like a fox, or a loon?

[alphaPDX]

Either way I suspect I'm crazy.. but not certain of it.
I have an 18-250 Tamron, as everyone has noted it's a great lens and does almost everything well. What it doesn't do is go to 16mm. I recall my film days when I was perfectly satisfied with 28mm lenses.. until I bought a 24, and was amazed by how different photography became. Since I have a decent Minolta 70-210 (2nd-gen), I feel that I could give up 50mm on the top end for those two mm at the wide end. It's not for sure, but quite possible that in a month or so I will seek a swap for someone's 16-105 or a CZ1680 plus a bit of cash. Not clear on this just yet, but it sounds like something I would do. Anyway, I wonder how others felt when they went an extra step wider, either now or long ago.. I could use the company
I had a 17-35 for a while, even that was noticeably different from 18.. but 16 would be ideal (I think). I've contemplated other options, like 17-xx instead or even the 10-20 or 11-18 plus the 18-250.. but economically a swap would meet the need with the least harm. What are your thoughts?

[David Kilpatrick]

It depends entirely on your shooting style. I loaned an 11-18mm and 18-250mm to our daughter and her boyfriend for a US city/roadtrip/cruise (landed in NY, drove to Fort Lauderdale, met friend to join his wedding cruise party as guests... at their expense not his, of course!). They made extensive use of the 11-18mm, not too much of the 250 end. So, when I handed over two Alpha cameras in exchange for their Canon outfit, I let them have the 16-105mm and the first thing Ailsa did was check the 16mm end.

In contrast, Shirley has no interest in using the 16-80mm we still have, or the 16-105mm I just let go. She uses the longer end of the 18-250mm maybe 70 per cent of the time, and hardly ever uses the 11-18mm she still has. It's just the way she sees, and the subjects she likes - birds, insects (esp butterflies), flowers, people (faces), candids, sunsets, animals and zoo shots. She would really be better off with a 28-300mm if they were any good. I got the Sigma 400mm f5.6 oldie, to update for use, as a lens she is comfortable with in terms of weight and size. If there was a 200-400mm which was half the size of the big Tamron, she's have that.

And for me, I am very much into wide angle work, and now I have the 12-24mm Sigma on A900 even the 17-35mm is back in the cupboard. I've been using my cheap 16mm old Sigma fisheye a lot with Panotools correction, the A900 has plenty of pixels to make that work well.

David

[alphaPDX]

Yes, what one shoots dictates the correct gear. In fact I'm more a natural-light landscaper, so perhaps I should compromise on FL and take the Tamron 17-50. Sigma's 17-70 would close the gap and still catches a bit more light, but the constant f/2.8 (and useable by most accounts) is an interesting concept. Too bad Tokina's 16-50 isn't available to us, though I haven't heard the raves for that one like we do for the Tamron.

[Dusty]

Jim, about 20 years ago I bought a 20 or 21mm lens for my MD system. I loved it, as it was a lot wider than my 28, but not long afterward someone broke into my car and stole 2 bags full of gear. Luckily, I recovered most of it because the crook was an idiot, got drunk, and left most of it in the car of a guy who he hitched a ride with. The lens was gone, and I could never again find a really good deal on anything less than 28mm except when I had no money.

If you like wide angles, like I do, get one. If you can live without them, don't bother.

Dusty

[alphaPDX]

Yes, a fixed extra-wide is another option for my distress. A local store had a Tamron 14, so your 21 equivalent, for a good price. I'm deferring a final call until around tax-time in mid-April, so perhaps by then I'll be clearer on the best option. Yeah, like then I'll never want or need another lens, ever .

[KevinBarrett]

I have some of the same lenses as you and feel I should offer my opinion of the Tamron 17-50 since you've mentioned it. First, it isn't particularly well suited as a landscape zoom, in my opinion. The 17mm is no great improvement over 18mm, and it certainly isn't strongest there, getting about 0.04% CA on my copy. Still, it is usually very sharp across most of the range, focuses fast and accurately, and never lets me down from f/4.5 to f/11 anywhere. I've got very usable images when I accidentally left it on f/3.5 before.

The most useful thing I could tell you is this: It is best suited to weddings, and I'm still looking for a wider lens to do landscapes.

My kit: Tamron 17-50/2.8, Minolta 24/2.8, 50/1.7, 70-210/4, disused on the shelf is a Quantaray 28-90 (Sigma made), and a Sony 18-70.

[alphaPDX]

Thanks Kevin; guess I should hold out for 16mm or less. Perhaps yet another lens like that Tamron 14 is indeed the answer; if that's gone I can scrimp a while then pick up a Sigma 10-20 and never complain about wide-angle coverage again!