Wide Angle Lens

[SkyStrike]

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:

That's what I read too....

But for many of us (if not many, then ME only...), most photos are web viewing (the largest I can think of suitable for web is 1920 long edge) only... and I believe that the soft corners can't be seen after PP...

Hahah actually no lah. Just that maybe the labeling makes one expect more of it thats all. In fact there are a few shots in Landscape Photographer of the Year made with17-40

Probably the only -ve thing I heard about 17-40 when pitted against 10-22 is the distortion. 10-22 have lesser distortion than the 17-40. I think it should be easily corrected using the Lens correction profile adjustment...

but recently feeling that 10mm on crop not enough :bsmilie: maybe getting the 12-24 in the end

*that said, I still love my 10-22...*

 

[brapodam]

That's what I read too....

But for many of us (if not many, then ME only...), most photos are web viewing (the largest I can think of suitable for web is 1920 long edge) only... and I believe that the soft corners can't be seen after PP...



Probably the only -ve thing I heard about 17-40 when pitted against 10-22 is the distortion. 10-22 have lesser distortion than the 17-40. I think it should be easily corrected using the Lens correction profile adjustment...

but recently feeling that 10mm on crop not enough :bsmilie: maybe getting the 12-24 in the end

*that said, I still love my 10-22...*

Wah not many lenses go wider than 16mm (35mm equiv.) leh...On crop, only Sigma 8-16, or 8mm FE and then de-fish. On FF I suppose you can go with the Sigma 12-24, or wait for the most probably extremely expensive Canon 14-24 f2.8

 

[nitewalk]

Wah not many lenses go wider than 16mm (35mm equiv.) leh...On crop, only Sigma 8-16, or 8mm FE and then de-fish. On FF I suppose you can go with the Sigma 12-24, or wait for the most probably extremely expensive Canon 14-24 f2.8

Sigma 10-20 on pentax system! :bsmilie: i think choice of uwa for me one big part is the focal length. Thats why i got the sigma instead of the pentax one which starts at 12mm

 

[SkyStrike]

Wah not many lenses go wider than 16mm (35mm equiv.) leh...On crop, only Sigma 8-16, or 8mm FE and then de-fish. On FF I suppose you can go with the Sigma 12-24, or wait for the most probably extremely expensive Canon 14-24 f2.8

I have no need for the f2.8... also, at the same time, I don't want to lose the ability to use my ND110... I may just stick to 17-40. Not very healthy to keep on thinking of wider wider wider....else hole in the pocket really open wider and wider :bsmilie:

Sigma 10-20 on pentax system! :bsmilie: i think choice of uwa for me one big part is the focal length. Thats why i got the sigma instead of the pentax one which starts at 12mm

I may end up using my existing 10-22 with crop when I go shoot landscapes... my plan for FF is actually meant for shooting those low light event stuffs.... but eventually maybe will be used for landscapes..

 

[tecnica]

i have to admit that the 10-22 has way better distortion control than my 16-35L II.

this is the one thing i really missed when i had my 7D.

but oh well, gotta give and take.

can't have the cake and eat it, can we?

 

[SkyStrike]

hmm.... Doesn't lens correction handle that during PP?

 

[tecnica]

hmm.... Doesn't lens correction handle that during PP?

to a certain extent yes.

the 10-22 with correction is like perfect to me, the lines are nice and straight.

but for the 16-35L, there is still some sort of curvy-ness left, especially in the mid frame.

sometimes i had to manually correct it if it comes out too obvious. but most of the time, i just lessen my nitpicking and turn a blind eye to it.

 

[Snoweagle]

Some people would say 10-22 is a hidden L, i think 17-40 is a hidden non-L. Lol.

I was a 17-40 user before switching to Sigma's 12-24. The 17-40 is a very nice lens with gd colours and sharpness, but not so gd distortion control. The 12-24 on the other hand, is well-known for excellent distortion control but sharpness and colour is just a tad less than the 17-40, but can be corrected in-camera.

So the 17-40 is still a gd L with all the L characteristics.

 

[raydio]

I was a 17-40 user before switching to Sigma's 12-24. The 17-40 is a very nice lens with gd colours and sharpness, but not so gd distortion control. The 12-24 on the other hand, is well-known for excellent distortion control but sharpness and colour is just a tad less than the 17-40, but can be corrected in-camera.

So the 17-40 is still a gd L with all the L characteristics.

I have both and agree with your assessment. Colours on the 17-40 appear a bit better than the Sigma 12-24. But the Sigma is just soooooooo muuuucccchhhhh wwwwwwidddderrrr!!!!

There's a humungus difference between 12mm and 17mm. This really helps for very tight interior shots and close-up architectural photographs.

 

[SkyStrike]

to a certain extent yes.

the 10-22 with correction is like perfect to me, the lines are nice and straight.

but for the 16-35L, there is still some sort of curvy-ness left, especially in the mid frame.

sometimes i had to manually correct it if it comes out too obvious. but most of the time, i just lessen my nitpicking and turn a blind eye to it.

Thanks for the clarification... no wonder I never see issues with the lens profile correction with my only UWA (10-22) :bsmilie:

I was a 17-40 user before switching to Sigma's 12-24. The 17-40 is a very nice lens with gd colours and sharpness, but not so gd distortion control. The 12-24 on the other hand, is well-known for excellent distortion control but sharpness and colour is just a tad less than the 17-40, but can be corrected in-camera.

So the 17-40 is still a gd L with all the L characteristics.

I really like Canon's color over Sigma's... But I constantly find it a pain to correct it... (I think is due to my amateurish PP skills :sweat

I have both and agree with your assessment. Colours on the 17-40 appear a bit better than the Sigma 12-24. But the Sigma is just soooooooo muuuucccchhhhh wwwwwwidddderrrr!!!!

There's a humungus difference between 12mm and 17mm. This really helps for very tight interior shots and close-up architectural photographs.

Actually, for many cases when shooting landscapes locally, I feel that 16mm is actually more than enough for most cases (at least for me).. Only a couple of instances it just isn't wide enough especially like you mentioned, tight interior shots or space constraints.

 

[tecnica]

10-22 is really a gem, a must have if you like shooting ultra-wide on crop.

besides distortion control, the CA is very minimal, usually at the edge of the frame only.

flare resistance is also very good, i had no issues with having the sun in the frame.

 

[Snoweagle]

I have both and agree with your assessment. Colours on the 17-40 appear a bit better than the Sigma 12-24. But the Sigma is just soooooooo muuuucccchhhhh wwwwwwidddderrrr!!!!

There's a humungus difference between 12mm and 17mm. This really helps for very tight interior shots and close-up architectural photographs.

Yes and that's the main point of myself getting the 12-24, because of it wideness at 12mm! :lovegrin:

 

[Snoweagle]

I really like Canon's color over Sigma's... But I constantly find it a pain to correct it... (I think is due to my amateurish PP skills :sweat

No issues on that. In my 5D's user defs, i just custom set it to be a bit sharper and more saturated in colours so whenever i've to shoot with the 12-24, i just use this custom setting.

 

[raydio]

No issues on that. In my 5D's user defs, i just custom set it to be a bit sharper and more saturated in colours so whenever i've to shoot with the 12-24, i just use this custom setting.

Good point.

 

[bluewhale67]

Does anyone knows of a better shop that sell sigma 10-22 f3.5 or tokina 11-16. What's the latest price for these 2 model?

 

[nitewalk]

Does anyone knows of a better shop that sell sigma 10-22 f3.5 or tokina 11-16. What's the latest price for these 2 model?

Sigma has no 10-22. And u can get a list of shops and the contacts from price list section. Call them up.

 

[bluewhale67]

sorry it's 10-20mm thanks

 

[nitewalk]

sorry it's 10-20mm thanks

You might want to do a bit of research on the sigma 10-20 before committing your money. I've heard from some who says f4 is better. But i've not actually read up more. I just bought the cheaper one as i figure i won't need 3.5 and neither would there be such a significant difference that i can tell them apart. :bsmilie:

 

[bluewhale67]

You might want to do a bit of research on the sigma 10-20 before committing your money. I've heard from some who says f4 is better. But i've not actually read up more. I just bought the cheaper one as i figure i won't need 3.5 and neither would there be such a significant difference that i can tell them apart. :bsmilie:

I'm actually considering the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $630 or Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 $730. Still checking out.

 

[Snoweagle]

Good point.

So it's customised picture style for my 12-24.