Need help on UWA

[yfyfyf]

I want to buy a UWA for my landscape shots as 90% of my shots are landscape. I had a few models in mind but i would like to hear some of your reviews/experience on these following lens.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
Sigma 10-20 f3.5

I had these 3 in mind so can anyone help me more with it ? The difference between the 2 sigma models is that one has a constant aperture while the other do not. But for landscape, i do not need the f3.5 and i know that this model uses a 82mm filter which make it hard for me to get nd filters for it.

Any recommendations ? Thank You

 

[brapodam]

I want to buy a UWA for my landscape shots as 90% of my shots are landscape. I had a few models in mind but i would like to hear some of your reviews/experience on these follow lens.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
Sigma 10-20 f3.5

I had these 3 in mind so can anyone help me more with it ? The difference between the 2 sigma models is that one has a constant aperture while the other do not. But for landscape, i do not need the f3.5 and i know that this model uses a 82mm filter which make it hard for me to get nd filters for it.

Any recommendations ? Thank You

The Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 received good reviews, the f3.5 version I'm not so sure. But for landscapes, you don't need fast apertures. You can also consider the Tokina 12-24, which is cheaper than the Tokina 11-16, if you don't need that wide.

 

[yfyfyf]

The Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 received good reviews, the f3.5 version I'm not so sure. But for landscapes, you don't need fast apertures. You can also consider the Tokina 12-24, which is cheaper than the Tokina 11-16, if you don't need that wide.

Thanks for your advice, i think i go for the sigma for its focal length and that its wider

 

[shelomoh]

My advise is... to check out if you really need that wider 1mm?!?!

Tokina 11-16 is sharper and a faster lens (the speed is useful in some situations outside of landscape). And I only shoot 13-16mm with that lens because at 11-13, there are distortions that spoils the image. I personally feel 16mm on DX is usually wide enough.

So do check out how is the distortion like on the 10-20 first.

 

[yfyfyf]

My advise is... to check out if you really need that wider 1mm?!?!

Tokina 11-16 is sharper and a faster lens (the speed is useful in some situations outside of landscape). And I only shoot 13-16mm with that lens because at 11-13, there are distortions that spoils the image. I personally feel 16mm on DX is usually wide enough.

So do check out how is the distortion like on the 10-20 first.

icic, i think i will go down to the shops to have a look/try try at both

 

[Cowseye]

UWA can be use for non-landscape shots. But i would advise only consider Tokina if u want to do beyond landscape to make use of the F/2.8. The other UWAs are cheaper.. and wider.

 

[yfyfyf]

UWA can be use for non-landscape shots. But i would advise only consider Tokina if u want to do beyond landscape to make use of the F/2.8. The other UWAs are cheaper.. and wider.

I planning to get a walkabout tamron 17-50 too, that why the UWA will only be purely for landscape shots. So should i get the sigma as it's wider and i do not need the f2.8 fast aperture

 

[chiangkxv]

There are numerous discussion here on UWA. Do look them up... many have commented there, you will be flooded with information.

This may help you too: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

I am a user of Sigma 10-20 f4. IMO, its the most bang for buck UWA.

 

[kentwong81]

Do you know the DX kit lens 18-55 also can take nice landscape photos, especially if your photoshop skill is good? Just do a search in Flickr.com and you will be amazed.

 

[Cowseye]

It can do non-landscape shot that a 17-50mm cannot do. The purpose of a UWA is to exaggerate perspective. Like what others had said, you can take great landscape shot with the kit lens, but there are some landscape and non-landscape shot that a > 17mm above lens cannot do.

 

[shelomoh]

Do you know the DX kit lens 18-55 also can take nice landscape photos, especially if your photoshop skill is good? Just do a search in Flickr.com and you will be amazed.

There is a difference between 18 and 16. I had the 18-200 and 11-16. At 13-16 I get more in view and the perspective is totally different from the 18 on 18-200. Don't think Photoshop can add in elements. You can however, do a panorama and the crop but that's too much of work.

 

[brapodam]

There is a difference between 18 and 16. I had the 18-200 and 11-16. At 13-16 I get more in view and the perspective is totally different from the 18 on 18-200. Don't think Photoshop can add in elements. You can however, do a panorama and the crop but that's too much of work.

I think perspective distortion is what you should get UWAs for...if you need a wider field of view you can step back a few steps...of course sometimes you can't and that's where the UWA comes in, but the kind of perspective the UWA gives you cannot be replicated with a normal wide angle.

 

[yfyfyf]

There are numerous discussion here on UWA. Do look them up... many have commented there, you will be flooded with information.

This may help you too: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

I am a user of Sigma 10-20 f4. IMO, its the most bang for buck UWA.

yea i read this up before to get my conclusion of either the sigma or tokina. this is really a helpful website :thumbsup:

Do you know the DX kit lens 18-55 also can take nice landscape photos, especially if your photoshop skill is good? Just do a search in Flickr.com and you will be amazed.

yes i saw before but i prefer minimal photoshop so not for me i guess

It can do non-landscape shot that a 17-50mm cannot do. The purpose of a UWA is to exaggerate perspective. Like what others had said, you can take great landscape shot with the kit lens, but there are some landscape and non-landscape shot that a > 17mm above lens cannot do.

yes i agree, previously i use the kit lens 18-105 for my landscape, it does not give me the "wide" which i wanted that why i wanted to invest in UWA

There is a difference between 18 and 16. I had the 18-200 and 11-16. At 13-16 I get more in view and the perspective is totally different from the 18 on 18-200. Don't think Photoshop can add in elements. You can however, do a panorama and the crop but that's too much of work.

I still a newbie, dunno how to do panorama, hope to learn this in future

I think perspective distortion is what you should get UWAs for...if you need a wider field of view you can step back a few steps...of course sometimes you can't and that's where the UWA comes in, but the kind of perspective the UWA gives you cannot be replicated with a normal wide angle.

yes i agree, UWA is what i needed now for my landscapes

 

[mikeyjayy]

i think you should just bite the bullet and get the tokina 11-16. cos that was what i did. ha-ha.

and i find it extremely wide enough for me. and don't get me started on the sharpness.

true that you might not need the constant f/2.8 for your landscapes, but i think you'll start to appreciate it more when the sun goes down and you wanna try some creative environment potraits.. that's when i find the f/2.8 quite a savior.

 

[yfyfyf]

i think you should just bite the bullet and get the tokina 11-16. cos that was what i did. ha-ha.

and i find it extremely wide enough for me. and don't get me started on the sharpness.

true that you might not need the constant f/2.8 for your landscapes, but i think you'll start to appreciate it more when the sun goes down and you wanna try some creative environment potraits.. that's when i find the f/2.8 quite a savior.

Thanks for your advise

 

[daredevil123]

Do you know the DX kit lens 18-55 also can take nice landscape photos, especially if your photoshop skill is good? Just do a search in Flickr.com and you will be amazed.

Lens selection and Photoshop are 2 totally separate issues I think.

And you can take great landscape photos with any lens without Photoshop.

 

[PaulKami]

i think you should just bite the bullet and get the tokina 11-16. cos that was what i did. ha-ha.

and i find it extremely wide enough for me. and don't get me started on the sharpness.

true that you might not need the constant f/2.8 for your landscapes, but i think you'll start to appreciate it more when the sun goes down and you wanna try some creative environment potraits.. that's when i find the f/2.8 quite a savior.

1 question here regarding UWA,

Any comparison between the Tokina 11-16, Nikon's DX 10-24 F3.5-4.5, and Nikon's DX 12-24 F4?

 

[mikeyjayy]

For my case I bought the tokina 11-16 after hearing many good reviews from people who use it.. But the ultimatum was when I read kenrockwell's review.. Although his reviews sometime is a little far fetched, the evidence he provided when compared to the other UWAs you mentioned was rock solid. So maybe you can check that out.

Cheers!

 

[daredevil123]

1 question here regarding UWA,

Any comparison between the Tokina 11-16, Nikon's DX 10-24 F3.5-4.5, and Nikon's DX 12-24 F4?

Of the 3, I favor the Tokina. Personal choice of course.

 

[yfyfyf]

For my case I bought the tokina 11-16 after hearing many good reviews from people who use it.. But the ultimatum was when I read kenrockwell's review.. Although his reviews sometime is a little far fetched, the evidence he provided when compared to the other UWAs you mentioned was rock solid. So maybe you can check that out.

Cheers!

i read already, i also read about the good reviews people gave to it

Of the 3, I favor the Tokina. Personal choice of course.

i have try out both the sigma and tokina, for me now, i too prefer the tokina, will go and buy it over the weekend