f3.5 ones at the shop).

 

[technoglitz87]

I did a little research on the lens 8-16mm and 10-20mm by Sigma.

The 8-16mm (like one of you mentioned) has a large protruding lens which makes the lens unable to take filters. And the 10-20mm is slightly less protruded, allowing it to fit a filter on it.

I definitely want something where I can fit a filter on. So I decided to go with the 10-20mm. However, I learnt that there is a faster lens on the market @ f3.5 and a slower lens @ f4. Many say (read in forums) that they prefer the f4 lens compared to the f3.5, and that the f3.5 would be handy for people who take night shots. Which should I get?

Also, as I checked the pricelist on clubsnap for sigma lens, it shows about $200 +- more for the f3.5. I'm wondering if it's worth it?

Plus, why is the sigma lens on artworkfoto's site priced at $600+? Is there an older model of the 10-20mm f4 version? Because in the pricelist I saw, it's about 800+ and I have been personally quoted 1k plus at shops (not sure if they quoted the f3.5 ones at the shop).

i believe the pricing is cheaper cause they are grey sets, with shop warranty by artworkfoto. and well, F3.5 and F4, u can't tell the difference and night shots with that kinda aperture won't make any difference in less than half a stops i'm sure..haha. two versions on it i'm not sure, gotta let the more experienced bros here guide u.. cheers.

 

[melthazor]

i believe the pricing is cheaper cause they are grey sets, with shop warranty by artworkfoto. and well, F3.5 and F4, u can't tell the difference and night shots with that kinda aperture won't make any difference in less than half a stops i'm sure..haha. two versions on it i'm not sure, gotta let the more experienced bros here guide u.. cheers.

I kinda figured too, 0.5f. Plus the f3.5 will fit a bigger filter than 77mm, which are harder to find and more expensive.

Thanks for letting me know that they are grey sets...

 

[natsora]

I owe a Sigma 10-20mm F3.5. I initially got it because of the wider aperture but after using it for a few months, I realized that I was always shooting at F8 and upwards. This is true even for night shots. Usually I want my landscape shots to look sharp so going down to F3.5 doesn't work for me.

I would advice you to get the 10-20mm F4-5.6, save some money.