Beginner looking for a wide angle lens for sony a57

[nandbytes]

Hello all, this is my first post so please bear with me. So I recently bought a sony alpha 57 and am really pleased with it. Not convinced by the EVF but that's a discussion for another day.

So far I have the 18-55mm kit lens and I bought a sigma 18-250mm lens which is awesome. I am currently happy with these two but I am saving up to buy a new lens for when I need it for next holiday.

So the next lens I feel I need in my collection is a wide angle lens. I have looked around and came across these:

Sony Alpha DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Lens (kinda on the expensive side for me)

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM Lens (and the f4-5.6 version) both are more affordable for me.

Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 DC HSM (also expensive for me)

Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm F2.8 (fast and expensive again!)

Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD (affordable like the sigma and faster perhaps for less)

From looking at that the options for me seems like Sigma or tamron. But I am not sure which one to go for in terms of quality vs cost effectiveness. Any other suggestions I have not considered would be appreciated too or some advice in this area will be very helpful.

 

[Confused of Malvern]

You won't go wrong with the Sigma 10-20mm lens. I have the older f4-5.6 version (which they say is slightly sharper than the newer f3.5 HSM) and have been extremely pleased with it.

People also speak highly of the Sigma 8-16mm but it's pricey and personally I've never found a need to go wider than 10mm.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Hello all, this is my first post so please bear with me. So I recently bought a sony alpha 57 and am really pleased with it. Not convinced by the EVF but that's a discussion for another day.

So far I have the 18-55mm kit lens and I bought a sigma 18-250mm lens which is awesome. I am currently happy with these two but I am saving up to buy a new lens for when I need it for next holiday.

So the next lens I feel I need in my collection is a wide angle lens. I have looked around and came across these:

Sony Alpha DT 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 Lens (kinda on the expensive side for me)

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM Lens (and the f4-5.6 version) both are more affordable for me.

Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 DC HSM (also expensive for me)

Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm F2.8 (fast and expensive again!)

Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD (affordable like the sigma and faster perhaps for less)

From looking at that the options for me seems like Sigma or tamron. But I am not sure which one to go for in terms of quality vs cost effectiveness. Any other suggestions I have not considered would be appreciated too or some advice in this area will be very helpful.

From my experience, the Tamron is a poor lens. I bought one and immediately returned it after taking a few pictures. The lens is not sharp and has terrible color fringing. My observations seem to be confirmed by reviews of this lens.

 

[Alphoid]

nandbytes wrote:
So the next lens I feel I need in my collection is a wide angle lens. I have looked around and came across these:

Can you explain why? Many beginners feel the need to fit more into a photo. Ultrawide photos rarely come out well, especially at a a beginner level. They allow some clever framing possibilities, but perspective distortion is a royal pain to manage. There are relatively few shots that benefit from an ultrawide.

If I were in your shoes, a natural next lens might be a fast prime (f/1.8 50mm, for example), a nice portrait lens (85mm or 135mm or so), a fast zoom (16-50mm f/2.8), a sensible telephoto, or any of a number of other lenses.

Indeed, before spending money on more lenses, I'd make sure I have a decent tripod ($200+), flash ($250-$500), bag, etc.

kinda on the expensive side for me

With lenses, more isn't better. Fewer, nicer lenses works much better than a large number of mediocre ones. I'd seriously consider the Tokina or similar, and delaying the next upgrade.

 

[nandbytes]

nandbytes wrote:
So the next lens I feel I need in my collection is a wide angle lens. I have looked around and came across these:

Can you explain why? Many beginners feel the need to fit more into a photo. Ultrawide photos rarely come out well, especially at a a beginner level. They allow some clever framing possibilities, but perspective distortion is a royal pain to manage. There are relatively few shots that benefit from an ultrawide.

If I were in your shoes, a natural next lens might be a fast prime (f/1.8 50mm, for example), a nice portrait lens (85mm or 135mm or so), a fast zoom (16-50mm f/2.8), a sensible telephoto, or any of a number of other lenses.

Indeed, before spending money on more lenses, I'd make sure I have a decent tripod ($200+), flash ($250-$500), bag, etc.

kinda on the expensive side for me

With lenses, more isn't better. Fewer, nicer lenses works much better than a large number of mediocre ones. I'd seriously consider the Tokina or similar, and delaying the next upgrade.

I guess I might be falling into that trap of feeling the need to fit more into one picture. But having said that I am more interested in landscape/cityscape photography than portraits or macros etc.

I am happy with the 'Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM' that I got as a gift. The only thing I feel like will miss in the future is wide angles for certain situations. For my next holiday (this x'mas) I am planning on visiting Scottish highlands and islands. Its full of landscape opportunities and not to mention a chance at capturing the Northern lights. But I have no idea how easy or difficult it will be using these lenses.

As for the money I think I wasn't clear in my explanation, I could buy/afford a lens 2-3times the cost of lenses I listed. But the point was I do not think its worth that much on a beginner like me, maybe if I was more experienced. So like I said, I am looking for the best quality to cost ratio for me.

Thanks for the feedback you have given some things to consider before jumping in and buying a lens.

 

[mgd43]

On a quality to cost ratio I'd go for the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. It's a very good lens and less costly than the others. The Tamron is similarly priced but the reviews I've seen are mixed. I've had the Sigma for 7 years and I'm very happy with it, but today I'd buy the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 because of the speed. I shoot a lot indoors with the ultrawide and the f/2.8 would be helpful.

 

[Alphoid]

Do yourself a favor. Before you plop down money for a lens, look at some landscape shots on dpreview or Flickr:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1047

Do a count, and see how many use something below 18mm (of course, be sure to adjust for crop factor -- small sensor cameras will use very short real focal lengths). Better yet, see how many of the ones you both like and think you could replicate use something below 18mm.

One of the core problems with landscape shots is in real life, what's overwhelming is the beautiful panoramic view filling up your whole field of view. And it's huge. You stand on top of a mountain, and the view just blows you away.

When you try to capture that in a photo, you lose that effect. When you show the photo, it no longer fills up the field of view of the viewer -- they're looking at a 4x6 print, a 27" monitor, or however else you're showcasing the shot. Whether this is an insect or the Grand Canyon, the photo is the same size. It's also no longer 3d. More often than not, that amazing mountain panorama just looks small and flat.

There are times when ultrawide makes sense -- especially in landscape where perspective distortion is just annoying rather than obnoxious -- but many more times, it makes sense to capture the most interesting part of what you see, sometimes even with a telephoto lens. Ultrawide mostly helps for framing -- you see some amazing flowers front of you, and you'd like to capture both those (very small) flowers and the very big mountains behind them. That's a very powerful shot, but also a tough one for a beginner to pull off.

On a related note, the Sony a57 has a sweep panorama feature. That's actually pretty useful when it works (it takes practice, and even so, it often doesn't). A sweep panorama -- by virtue of the extreme aspect ratio -- allows you to capture a wide band, while avoiding issues with perspective distortion.

 

[Alphoid]

While I'd still recommend the Tokina over the Sigma, I'll second your vote against Tamron. Every Tamron lens I've owned failed after 5-10 years -- or specifically, the image quality got worse and worse until it was no longer tolerable.

 

[mgd43]

Ultrawides can produce beautiful landscapes and cityscapes, but you have to know how to use them. They can also be very useful shooting indoors. I've used mine to open up small rooms and to get the grandeur of the interior of large churches and cathedrals. But these are not point and shoot lenses. They require thought and knowledge.

I don't mean to discourage the OP or anyone from getting an ultrawide. I just want them to know what's involved in using them.

 

[Mystery member]

I like wide angle photography and am very pleased with the 10-20mm (f/4.0-5.6) Sigma. there are problems with fitting filters to the 8-16mm Sigma.

This the first shot from the Sigma 10-20mm. Not an award-winning composition, but does show plenty of detail for assessing resolution. You will be happy with the lens; it was about half the price of a similar Nikon.


On the way to the park.

 

[headfirst]

Imo the 2 best are the Sigma 8-16 & the Tokina 11-16, choice depending upon your needs.

With the MkII version of the Tokina coming out in January perhaps the old stock may drop in price.

The Sony is based on the old Tamron 11-18, A good enough lens in the 6MP days but really a bit past it for 16 & 24MP. & from what I've read the 10-24 suffers a bit similarly from them pushing the boundaries for range.

 

[nandbytes]

I hear you both, I wasn't expecting to point and shoot with a wide angle lens. But I think I agree with Alphoid, I will build up the basic stuff first (a better bag and a flash) before moving on to advanced lens. I will wait it out for the new tokina for sony which isn't far off.

While panorama mode has produced some good results in the past, other times its has been a let down.

Think I have decided on sigma 10-20 f3.5 or tonika 11-16 f2.8. Both great speed and quality from what I hear. I will go down to my local store to see if I can try these out. I will keep an eye for used ones in good condition (to save money) if not I will buy either of these in the future when I am less of a beginner. I would also love to photograph the interiors of all the old cathedrals around England (and London).

 

[Mystery member]

I hear you both, I wasn't expecting to point and shoot with a wide angle lens. But I think I agree with Alphoid, I will build up the basic stuff first (a better bag and a flash) before moving on to advanced lens. I will wait it out for the new tokina for sony which isn't far off.

While panorama mode has produced some good results in the past, other times its has been a let down.

Think I have decided on sigma 10-20 f3.5 or Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Both great speed and quality from what I hear. I will go down to my local store to see if I can try these out. I will keep an eye for used ones in good condition (to save money) if not I will buy either of these in the future when I am less of a beginner. I would also love to photograph the interiors of all the old cathedrals around England (and London).

There are 2 Sigma wide angle lenses. Some prefer the older f/4.0-5.6 model, which is a bit cheaper.

Ultra-wide-angle lenses are good for special landscape shots where there's a connection between the background and foreground. e.g. A rocky stream-bed with the mountain source in the background, using depth of field to good advantage.

You can do some pseudo-panorama work by cropping top and bottom of a UWA shot. I don't like panoramas, but this is one way to do it. Also gets rid of any ugly corners.

In general, UWA would be good inside a cathedral, but terrible for the outside, although there are some tricks you can do with framing/cropping to fix that.

 

[nandbytes]

There are 2 Sigma wide angle lenses. Some prefer the older f/4.0-5.6 model, which is a bit cheaper.

Ultra-wide-angle lenses are good for special landscape shots where there's a connection between the background and foreground. e.g. A rocky stream-bed with the mountain source in the background, using depth of field to good advantage.

You can do some pseudo-panorama work by cropping top and bottom of a UWA shot. I don't like panoramas, but this is one way to do it. Also gets rid of any ugly corners.

In general, UWA would be good inside a cathedral, but terrible for the outside, although there are some tricks you can do with framing/cropping to fix that.

Thanks for the info but why f/4.0-5.6 version?

The f/3.5 is about £60-70 more here, I am not sure if its worth that much extra? If it is then I can afford it. If I am buying a used lens from ebay then it would be about half the price (lost a bid today as I forgot about it ) otherwise its isn't a whole lot cheaper.

 

[Mystery member]

There are 2 Sigma wide angle lenses. Some prefer the older f/4.0-5.6 model, which is a bit cheaper.

Thanks for the info but why f/4.0-5.6 version?

The f/3.5 is about £60-70 more here, I am not sure if its worth that much extra? If it is then I can afford it.

I have seen some reports that say the older version is sharper. Anyhow, the f/4.0-5.6 was the only one available when I went looking, and I didn't mind about the aperture. If my memory serves me correctly, the f/3.5 fell down a bit at large aperture end, so that defeats the purpose, I think. Best you look at lens reviews for yourself, but I can say that the lens exceeds my expectations; did you see the example image at 100 percent?

If you are interested, there's a 10-20mm Sigma "Fan Club" on Flickr for some inspiration:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/

 

[nandbytes]

I have seen some reports that say the older version is sharper. Anyhow, the f/4.0-5.6 was the only one available when I went looking, and I didn't mind about the aperture. If my memory serves me correctly, the f/3.5 fell down a bit at large aperture end, so that defeats the purpose, I think. Best you look at lens reviews for yourself, but I can say that the lens exceeds my expectations; did you see the example image at 100 percent?

If you are interested, there's a 10-20mm Sigma "Fan Club" on Flickr for some inspiration:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/

Yep got the example thanks. I will look around for more reviews too. Those pics on flickr look really good!!

I am also keeping the tonika 11-16mm f/2.8 in mind. I will wait till the new version comes out for sony and then decide between the two. If I find a used sigma in a really good condition at a really good price in the meantime I think I will get it.

 

[thebustos]

As others have said, maybe concentrate on some of the other basics first before going for the ultra wide lenses. But when buying gear don't think of going for a cheaper option simply because you're a beginner. If you go for the cheaper option over the quality option you'll probably outgrow the cheaper option and want something with better optical quality. Then, even if you sell the first lens you bought, you'll probably end up spending more in the long run to get the better option you could have gone with in the first place.

If you can afford all the options you listed, go for the one that seems to give you the best quality. You can grow into it.

I do think you should take a look through Flickr or the dpr galleries to check out landscapes you like to see what lenses they were shot with. If you find that you still need an ultra wide then go for it and learn as much as you can to make effective use of the lens.

The Sony one from what I understand is the same as the Minolta one which was a Tamron rebadge. I would probably go for Tokina or one of the Sigmas.

Another now practical option might be to upgrade your standard zoom to something like the Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8. Those extra 2mm might not sound like much, but switching from 16mm back to 18mm you'll miss them. It's also sharper and faster than the 18-55mm kit lens.
--
Good luck and happy shooting!

 

[Mystery member]

I am also keeping the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 in mind. I will wait till the new version comes out for Sony and then decide between the two. If I find a used Sigma in a really good condition at a really good price in the meantime I think I will get it.

There have been reports of some examples of the Sigma being not quite up to scratch, that's why I tested mine as soon as I picked it up. Also check any second-hand UWA for possible damage from a filter that isn't suitable; slight mark in centre of the rather convex lens. Guy in store was aware of this and supplied a suitable filter; easily worth the extra I paid for not buying on-line.

 

[mgd43]

IMO, keh.com is the best source for used photo gear. I just checked and they have three Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 lenses for Sony in very nice condition for around $325. They grade very conservatively so their EX is a very nice lens and EX+ is like a new lens. They have a good return policy and they give a warranty. I strongly recommend dealing with them or another reliable dealer rather than ebay or someone you do not know.

Lens speed is not as important with ultrawides because they can be handheld at relatively slow shutter speeds. Also because today's DSLRs are very good at high iso's. I've shot many interiors with my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 with few problems.

What I suggest is that if having f/2.8 is very important to you for shooting under low light conditions, wait for the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. If not, save some money and get the used Sigma from keh. You can put that money towards another lens, a flash, or something else you need.

 

[nandbytes]

IMO, keh.com is the best source for used photo gear. I just checked and they have three Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 lenses for Sony in very nice condition for around $325. They grade very conservatively so their EX is a very nice lens and EX+ is like a new lens. They have a good return policy and they give a warranty. I strongly recommend dealing with them or another reliable dealer rather than ebay or someone you do not know.

Lens speed is not as important with ultrawides because they can be handheld at relatively slow shutter speeds. Also because today's DSLRs are very good at high iso's. I've shot many interiors with my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 with few problems.

What I suggest is that if having f/2.8 is very important to you for shooting under low light conditions, wait for the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. If not, save some money and get the used Sigma from keh. You can put that money towards another lens, a flash, or something else you need.

nice price but the only problem is I do not live in the US. I shoot during the night a lot when I am travelling otherwise not much in low light conditions. I am a bit worried about buying from ebay tbh.