David Kilpatrick wrote:...There is always the still-current Sony 20mm f/2.8 though I think that jump from 24mm to 16-18mm is what most users want.
Cogito wrote:Sury, if you haven't made your mind up yet, why not check out the lenses on http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?chbLensType=3
The lens marks out of 5 are much of a muchness and most lenses have entries in the Dyxum sample images so you can judge for yourself......
Birma wrote:Hi Sury, I suggest the Sigma 12-24 (current or previous marks). This will work on your full-frame and aps-c bodies. The 12mm end is plenty wide enough to experience UWA. If you just want more room left and right then panos might still be the best option. The UWA is for me as much about near and far perspective; how things close to you, and far away from you, look.
Perhaps rent one for a trip?
Eiffel wrote:I bought a sigma 12-24 from DK a few years ago, but am not using it much as it is really a niche lens.
I do enjoy the odd panorama using stitching with Lightroom. It is a convenient substitute which doesn't add any weight!
bfitzgerald wrote:Depends what you intend to use it for. For full frame 24mm is pretty wide but stops short of ultra wide (which to me is below 24mm say 20mm and under). Once you get to fisheye lenses they are IMO very niche products. As there are some affordable UWA lenses around such as the 17-35mm granted not a high end lens but quite good for the price and a full frame one..not really any reason to not have one.
I started with the 19-35mm super budget it wasn't bad, moved to the 17-35mm which was an improvement. The 11-18mm Tokina is used for the APS-C cameras and that gets me in the ball park if not a touch wider than the 17mm on full frame. For interior shots the lens has paid for itself, landscape work is tricky it's not always a great lens for that unless you can fill the foreground with something to draw people in. When it does work it can be superb though just requires some skill to get the desired results. I find UWA lenses quite fun and I think it's important to have one. I use mine a fair bit though it's not high up the list for new users those who have most of the range covered well it's a must have I think. Now what you get is up to you the Zeiss stuff is I am sure superb, though very pricey.
sury wrote:my search to Sigma 12-24 and Minolta 17-35 (I think Barry suggested the same) and if I find the Tamron 19-35 I might pick one.
With best regards,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests