Super Wide Angle Zooms

[KevinBarrett]

I just read through SLRGear.com's review of the Sony 11-18/4.5-5.6 DT and wondered what the real world results were for this lens and its competitors. I am, as always, over-analyzing future lens purchases: considerations are the Tamron/Sony 11-18 as well as the Sigma 10-20 (which has a constant-aperture replacement on the way). DK's review of the Tamron 10-24 strengthens the idea that one really only needs the short end of the zoom range, and that the long end can only compromise the whole design.

Anybody with a super wide angle zoom (or prime, for that matter) have any input or suggestions?

[David Kilpatrick]

I have used all the main independent offerings - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina - including the 14mm f/2.8 Tamron, 12-24mm Sigma. The best current allround lens is the Tokina, not made in Sony mount. The least consistent for top quality corner to corner work is the new Tamron. At the moment, the Sigma is the lowest in cost and may even have HSM very soon.

But - Tamron, KM and Sony 11-18mm have the best out of the box geometry, combined with best flare resistance (not the best CA control, Sigma's 10-20mm is slightly cleaner). And they are all commonly found s/h for around 60% of new, the Sony pops up clearance or promotional sales.

My choice would be the Sigma 12-24mm as it's superb on APS-C, and unmatched on full frame. That is what I currently use.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

If more makers would wake up and do a Pentax, we could have a better solution. 4/15DA. Perfect, it's tiny, and just what one needs to complement their zooms that might be like a 28-75 or something where you just need some fast wide. A 4/12DT could be nice too. Something that goes with a 16-something zoom.

I have yet to buy a UWAZ simply because I haven't been thrilled by the options. In the end, I don't need a zoom, I don't need it overlapping the main zoom I have or even getting close to it. It doesn't need to be a zoom. If you are going for a wide, you typically just need the widest thing you can get, you can always crop back some.

I'm really surprised Sigma or Tokina haven't targeted this with a couple tiny primes in the sub 20 range. Of course with Sigma, a 4/15 APS would be huge with a 82mm thread anyways

[peterottaway]

I have a Voigtlander R3a with the 15mm/4.5 lens which I haven't been using much since I went digital but can't bring myself to part with. So something like an APS-C 12 or 15mm or a nice and small 18mm on FF ie something the size of a 50 or 85/1.8 rather than the Bismark class 16-35 or 24-70.

For me they wouldn't need to be fast, just something to be able to put into a pocket when not being used.

[caporip]

I would echo David's comments on the Sigma 12-24mm. If you are thinking full frame at some stage it is the way to go..........

[Daved]

I too am looking for an UWA lens. I was almost settled to get the sigma 10-20, but now with the new sigma 10-20 F3.5 being announced, I guess I will wait... I am also considering the 12-24...
So I am interested in this topic...

[KevinBarrett]

I would get a prime in the 10-14mm range if one were available. However, the Tamron 14mm lens doesn't seem to get good reviews and I want something really stellar if I'm going to drop $800+ dollars on it.

I would have gone for the Sigma 10-20 until I heard about the Tamron 10-24...I decided to wait and see. Now I'm waiting to see the new Sigma 10-20. With a constant aperture and HSM, it could be a real treat, and they should only improve on the old lens...hopefully.

I hadn't considered the Sigma 12-24 yet...I think I'll look into that, though I'd prefer something wider like the APS-C options.

[Birma]

I am also struggling ( ) with the UWAZ decision. I was just about fixed on the Tamron or Sony 11-18 and now this thread has de-railed me again. Is it just me, or has the Tamron 11-18 become less available recently? UK stores seem to not be listing it, or showing it as "out of stock". It hasn't been replaced by the 10-24 has it?

I am tempted to go for the Sigma 12-24 as one day (perhaps a long time in the future) I would like a FF DSLR, but it is seems to be £100+ more than the Sony 11-18 at the moment. And then DK and caporip says it's "superb" and the "way to go". In addition I learn there is a new Sigma coming. Ooooh - tricky decisions. Sometimes the "restrcited lens line up" for Sony is commented on in reviews as a bad thing. Currently, I'm not sure I could cope with any more choice .

[KevinBarrett]

Sorry for spreading that bug to you, Birma. This is one instance in which APS-C primes would make a whole lot of sense. Imagine having a 10 or 14mm non-fish-eye prime especially suited (read, "compact and affordable") to an a350 or a700? Sonys would sell like hotcakes with such a prime around $300-400. Think it could be done? It woudn't even have to be particularly fast, just have good geometry and share reasonable-sized filters with the rest of a kit.

[Birma]

Aaaargh - now I have to worry about ultra wide primes as well - thanks Kevin!

I suspect that I rarely zoom-in my Tamron 17-50/2.8 from the 17 position when shooting landscapes, so thinking about it, a cheap UWP ( ) would suit me as well. I'd pony up for an APS-C 11mm - I'm not too fussy.

[KevinBarrett]

If only we had to worry about ultra-wide primes! I'd probably have one each of 10 and 16mm. Hear that, Sony? I'd buy TWO primes instead of ONE crummy zoom!

[Yagil Henkin]

It's not a Zeiss, but it's very good indeed, if you don't use it for architecture. Here's an example I've took on a backpacking trip last week, A700@ ISO 100, 16 minutes@ F/10, on a Gorillapod SLRZoom mini tripod. I think even at this size one could see some of the strengths and limitations of the lens - it does a good job with color and contrast (even wide open it's not bad) but the distortions are, well, quite strong. Very nice for landscapes or people shots (yes, yes, I use it alot in street photography or concert photography. Gives very good results, as long as you don't try using it as a portrait lens!), but its not good for architecture.

[KevinBarrett]

Love the wheeling stars and dynamic atmosphere in that shot, Yagil! I just ordered a remote cord for my kit, so maybe I'll be able to do something similar with my ultra-wide Tamron 17-50. Thank you for your input, by the way. I think I may go with the Sigma 10-20, but many of us are waiting to see what the new version has to offer.

[Yagil Henkin]

My problem with the new Sigma is that it would be probably much heavier than the current one. As a backpacking enthusiasit, I try to keep my kit as light as possible. I'm usually carrying my A700 with two lenses - the sigma and a Zeiss 16-80, which I'm thinking of replacing by a 18-250 for light-and-fast hikes (but I'd keep the Zeiss anyway - it's my favorite lens). Currently, my kit weighs around 2 kgs - including a spare battery, couple of filters, a strap and mini-tripod. If it would be possible, I'd love to carry less - my fellow backpackers already think I'm crazy, carrying that much equipment. So the new sigma may be a great lens, but I guess it's weight would be a deal-braker for me.

[bakubo]

My problem with the new Sigma is that it would be probably much heavier than the current one.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm in Canon mount and the Sony 11-18mm. The Sigma is a lot heavier. When it came time to buy an UWA zoom for my A700 I decided to go for the Sony 11-18mm to save weight for when I backpack travel.