| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2006 01:24:22 PM · #1 |
I'm looking to get a wide angle lens, primarily for landscapes/scenery. My kit lens (18-70mm) isn't wide enough and doesn't seem to have the impact necessary for good landscapes.
After looking around, I'm considering a few options but I'm a little lost as to whether I should be considering a super-wide zoom like the Sigma 10-20mm or a Fisheye lens. What do most landscape shooters prefer??
The fisheyes seem to be found for a bit cheaper than the Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 11-18 (or KM11-18)....but having no experience with them I'm not sure how drastic the distortion is. Are they really acceptable for landscapes?
Help!
Thanks :-) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:28:28 PM · #2 |
GREAT question Elizabeth! I've been considering this at some point soon myself and have found it challenging to make the correct decision.
Watching in anticipation of DPC guru feedback. :D |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:31:29 PM · #3 |
I have a Canon but I have heard the Sigma 10-20 is very good (I can't say though, I own a Canon 10-22), I LOVE my Canon lens and it is the one lens I would eat Ramen noodles for a month to replace if it broke. I love how wide it is.
June
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:33:53 PM · #4 |
My two cents, for what its worth -- I would go with a super-wide first. Fisheye is nice for a dramatic effect in some situations, but doesn't work well for every shot and the super-wide will give you more options/opportunities to use it.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:36:06 PM · #5 |
The fisheye is fun, but it's generally not the best thing for landscapes.
Get something like the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 or a 12-24. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 01:36:17 PM · #6 |
| Examples of the distortion on a Nikon 10.5. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:10:38 PM · #7 |
The fisheye is a "special purpose" lens, and by and large it's not very good for landscapes. Why? because the lens calls attention to itself, the geometry tends to dominate the image. IMO when you have people reacting to the distortion first and the content second, you usually have a problem. I mean, if you want your images to be "about" distortion-of-reality, that's cool, but then it's not really a "landscape", it's something different.
The ultra-wide rectilinear lenses (Canon 10-22mm is what I use) are really good for landscapes. Be aware that there's a substantial difference in angular coverage between 10mm and 12mm, BTW; like, 20%. 2mm may not sound like much, but at the wide end it definitely is.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:14:27 PM · #8 |
| I'd also advocate for a superwide rectilinear lens like the 10-20. A fisheye can be used to great effect, and with proper composition almost loses it's fishiness on an APS-C camera. Still, a superwide normal lens will be more flexible for standard landscapes. Keep a fish in mind for the future, though ;-) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:22:41 PM · #9 |
The Sigma and Tamron are both linear lenses, they have a flat field. You can also buy a Sigma 14mm f/2.8, which looks like it's a Fish-eye but has a flat field.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:26:33 PM · #10 |
| FWIW, "flat field" is a misnomer. That term refers to whether the plane of focus is flat, not whether the lens is rectilinear. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 02:59:04 PM · #11 |
Stay with what you have and get a tripod head that is designed for panorama shots.
My best landscape lens is my tamron 24-135 sp lens. I have a sigma 18-50 2.8 but the tamron has one advantage - it will hold it's focus as you zoom in and out (parafocal) - great for night landscapes.
I got a canon 10-22, what everyone says is a great ultra wide lens, near L quality for sharpness and all that. I am a bit disappointed. At night it's useless for landscapes. Can't get the sharpness / focus at all. Daylight is a bit better as there aren't those pinpoints of lights. I suspect the same issue exists just that it's not noticeable. In a large print I bet it'll be really noticeable.
Indoors the lens is fine, well, acceptable.
I did get to try a tokina 12-24 F4 and it was better IMO, and 1/2 the price. I'm still thinking about selling the canon.
A friend that sells his landscape shots and has orhas had every l lens out there, prefers the canon 24-70 2.8, as opposed to the wider lenses he's had. He loves his fisheye, but not for landscapes.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:02:03 PM · #12 |
I just got the Tokina 12-24 a couple of days ago and it blew my socks off. I haven't had time to shoot anything more than a few test shots with it, but they were VERY sharp, moreso than any of my other lenses. And it's built like a tank, and rated as very close to the Canon 10-22 (or better, according to a few).
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:12:21 PM · #13 |
Wow, amazing help everyone! Thank you so much, this is EXACTLY the kind of info that I needed.
So it looks like I'll probably want to go with a super-wide then, as I'm not particularly all about having the fisheye effect on *all* my shots (though it certainly looks cool when done well!).
Bear, thanks for the info on the increase in mm at the bottom end meaning such a drastic change in terms of angle. I didn't realize it was that severe!!
Now I guess the question will be whether I can fork out the money for a 10-20mm or if I should save some $$ and try to be satisfied with something slightly less wide....
Why can't lenses just grow on trees?? :-) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:22:15 PM · #14 |
I had the same quandry not too long ago. I ended up buying a Sigma 10-20mm and like it a lot. I finally based my decision on something someone here said, I can't remember who. It was in a thread about fisheye lenses, with several examples of shots done with fisheyes in it. The phrase that stuck with me in that thread was something like, "Just about the only thing fisheye lenses are good for is creating examples of what fisheye lenses can do." and "It's a novelty lens."
But I do enjoy the distortion you can get at the 10mm end of the Sigma 10-20. Here are a couple, cropped just a bit:
 
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:30:03 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I had the same quandry not too long ago. I ended up buying a Sigma 10-20mm and like it a lot. I finally based my decision on something someone here said, I can't remember who. It was in a thread about fisheye lenses, with several examples of shots done with fisheyes in it. The phrase that stuck with me in that thread was something like, "Just about the only thing fisheye lenses are good for is creating examples of what fisheye lenses can do." and "It's a novelty lens."
But I do enjoy the distortion you can get at the 10mm end of the Sigma 10-20. Here are a couple, cropped just a bit:
|
And you're happy with the quality of the Sigma? The only lenses I own so far are all KM.....partly because I've been unsure of quality in 2nd party lenses. |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:34:56 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ladyhawk22:
And you're happy with the quality of the Sigma? The only lenses I own so far are all KM.....partly because I've been unsure of quality in 2nd party lenses. |
Your 18-70 is a KM. :D
I use Sigma and Tamron (prefer the Tamron SP glass), but they certainly seem well built. Tamron has a 6 year warranty! |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:36:22 PM · #17 |
My "walk around lens" is also a Sigma. An 18-200mm. I'm happy with its quality as well. I only have three lenses all together, though, so I'm no expert.
I find my two Sigma lenses can get images just as sharp as my Canon 100mm macro, given good light. I like all three of my lenses equally and in different ways (I have to say that so they don't get jealous).
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 03:50:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ladyhawk22:
And you're happy with the quality of the Sigma? The only lenses I own so far are all KM.....partly because I've been unsure of quality in 2nd party lenses. |
Your 18-70 is a KM. :D
I use Sigma and Tamron (prefer the Tamron SP glass), but they certainly seem well built. Tamron has a 6 year warranty! |
I know my kit lens is KM :-) That's what I was saying....I've been paranoid about 2nd party, so all I've bought is KM so far :-) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 04:01:22 PM · #19 |
I don't know anything about KM, but as far as Canons go, I have to say that I almost prefer third-party lenses. My Tamron is on par with the Canon version and I'm convinced my Tokina is superior. I'm sure the Canon-snobs will jump all over me for saying this, but honestly, I don't think there's a huge difference between quality third-party lenses, and quality Canon/Nikon/whatever glass, except the price you pay for the name that comes on it.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 04:30:26 PM · #20 |
Check out Fisheye-Hemi for correcting your distorted fisheye images. With this solution it should be possible to use the fisheye for landscapes.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 04:44:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
My "walk around lens" is also a Sigma. An 18-200mm. I'm happy with its quality as well. I only have three lenses all together, though, so I'm no expert.
I find my two Sigma lenses can get images just as sharp as my Canon 100mm macro, given good light. I like all three of my lenses equally and in different ways (I have to say that so they don't get jealous). |
Aren't you that newbie?? Seems I read a post earlier today about you? :)) |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 05:41:09 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by sodoff:
Aren't you that newbie?? Seems I read a post earlier today about you? :)) |
I'm just trying to be popular. :-D
|
|
|
|
12/28/2006 05:51:45 PM · #23 |
| 70-200 F4 L USM is the best for landscapes, you can nicely throw out unneeded crap from frame and shoot :-) ... am i right ? just a little bit ? please ? or do i need to go sleep ? |
|
|
|
12/28/2006 07:05:08 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
12/29/2006 01:19:08 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by sodoff:
Aren't you that newbie?? Seems I read a post earlier today about you? :)) |
I'm just trying to be popular. :-D |
You mean you're not the most popular kid in school? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 02:46:03 PM EST.
