17-50 vs 10-20

Hi all,

I have a little $ to spend, and have a big hole in my WA end of my collection. I have been researching a bit on the Tamron 17-50 and the sigma 10-20 (and the sony and tamron 11-18). I have just combed the forum (although not with a fine-toothed comb) trying to compare these lenses. Granted they are two different lenses with a bit of different coverage, but I seem to able to get them for about the same price (400-500 USD). On the one hand I found myself very frustrated a couple of weeks ago taking landscape shots.



A rather feeble attempt, no? I figure the sigma could help with that. On the other, I could see the 17-50 being used alot for street photography, which I am pretty into. Do you all think the tamron is wide and sharp at 17?

Anyways, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated (and apologies if you have all gone through this before!)
Andy

Hmnm

Ist off, you need to clean your sensor! I see some nice dust spots there..

Next, not sure what you used for the pano software wise, but I tend to use either arcsofts panorama maker pro, or the freebie autostitch, sometimes one does a better job than another. I am the worlds worst for not following basic rules, no tripod..bang bang. But you do help yourself out a lot by doing that, locking the exposure can help too, as can white balance.

As for the lenses, how wide do you want to go? If its really wide, that narrows it down for you.

Myself, I dont mind working at 24mm. 28mm, 35mm is ok as well for some, for UWA, I use film. Its really down to taste on this one, some people want fisheye wide, and others can fire away all day at 28mm odd,

If you do go with the UWA zoom, you would want to make use of it, I suspect you would, as it changes perspective and your compositions, worth experimenting with for sure.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Consider pano software package called hugin for stitching the photos together. It is free and functionality is incredible (it includes architecture correction and the next release will include HDR). It is simple to use if avoid pressing all those option tabs like I did the first time and did I mention it is free like speech.

Next I have heard good things about the 10-20mm. It is an Sigma EX so built and quality is good. Check http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11372 for several examples. A truly amazing lens is the 12-24mm since it can go on a FF. I believe that both lenses are comparable in IQ. I think I would prefer the 12-24mm since the range 20-24mm will ensure that the lens stays on the camera more often. I doubt I really need the 10-12mm and somehow I get nausea when looking at 10-20mm photography with its wonky perspective.

Now that is not all. Tamron has announced that they will bring out a 10-24mm lens. It is a bit old new (or was it a 1 April joke) and I have not hear anything about for a while.

By the way the Tamron 17-50mm is an excellent lens and what happened to the kit lens.

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

Both are good lenses, but I would consider the 17-50 a more "essential" focal range for everyday photography. And the 25.5mm equivilent is quite wide for many applications.

However, I own a KM 11-18 and it is an amazing lens for landscapes and vacations. I would consider an UWA lens a necessity if you are a travel shooter. This lens and the CZ 16-80 went with me on a recent vacation and I took about 30% of my photos with the 11-18, and for some I still wish the lens was wider. The perspectives you can get are dramatic and the ability to swallow a room or tight street scene is great. The downsides of most UWA lenses is that they are not as sharp as the 17-50 edge to edge.
--
Check out my gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/root
Gear listed in profile.

...on the lenses, my stitching...and my sensor. Working in the dusty areas always seems to get me.

You have confirmed what I had already suspected -- first the 17-50, then a superwide. I do have the kit lens - actually I think I used it to catch that sketchy panorama. Often just not sharp enough.
Thanks again,
Andy

The 17mm is not going to give much angles as the kit lens. The kit lens is is quiet sharp around the 18mm but you need to stop down to f8. That said I am looking for a replacement too. I have a 28-135mm so I have something like the 12-24mm or 10-24mm that would cover the whole range.
--
http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

I have a Sigma 15-30 .. its sharp at both ends but is lacking in the ultra wide range... IM waiting on the Tamron 10-24 which was announced earlier this year 2008 but according to Tamron, no information is available
--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.



Please visit my galleries at
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

around that range you have:

12-24 - almost impossible to find. I've only ever seen one on ebay and that was because the owner had to sell it due to divorce

10-20 - already discussed in other posts. but if you are going to do pano's any way you don't need the UWA end

17-50 - this lens flat-out performs! i've never been disappointed. Seems more popular and reviews better than the sigma 18-50/2.8

sigma 17-70 - before the 16-80 came out this was a favorite lens on this board.

cz 16-80- david K likes this lens! the early reports of QA issues with the build IQ turned me off. Others really like it!

sony 18-250-slow AF but supposed to have nice IQ
http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-18-250mm-f35-63-review