when a lens has maximum aperture of whatever value, does not imply you die die must shoot at whatever aperture.
Wide Angle Lens
- Thread starter bluewhale67
- Start date
- Status
edutilos-
Senior Member
So landscape lenses should all be F/8?
I think nothing wrong to want to have that option even if you hardly use it. Plus, don't forget that a large aperture means a brighter image in the VF when composing.
Fudgecakes
Senior Member
digitalphoto said:
Tokens 11-16 is also f2.8, FYI. I use it for many applications like shooting indoors, large groups of people etc
Fudgecakes
Senior Member
Thoth said:
I meant tokina!!! Autocorrect fail hahaha
nitewalk
Senior Member
Some use it to shoot models. Makes certain things look larger though. :bsmilie:
azurebluee
Senior Member
Due to budget issues, I started with the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. Solid built (heavy) and good finishing. Its good enough by my own standards then. I have started a thread in the other brands discussion thread about this lens. Some good samples of other users of this lens is available for reference. http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/sigm...igma-10-20mm-f4-5-6-ex-dc-hsm-user-group.html. Worth every penny for what you pay for. Its a good lens.
To get a good copy, do remember to test for front and back focus issues if any.
Now im using the Canon 10-22mm. Is there a difference in image quality? Probably a tad sharper with the same settings. Is it worth that extra money? Yes. The only complain I have about the canon copy is its built plastic-kly and is much lighter.
Both sigma and canon will have distortions once you point the lens upwards. Depending on the severity of the angle, it can be reduced or eliminated in photoshop. For some cases like architecture, the distortion gives a different perspective to the picture.
To get a good copy, do remember to test for front and back focus issues if any.
Now im using the Canon 10-22mm. Is there a difference in image quality? Probably a tad sharper with the same settings. Is it worth that extra money? Yes. The only complain I have about the canon copy is its built plastic-kly and is much lighter.
Both sigma and canon will have distortions once you point the lens upwards. Depending on the severity of the angle, it can be reduced or eliminated in photoshop. For some cases like architecture, the distortion gives a different perspective to the picture.
Last edited:
Actually, I quite like the light weighted UWA... can use whole day also not tired :bsmilie: Not only this, the 10-22 is also quite flare resistant even when you "caught" the sun in the frame.
Halfmoon
Senior Member
10-22 is a good lens.... a hidden L I would say...
nitewalk
Senior Member
You try and tell me about it. :bsmilie: i only shoot non-living things with my UWA. lol
Didn't have much of an issue with the front/back focusing. I'm on MF all the time using 10-20.
This lens is now the only reason why I'm indecisive about getting a FF...
FF got 16-35 mah. Same thing, more expensive :bsmilie:
azurebluee
Senior Member
The 10-22 can fit a FF. Theres a thread about removing the EFS baffle and replace with the EF version. No vignetting from 16mm onwards apparently. But will not be able to shoot at 10mm as the mirror will hit the rear of the lens...something like this.
I have yet to try this out as I do not have a FF body.
I think I may just settle down for 17-40..
Saw that thread before... But I'm not that daring to try it...
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
nitewalk said:
Haha! Totally agree!
edutilos-
Senior Member
Is it that bad? I thought the performance was not that far off from 16-35 f/2.8. Both lenses are softer at the corners. Not that I intend to switch to Canon anytime soon. :bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
