Sigma 12-14mm &A900 at reculver

[David Kilpatrick]

You'll notice that I said at f/8 - and it absolutely needs this. In fact the Sigma benefits from being at f11 if possible. My sample is very sharp across the frame at 12mm, the left hand side goes nadly unsharp around 16mm, and overall it's not wonderful at 24mm (assuming full aperture). At 16mm, f/8 is needed to fix the left hand unsharpness.

The 16-35mm I have tried was really very good (I am not allowed to post images, but I shot some funky interiors at wide aperture as well as some more useful distortion tests). However, at wider apertures (f/5.6 or wider) it did have fairly clear softness at the extremes - and at all apertures (of course) it had a distortion pattern very similar to the 16-80mm CZ on APS-C, but of course with a much wider angle. I have decided not to buy it mainly because it does not fit my approach. I already have a 17-35mm, and I have simply not been using it. Today for example I was doing some PR shots, and the 28-75mm was an ideal lens. If I wanted anything wider, it was for extreme effect and I used my 16mm fisheye for that. I thought about taking the 17-35mm, and the 12-24mm, and decided against both.

With the 20mm f2.8 Sony being only £399 I am wondering whether it might not be a very good alternative - it's as good as the 16-35mm, but a third of the price and much smaller. Also, I have a nice 72mm polariser from Minolta days - the circular wide-angle type - which would be great on the 20mm again. Then again the 17-35mm when set to 17mm is also f2.8, it's wider than the 20mm and possibly just as usable.

What I know for sure is that I do not want larger, or more expensive, lenses. The 16-35mm is in that class and therefore not on my horizon.

David

[sury]

David,
Your reference to Polarizer is because of the typical shots (land scapes for example) these wide angle lenses are used for, or is there a general benefit in using Polarizers on Wide angles like the UV filters we put on all our lenses for general safety and preventing finger prints?

With best regards,
Sury

[David Kilpatrick]

Actually, I hardly ever use polarizers on wide-angles, very few time of day or areas of sky work well (you get ugly shading). But sometimes, it's possible, and the old wide-angle 72mm is a nice bit of kit!

I do have a 77mm for the 17-35mm and 11-18mm, but again - very, very rarely used. Polarizers are most useful with lenses around 28-50mm, where a small area of sky may be included and not very dark because it's close to the horizon - then they really can improve things. And of course, they can make shots of foliage (woodlands, grassland, flowers) more vibrant; they can make pictures of polished wood, cars, stone, wet sand, sea, water, streets, glass etc work better by either cutting or emphasising reflection; they can allow two stops wider aperture (like an ND).

David

[sury]

David,
Thank you.
So much to learn.... I am forever doomed to be a newbie.

With best regards,
Sury