Reading mode: Light Dark

First ultra wide lens to buy for a noob.

Go to last post
EremesNYC

EremesNYC

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hi, I'm a learning photographer and I just decided I need to get an ultrawide lens, I mostly do landscape/architectural shots, panoramas and stills, maybe try a little bit of street and night too.

However I'm torn between my choices.


Tokina 12-28mm AT-X Pro VS Canon 10-18mm. (or a Canon 10-22mm?)



Can you share some experience, comparison, pro's and con's, advantage, disadvantages. What I'm gaining or losing. I'm not worried about the price (I found cheap ones).

Thank you guys!


[SIDENOTE] I've read reviews and everything but found no comparison, A friend of mine suggested reading Ken Rockwell, but I found this guy to be a "brown noser" (no offense).
 
Solution
G
EremesNYC said:
Hi, I'm a learning photographer and I just decided I need to get an ultrawide lens, I mostly do landscape/architectural shots, panoramas and stills, maybe try a little bit of street and night too.
However I'm torn between my choices.

Tokina 12-28mm AT-X Pro VS Canon 10-18mm.
Click to expand...
UWAs are useful but also problematic. Their main use is to capture a wide field of view: the shorter the focal length the wider the FOV, and the width is inversely proportional to FL. Here are two photos to illustrate 10mm v 8mm and 12mm v 8mm (I haven't got 12mm v 10mm but you can see the rough proportions).



130043672.jpg




136658728.jpg


The...
I cannot comment of those particular lenses but they are jolly wide. Not everyone takes to these lenses and they need very specific techniques to make them work (which I've never mastered BTW). My strong advice would be to rent one and try it out and perhaps some tuition (though this latter didn't help me much!).
 
I've owned the 10-18mm and it is fantastic. It's really sharp and is regarded by many to be the best autofocus wide angle for the price of any brand. 10mm is also a lot wider than 12mm even though the numbers don't seem to show it. That being said, I have not tried the Tokina 12-28mm, but its focal range would be much more useable as it goes from pretty wide to 28mm (44.8mm equivalent), which is quite normal. The normal focal lengths offered by the Tokina may be more useful for street photography, whereas the extra bit of width on the Canon, may be better for architectural, landscape, and 'panorama' shots.
 
EremesNYC said:
Hi, I'm a learning photographer and I just decided I need to get an ultrawide lens, I mostly do landscape/architectural shots, panoramas and stills, maybe try a little bit of street and night too.
However I'm torn between my choices.

Tokina 12-28mm AT-X Pro VS Canon 10-18mm.
Click to expand...
UWAs are useful but also problematic. Their main use is to capture a wide field of view: the shorter the focal length the wider the FOV, and the width is inversely proportional to FL. Here are two photos to illustrate 10mm v 8mm and 12mm v 8mm (I haven't got 12mm v 10mm but you can see the rough proportions).



130043672.jpg




136658728.jpg


The first thing, therefore, is to decide what field (angle) of view you need. This shot is at 8mm. You can see the advantage of the wide FOV but also the drawback that perspective looks exaggerated.



a2cdb26c92f642e58a7f5b53c6506dde.jpg

Personally, I would (in fact I did) buy the widest possible UWA for the times when I want the widest possible FOV and simply zoom in a bit when I don't. I don't know either of the lenses you mention but between them I'd go for the wider.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
www.pbase.com

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com
[email protected]
 
Solution
Thank you for the comprehensive responses. I decides to go with the canon lens since I have the kit lenses for it anyway if I needed a narrower FL. I was too focused on the gears and realized that i'm still learning i opted for the cheaper alternative so i wont regret.

Probably not too wide as im using APS-C which really prompted me to go for the wider FL.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Canon 10-18 is a very good lens and for the money, I think the right choice here. If I were buying a new superwide for APS-C crop, it would be Sigma's 8-16. It's very sharp and even wider. It's also a good bit more expensive.

There are some of us out here who love super wide glass. We're superwide junkies, so to speak. Many others are not so and don't really enjoy super wide glass as much. I think the key here is to understand, superwide lenses are not for "getting it all in" if you're like some of us who love this kind of glass. It's for getting in close and showing depth and space, allowing the subject to wrap around you. We also love to tilt the lens a little to actually exaggerate the keystoning effect, bending the picture a bit. ;-)
 
I agree with the price, seeing i got it for $155 (3rd party hood and a hoya uv filter), I'm pretty much sold on that. Main purpose was to compliment my standard kit lens, which for my level was already good. As for the sigma way too expensive for my current skill level.

Now unto the next problem, a backpack for hiking. Still using the tenba byob 9. But I'll probably post another thread for this. I can't thank you guys enough!
 
EremesNYC said:
I agree with the price, seeing i got it for $155 (3rd party hood and a hoya uv filter), I'm pretty much sold on that. Main purpose was to compliment my standard kit lens, which for my level was already good. As for the sigma way too expensive for my current skill level.

Now unto the next problem, a backpack for hiking. Still using the tenba byob 9. But I'll probably post another thread for this. I can't thank you guys enough!
Click to expand...
Have fun with the new toy. The world will look amazingly different through a wa lens. It gives a grand sweep to landscapes (so much sky!) and unusual emphasis to things up close. They're great fun for street photography, though be careful as it is very easy to be noving in super close to subjects without realizing just how close you are. You'll get some weird looks from people when you're shooting things from an inch away, but you'll also get amazing shots.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
EremesNYC said:
Hi, I'm a learning photographer and I just decided I need to get an ultrawide lens, I mostly do landscape/architectural shots, panoramas and stills, maybe try a little bit of street and night too.
However I'm torn between my choices.

Tokina 12-28mm AT-X Pro VS Canon 10-18mm.
Click to expand...
UWAs are useful but also problematic. Their main use is to capture a wide field of view: the shorter the focal length the wider the FOV, and the width is inversely proportional to FL. Here are two photos to illustrate 10mm v 8mm and 12mm v 8mm (I haven't got 12mm v 10mm but you can see the rough proportions).

130043672.jpg


136658728.jpg


The first thing, therefore, is to decide what field (angle) of view you need. This shot is at 8mm. You can see the advantage of the wide FOV but also the drawback that perspective looks exaggerated.

a2cdb26c92f642e58a7f5b53c6506dde.jpg

Personally, I would (in fact I did) buy the widest possible UWA for the times when I want the widest possible FOV and simply zoom in a bit when I don't. I don't know either of the lenses you mention but between them I'd go for the wider.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
Click to expand...
I agree with Gerry's above post.

The lenses you listed are "wide" but not "ultra"-wide.

Both have their applications but true UWA can be most unique IF you use it properly.
 
Guidenet said:
Yes, the Canon 10-18 is a very good lens and for the money, I think the right choice here. If I were buying a new superwide for APS-C crop, it would be Sigma's 8-16. It's very sharp and even wider. It's also a good bit more expensive.

There are some of us out here who love super wide glass. We're superwide junkies, so to speak. Many others are not so and don't really enjoy super wide glass as much. I think the key here is to understand, superwide lenses are not for "getting it all in" if you're like some of us who love this kind of glass. It's for getting in close and showing depth and space, allowing the subject to wrap around you. We also love to tilt the lens a little to actually exaggerate the keystoning effect, bending the picture a bit. ;-)

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile - f/22 Club Member
I reserve the right to make mistakes in reasoning and logic as well as to change my mind anytime I wish. I also ask forbearance with respect to my typos. Please take a look at my gallery here at DPR.
Click to expand...
Again I fully agree.... +1

14mm used to be my favorite lens back in film (FF) days.

I even used it for "food" (advertising) photos -- shooting only 6" from the plate of food.

Shooting "close" to the main menu-item, (like steak or lobster), and make it appear bigger compared to the rest of the items on the plate.

But you can also use it to emphasize (close) flowers or rocks with (mountain) landscapes in the background.

Some of the most interesting images I have seen were of (older) cars "hood-figures", (which used to be on all older cars).

And also interesting applications for them with aircraft .... etc.

It is sad that MANY people immediately return UWA because they don't expect the (normal) perspective-distortion and interpret that as a defect in the lens when instead it is basic geometry and you simply have to learn to use the P-D to their advantage to "create" an interesting image from a normal (maybe uninteresting) subject.
 
Last edited:
Ron Johnson said:
Recently tested it against my EF 18-135 at 18 mm. Both were about the same at 18 but then its not 10 mm.
Click to expand...
Believe me .... it is a l-o-n-g way from 10mm, (and 8mm).

Actually 18mm on a DX/APS camera is barely even considered WA, (to the extent 16mm would be w/ 24mm-EFL).

Even single mm wider than 16 makes a more & more dramatic difference in "perspective" distortion.

To fully utilize a UWA to it fullest potential, you also need it to be CLOSE focusing. My Nikon 14mm, (that I used for "food" advertising-photography), could focus to less than 6" and I was almost always at that minimum.

I am NOT SURE that "zoom" UWA's will get that close.

But I repeat it is a more unique style of photography/images and some are initially surprised at the "normal" perspective-distortion and simply have not yet learned to use it to its fullest advantages, (and minimize the distortion when it will hurt/kill an image).
 
Last edited:
Depending on your budget, etc... you can also consider simply getting a MF UW lens like the Rokinons. Much cheaper, generally excellent IQ. Also usually lighter to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top