December 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm #2500
Anybody use a superwide zoom on a crop sensor? I am thinking I want one in the future and am considering the Tokina 11-16, Canon 10-22 and Sigma 8-16. As usual there are a lot of technical, fanboi and general reviews of them all around the internets but I would like to hear what ya’ll have to say.December 2, 2011 at 4:35 pm #42886
I’ve got the Canon 10-22 on an EOS 30D. I’ve found that I don’t use it that much, but I’ve been fairly pleased with the shots I have taken with it. Anything in particular you want to know about it? I can post a couple of sample shots if that’d help.December 2, 2011 at 6:13 pm #42887
Thanks for the reply. I’m looking for something I can use for architecture, landscape and sometime indoors. I have been many times and will go back to the desert southwest, and with my current widest lens (Tamron 17-50) I really liked what I could do at the 17mm end. Occasionally I’ll be inside somewhere that I want to capture more of but can’t. I did some work inside an old stone building atrium and I just couldn’t get the framing I wanted to capture the spirit of the place. Great lighting, texture and so on. I had a sad. I even tried my Kenko 180 fisheye but it didn’t get me there.
Kind of a run on, hope I am communicating effectively.
Sample shots would be great. Why do you think it does not get much use in your kit?
Do you find the f3.5 to be a significant limitation? Hand hold or tripod?December 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm #42888sleepingParticipant
I used the Tokina 12-24mm quite a lot on DX. I preferred it over some of the wider options, because 24mm vs 16mm on the wide end meant I could carry that, plus a 35/1.8 and a tele zoom (50-135mm usually) and ditch a standard zoom altogether. I didn’t find 12mm on the wide end (or F4) particularly limiting, but YMMV….December 2, 2011 at 8:54 pm #42889
I used the Tokina 12-24mm quite a lot on DX. I preferred it over some of the wider options, because 24mm vs 16mm on the wide end meant I could carry that, plus a 35/1.8 and a tele zoom (50-135mm usually) and ditch a standard zoom altogether. I didn’t find 12mm on the wide end (or F4) particularly limiting, but YMMV….
Since I have zero experience with this range of FLs I am leaning towards less is better, and the 12 seems like it might be too high. I just don’t know. I am happy with the 17-50 I have so my thinking is something that dives deep (11mm or less on the wide end).
On an unrelated note from your photos, I would also like to make it down to the Hamilton pool someday, heard and seen some stuff about it only.December 2, 2011 at 9:00 pm #42890orionidParticipant
It’s not a zoom, but if it’s wide you want, these sell used for about $36,000. I’ve heard that if you connect it to full-frame, it actually warps the space-time continuum.
/Edited because I missed a VERY significant digit (the 3).December 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm #42891
It’s not a zoom, but if it’s wide you want, these sell used for about $6000. I’ve heard that if you connect it to full-frame, it actually warps the space-time continuum.
That thing has the diameter of my Celestron SCT.
I’d buy it but I can’t find a place that will sell me a UV filter for the front of it.December 2, 2011 at 11:11 pm #42885
Why do you think it does not get much use in your kit?
It doesn’t get used much mostly due to lazyness and bad timing. Lazyness because oftentimes I don’t feel like hauling the whole backpack around, so I just take my camera and walkaround lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. Bad timing ensues from that because many times while out I find that I wished I had it with me.
Do you find the f3.5 to be a significant limitation? Hand hold or tripod?
I haven’t found the f/3.5 or even 4.5 on the narrower end to be a problem, but I haven’t taken any indoor shots with it either. I’ve used it both handheld and with tripod, but only outdoors. Since it doesn’t have IS, I could see wishing for a wider aperature if I tried to use it in ambient light indoors.
Sample shots would be great.
Here’s a series of late evening shots on tripod at Steamboat:
- ISO125, f/9, 6s, 24mm (This is the 24-70mm for comparison)
- ISO125, f/9, 8s, 16mm
- ISO125, f/9, 8s, 10mm
I had the 16mm version printed at 24×30 and I’m pretty pleased with it.
Here’s a series outdoors in sunlight at an airshow. These are all straight out of the camera:
The first two show the full zoom range of the lens. The last one shows why it’s a pretty handy lens in places like this (hard to get the whole plane in one shot otherwise).December 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm #42892
Just got this in my inbox from B&H: Wide and Extreme Wide-Angle Lens Roundup. Doesn’t cover specifics much, but it does at least let you know what your choices are.December 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm #42893sleepingParticipant
Hmm, that list is actually missing a bunch of options (Tokina 11-16mm and 16-24mm, Rokinon 14mm, zeiss 18 and 21mm all spring to mind) and has some mistakes (sigma 17-70 isn’t full frame)December 5, 2011 at 9:07 pm #42894
I’m kind of leaning towards Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. It seems to be somewhat comparable to the 10-22 Canon (no flame war intended) but for about $300 less (new or used $). I only have one piece of L glass and I love it (70-200 f4) but alas I have been characterized as “cheap” (I prefer smart with money).
I am still throwing around the idea of the Sigma 8-16, but have trouble giving $200 for that extra 13 degree FOV.
All that said, I am still early in the decision process and I tend to follow a sinusoidal decay curve during deliberations such as this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.