HansGolden

The bolded part can be true in a sense, but is very deceptive in another sense. I started off with that mentality, but lost the opportunity to get some great pictures because I had the mentality that with an UWA I could just "pack it all in" to one super-inclusive photo. The truth is if you try to pack a bunch into a photo with an UWA, two bad things tend to happen: 1. The middle is so small that there are lots of things that aren't as big as they are in real life. 2. There is simply so much in the picture (including much in the middle that has been minimized) that the picture is too busy.

Be aware with an UWA that things on the edges will be magnified greatly and things in the middle will be reduced.

You must learn to very carefully use the distorting effects of an UWA to your compositional advantage. Because it's so powerful, it can mess up a picture quickly. However, with some of these things in mind, it can also very powerfully enhance your photography. I love my Canon 10-22 and it's probably my 3rd most used lens behind by 17-55mm f/2.8L and 50mm f/1.4.



Glad you're enjoying it! I had a Sigma 10-20 for a long time and was very happy with it except I was noticing severe lack of sharpness at the edges. I thought that that was simply par for the UWA course, but then I realized that I had a bad lens copy. When I had bought the 10-20, I voraciously read reviews that said that the Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 has comparable sharpness throughout. However, on Googling post Sigma-softness-discovery, I found that Sigma has a bunch of bad copies floating around. Thus, I would carefully check for edge softness. I went ahead and sold my 10-20 and got a 10-22 and am delighted with it! Full sharpness throughout!

Don't mean to quibble, but I'm curious how you believe the rule of thirds is being utilized?

VHHH90

I use a nikon 12-24 for a lot of my inflight shots.

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC="http://www.jetphotos.net/photolink.php?id=7094964" TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT>

Also a fish-eye is useful, I like the ability to capture a huge range of subject.

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC="http://www.jetphotos.net/photolink.php?id=7172180" TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript' SRC="http://www.jetphotos.net/photolink.php?id=7169585" TYPE='text/javascript'></SCRIPT>

danger

I really enjoy photography but know next to nothing about it.

I have a Canon EOS400D with the standard 18-55mm lens and also have a telephoto 75-300mm lens I use for sport (not overly effectively, I must say).

But I'm very keen to get a wide angle lens or ultra wide angle or whatever it is called.

Am I correct in saying that the lower the first number (please excuse my ignorance) the wider the lens? So a 17-40mm lens really does give me much over the 18-55mm I have now while a 10-20mm that has been mentioned here quite a bit would be 'very wide'?

The nomenclature like aperture and f and all that means nothing to me unfortunately but I'd be grateful for an appropriate recommendation. It would only be used for travel. I will be passing through Singapore at the end of the week on my way to Gallipoli for the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I and I'm very keen to get some wide (or what I call panorama) photos of the Gallipoli peninsula, the memorials etc.

I did ask nigelrturner in this thread about the photos he took of the Park Hyatt Canberra (I was particularly interested in the scope or depth of the first photo, of the ambassador lounge) and he said he used a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 lens. Maybe this is what I need but, with my limited knowledge, it doesn't strike me as offering much different than the existing 18-55mm.

Suggestions and advice would be greatly appreciated.

DanielW

Nigel uses a Canon 5D2 with a 17-40L. Not to get too technical, but you would need a ~11-26mm lens to get a similar field of view on a 400D

The best comparable lens is a Canon 10-22mm. You can get a Sigma 10-20mm for a bit cheaper though (but not so great IQ).

Some photo's from my trip to Gallipoli. I'm not really any good at landscapes though, so mostly shot the memorials. These were shot with my old 7D + Canon 10-22mm lens:

http://www.hellophoto.co.nz/showthre...5953-Gallipoli

thrillho

He may have a full frame sensor camera, which means that 17mm for his camera will be as wide as say 12mm on a APS-C crop sensor camera.

Your 400D is APS-C so the wider the better!

danger

So it sounds like a Canon 10-22mm lens would do me well. Your photos of Gallipoli are fantastic; just the sort of shots I'm hoping to get on Anzac Day.

I see this Sigma lens, though, is very pricey. Any idea what a ballpark cost of one of these lenses would be (not best price, just mid-range, something as a guide)?

I have a 10 hour layover in Singapore on Friday so I'm hoping I'll be able to find something at a duty free shop at Changi or head into Orchard Rd.

And sorry: "IQ"?

Sorry: "APS-C crop sensor"? What you're saying is his 17mm lens on his camera would really equate to a 12mm lens on my 400D?

When purchasing does it matter what the 'second' number (eg. 17-55mm or 10-20mm)?

DanielW

As above, the 400D has a APS-C sensor which is smaller than a 5D: http://http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#15,14,a

There's a slightly cheaper Sigma 10-20mm: http://www.praimaging.com.au/view-10.../Sigma/pra0177
It lets in slightly less light at the wide end though, and just over 50% less at the longer
(20mm) end.

The second number is the focal length at the other end of the zoom range. If you want an ultra wide angle (e.g. 10-20mm) most of them are about 20-22mm so not much different.

IQ is image quality.

deniah

Rokinon/Samyang/Bower makes very good value wide angle lenses. It's manual focus..which is less of a problem at short focal length

wide angle is only secondarily to "fit things in"
the primary point is to intentionally distort and exaggerate sizes and to give impression of space

danger

All this talk of super good cameras and equipment has got me looking ato my old EOS 400D. I've all but settled on the EOS 70D which I believe I can get here in Perth for AUD1100 which will be reduce to AUD990 when I claim back the GST.

With respect to the wide angle lens, would this type of camera compensate for the lower IQ (I know what this means now!) and less light let in from the Sigma 10-20mm? Or would I still be better off trying to fork out for the Canon 10-22mm?

abmj-jr

I read through this a couple of times before feeling compelled to respond. I'll try to be gentle but informative and, I hope, helpful.

It seems that you are trying to compare your photos, taken with an 8 or 10-year old, entry-level, consumer grade camera mounted with the included Canon kit lens (which is not really very good to start with) to those taken by an experienced, skilled photographer who uses a top-of-the-line, professional camera equipped with a professional-grade (and very expensive) top-of-the-line lens. The comparison is not at all fair. About like trying to race against a professional race driver piloting an Indy car while you were driving your family sedan. He can handle that machine while most of us are pretty well matched with the sedan.

Replacing your older camera with a new generation Canon 70D will give you FAR more capability than your old one but still not up to the standards of the professional cameras. I suspect the 70D will be as much or more camera than you can make complete use of, though. You can take excellent photographs with the 70D.

As for an ultra-wide lens, the Canon offering is excellent but based on your comments above, I don't think you would be equipped to get the best out of it. If you have money to burn, by all means grab it. On the other hand, despite some denigrating comments above, the Sigma 10-20 mm is a very good, better-than-consumer-grade lens at a very reasonable price. It will give you excellent photos and not break the bank. I used one for years and found it to be capable of resolving images as good as or better than my camera could produce a few years ago. I have sold a number of images made with that lens. I may have gotten lucky and got a "good" copy but that is my experience.

A casual, hobby photographer has little need for the greatest, most expensive professional equipment on the market. A $1500.00 lens will not make you a better photographer than a good $500.00 one or make your photos as good as those of the skilled shooters. The more expensive lenses do allow the accomplished photographer to squeeze out a bit extra from his gear. For someone a little less accomplished, the money and time would be much better spent working on the skills and knowledge to become better rather than trying to buy that improvement with expensive equipment. That just doesn't work.

By the way, the "numbers" on a lens, such as 10-20 mm, simply refer to the focal length (how near or far the subject appears) of the lens. In this case, on your camera or the 70D, 10 mm is very wide angle - it takes in a very wide view of your subject, much wider than your eye normally would see, so the subject appears far away. The lens can be "zoomed out" from 10 mm to 20 mm, which is a modest, slightly wide view, still a bit wider than your eye sees. For reference, a "normal" lens on your camera would be about 34 mm, which would mimic the angle of view of your eye. That is why most "kit" lenses supplied with consumer cameras fall in the 18 mm - 55 mm range. They can be zoomed from a moderate wide angle view to a "normal" view and on beyond that to a moderate telephoto view. Sort of a one size fits all approach for the average snap-shooter who is unlikely to ever purchase more lenses than what came with the camera.

My point is, the Sigma (or the much more expensive Canon) 10-20 mm will take better pictures on your old camera than the kit lens but will be limited to only the "wide" end. It won't take the normal views that the kit lens will. In that respect, you would probably need to carry both lenses to get the full range of vacation photos. An ultra-wide is not very good, for example, for taking photos of the family enjoying their vacation or getting a close view of that building across the river. For that, you would probably want to change back to the kit lens. All that holds true for the 70D, as well.

danger

Thank you all for your advice and guidance. I've made a purchase.

http://imgur.com/boKZ1Fh

Thalassa

^^^

Cheers,
T.

danger

Well that didn't last long.

Today I dropped the camera with the Sigma lens attached. From waist height onto bare concrete.

Here are four pictures of the damage.

I'm in Japan at the moment and seeking advice.

The damage to the lens in particular looks quite significant although as far as I can tell the camera and lens are working okay. But I'm far from an expect.

Is there a way for a lay person to assess the damage? Is it likely to have sustained significant damage? If it needs to be repaired is it worth it, or should I push my insurer for full replacement?

I'm at the Hilton and there is a Canon service centre close by which I will go to on Friday but I leave first thing Saturday. There isn't a Sigma service centre anywhere close.

Mike Jacoubowsky

This. When I get a new lens, I'll shoot exclusively with it, learning what it can and can't do. Force myself into seeing the lens as a hammer and everything I'm shooting is a nail. Find some way to use it to "get the shot." And, of course, usually fail! But you look at the results and find a few that you couldn't have gotten any other way, with a different perspective than your normal walk-around might have gotten.

And of course there's the "normal" wide-angle shot, where you simply need more at the edges than a 17mm 1.6 crop will get you. You're no longer worried about having to avoid too much in the center.

I went cheap; since I really didn't know how useful it would be, I picked up the Canon 10-18 EF-S ($299). It's not fast, but you don't need fast for landscapes, and this was for a trip to Machu Picchu. Too bad the weather didn't cooperate! I kept the lens on most of the time, even when my 15-85 might have been the better choice, because I wanted to force myself to see things a bit differently.

Nothing wrong with buying lenses that seriously out-class the body though, providing you'll stay with the same platform if you upgrade. I'm definitely tied into Canon's 1.6 EF-S, and some day will upgrade from a Rebel T3i to a 7D MkII.

danger

It's time to replace this lens.

I really appreciated the style of photo the Sigma 10-20mm produced and it's the frontrunner replacement. However, I've come across the Sigma 8-16mm and there's still the option of the Canon 10-22mm. And I'm intrigued in this Canon 10-18mm which is significantly cheaper. Being a Canon I assume it's IQ (I've learnt that one!) would be a little better than the Sigma. In reality would I be losing much by purchasing that lens over the Sigma 10-20mm?

I'm still an amateur but have a little greater knowledge than I did 18 months ago.

Any advice on which way to go would be appreciated.