UWA - how much do you use them

<p>Fellow photonetters - I am considering buying either the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 UWA. My question is not which of these should I get (plenty posts of that issue) but I am wondering if actually I will not use them as much as I think I might (and will wish that I had put the money towards replacing my aged D70). I have seen many pictures taken using UWAs and am tempted to enter into this new area - or am I just getting suckered into buying more equipment (that's what looking at photnet can do to you!) that will I will only seldom use.<br>

Those of you with UWAs - <strong>how much do you actually use them</strong>, or do they end up staying in the camera bag most of the time? Have you regretted buying them. Are they really useful or are they in the 'special effects' box. Do you recommend an UWA for my equipment set up.<br>

Perhaps the Tokina is the more useful of the two since it enters into the wide angle range and may stay on the camera for longer periods of time. <br>

I am amateur and enjoy taking landscapes most. Current equipment D70 Nikon 18-70, 18-200, Sigma 30mm Any helpful advice would be much appreciated. Thanks</p>

<p>My 12-24mm sit on my camera 90% of the time but I use the 16-24mm much more than the 12-16mm. That said, what does how I shoot have to do with how you will shoot with your lens? You might end up not using it 90% of the time...who knows?</p>

<p>If you don't know if you need it or not, then you really don't need it.</p>

<p>I used to use my Sigma 10-20 and now use my Sigma 15-30(on FX) often, but less than before since I have a FE.</p>

<p>I don't use mine very often but enjoy using it under the right shooting conditions and am happy to have bought it. Ultimately how much you would use of such lens is dependent on the type of shooting you do. I suppose if you feel you are missing shots or the creativity you can get with an ultra wide because you don't have one, it might be a good idea to get one or at least try one out.</p>

<p>Mostly interested in people photography (FX format), my 14-24 and 24-70 are used at a 1:100 rate.<br /> From another point of view, my most used wide angle focals are between 24 and 35mm. It means that if the range of a WA zoom cover them, maybe I`d use it even more than the 24-70. Personally, I`d prefer a 12-24 range on DX.</p>

<p>Hi Erik. I used to have a Sigma 10-20. One of my favorite photos was taken with it, at lower Antelope Canyon. For this photo, I was backed up against the wall of the canyon, and the lens was set at 10mm. Had I had any other lens with me, I wouldn't have been able to include what I wanted in the picture. That said, I didn't use that lens that much. I guess it depends on what you shoot.</p>

<p>I would guess I use my 14-24 for around 10% of my shots (on FX). I don't use the 14mm end quite as much as I'd expected - I guess around half that, which means I ought to save up for a Zeiss 21mm...<br />

<br />

I guess if you've already got lenses that go down to 18mm, the question is whether you run up against the 18mm limit a lot. I did, when I had a crop body - I ended up taking shots at an angle so I could use the frame diagonal to get more of an angle in - so I knew I wanted wider. If you're always shooting longer than 18mm, maybe the ultrawides aren't for you. HTH.</p>

<p>I love my Tokina 11-16 and would NOT part with it for anything... but... I almost never use it... But when I do... nothing else will do.</p>

<p>I've gone through quite a few ultrawide angle lenses since I've wanted something that works well in terms of picture quality and yet is compact and manageable in size. The size and weight have been factors since I don't use ultrawide all that much ... so the bag space requirements had to be compatible with the use, or so I thought. I finally concluded after testing various lenses that the 14-24 gave the best image quality and the least corner trouble ... plus being autofocus and a fast zoom. It's a huge lens though, so that part of my requirements were not satisfied but in the end I thought its brilliant image quality was more important. It's also nice in that by using a zoom you don't have to commit to using the extreme wide angle end, but can resort to 24mm which is more moderate and general purpose when the ultrawide angle doesn't work for the picture.</p>

<p>As for how much I shoot ... I guess one could say that over the years I have made a handful of pictures made at <14mm focal lengths (on FX, so this corresponds to <16mm on DX) which I consider to be really good. I do think the 14-24 (which I've had for a month or so) has made it easier to obtain good results and expect that I'll get about a dozen very good shots per year using <24mm focal lengths with this lens (the 24mm end doesn't count, I shoot thousands of images year year at 24mm). This means shots that I will print, possibly use in my portfolio and they should be such that they do not stand out because of their extreme angle of view which I try to hide when using it. I will probably shoot many hundreds of images per year with the 14-24 of which I expect to get 10 outstanding ones which will enrich my photographic output. So you could say that I don't shoot a lot with ultrawide angle lenses but I think it adds a useful "accent" or "spice" to the whole which will make the whole look better. I have a few (4-5) 18mm (12mm on DX) images which do just that.</p>

<p>I think if you feel you may not be able to justify the investment, then don't buy one. If you really like ultrawide angle images and don't find the money to be an issue, then by all means get one. For me it's not a necessary tool but something that is useful on occasion for special situations. It's a difficult lens to use, but in time, with great care, classic images can be made.</p>

<p><em>over the years I have made a handful of pictures made at <14mm focal lengths which I consider to be really good</em></p>

<p>Here I meant <24mm focal lengths, sorry for the embarrassing typo.</p>

<p>Eric,<br>

I love the 10-20 Sigma I have and take many pics with it. No, it is not my regular lens on the camera all of the time but I sure do use it and am glad I have one.<br>

I was able to get a used one in perfect condition from a fellow lister. I use mine on a D90.<br>

What is neat about them is one can take a "serious" photo as well as something funny/strange just by how you approach your subject.<br>

You will not be sorry for getting one. Have fun!<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>phil</p>

<p>Echoing some of the comments above, I have the 10-20 HSM, and like it a lot. It's always in the (heavy!) bag, though I only use it occasionally. But when I use it, it's the <em>only</em> thing that would do the job. I've used it enough, now, to know that I'm generally using it at or close to 10mm, or out closer to 20mm most of the time. Not so much in between. <br /><br />You do have to be accutely aware of the perspective issues that come with shooting that wide, but when you start to really understand the power of being able to have a subject right up close to you, while still taking in a lot of the surrounding context, you realize that there's nothing like having those ultra short focal lengths to work with.</p>

<p>If you find yourself constantly wanting to zoom wider than your 18mm focal lengths then an UWA is certainly worth considering. They are not just about getting more in the frame though. Effective composition with an ultrawide is challenging but extremely rewarding when done well. Ultrawides are used to exagerate foreground/background perception with respect to the main subject.</p>

<p>I started at 24mm (on film) 25 years ago, and progressed to a 17mm lens, which was my primary lens for 15 years. I have now had a Nikon 14mm f2.8 for the past 5 years and it has become my most used lens on my full frame DSLR. I have just recently purchased a Nikon 8mm f2.8 circular fisheye for my full frame DSLR allowing me to really push the ultrawide envelope. A very challenging lens to use but results are pretty cool!</p>

<p>I carried my passion for ultrawide angle into 4x5 format as well, primarily using a 65mm lens providing a similar view to a 17mm lens on film/full frame. </p>

<p>My portfolio here is full of UWA examples (other than in the motor racing folder) so feel free to check them out.</p>

<p>If UWA becomes important to you then the extra 2mm at the wide end, of the 10mm zooms, becomes useful. However, if you become an UWA fanatic then a full frame is the only way to go, so condsider getting a lens for full frame to begin with.</p>

<p>

<p>On the wide end, I have a 14-24mm zoom, an 18mm prime, and a 16mm fisheye. All are FX lenses. For landscapes, I usually use a focal length of 28mm for an FX body or 18mm for a DX body. Thus far, I have had no need for anything wider than 14mm. Therefore, if I had the ultra wide angle lenses you are considering, they would find little use.<br>

　<br>

However, my needs are based on my subject matter and my shooting style. What you need may be entirely different.<br>

　<br>

If I had your camera and your lens inventory, I would replace my aging D70 DX body with a D700 FX body and use the lenses I had. If your lenses are DX lenses, then I would get the D300 DX body and decide later if I needed anything wider than 18mm.</p>

<br>

.</p>

<p>I used a 15-30 for a couple of years on my D100 when I went hiking in steep canyons around the world and it did a great job. When I returned home it sat unused for the next year and I sold it. I didn't find that it did anything for me in more normal shooting situations. I still have a 15 for my film camera, which I occasionally use for street shooting, but again, it gets relatively little use compared to my other lenses. I think it boils down to your personal shooting style and vision.</p>

<p>Sigma has a new 8-16mm UWA lens coming out. It seems to be quite good . I have the 10-20 and the new lens appears to be sharper with less vignetting. As far as full frame vs APS-c there seems to be a greater selection of new APS-c UWA options when compared to full frame and the APS-c options have less vignetting and sharper corners than their FF counterpart. I`m looking at replacing my 10-20 with the 17-40L(moved to a 5dII), unfortunately the new sigma 8-16 is about the same price as the 17-40 but is wider, has less vignetting and is sharper across the frame. The 8-16 UWA matches well with the 17-40L as a standard zoom, then if you move to FF the 17-40 will replace the 8-16 as your UWA. Funnily I might keep an APS-c body for it`s ability to use the crop UWA`s, for me the only place where FF has a wide-angle advantage is in speed i.e. the 24mm F1.4<br>

Cheers,<br>

Cinto</p>

<p>My Nikon 10-24mm gets used for less than 10% of my photos, sadly, as the 16-85mm is by far my primary lens on my D300. When I need it, the 10-24mm is super, very useful, but it's more often than not a neglected lens. Sometimes I think I should have just kept my Tokina 12-24mm f4 that cost hundreds less. </p>

<p>P.S. my 10-20 is by far my most used lens, I use a 85 F1.8 second most with a Tammron 28-75 F2.8 a very distant 3rd</p>

<p>I'm a Sony shooter and bought the Sony 11-18 a while ago (basically same lens as the Tamron 11-18) more or less out of curiosity, thinking I could always sell it if it didn't get much use. It's not the best reviewed of all UWA lenses but it has literally opened up a whole new world to me and also works on FF/film SLRs in the 14-18 range. Now I bring it along whenever there's gorgeous scenery on the menu but also vintage cars, street scenes, large indoor spaces like museum exhibits etc. You won't know until you try, but I would guess you'll find it well worth getting an UWA.</p>

<p>I'd say my Nikon 12-24DX is used 75% of the time on my D90, but I take architectural shots where I like to get in close, so it's the best fit for what I enjoy taking.</p>

<p>It's not a great portrait lens (interesting maybe, but not flattering), and distortion at the UWA end is distinct - that's not to say it's not necessarily a problem, just that composition needs to factor it in.</p>

<p>The characteristic that really keeps it on my camera for a lot of the time, is the close focusing, and ability to use the perspective distortion to draw the viewer in, and to upscale the effect of taking objects at close distance. For eg. taking pictures of models (as in cars) at close distance from low down can replicate the perspective of viewing a full size model.</p>

<p>I do use it for landscapes, but the danger, as you are no doubt aware, is the distancing of medium to long distance objects - composition is desperate for foreground interest to draw the viewer in.</p>

<p>Good luck,<br />Martin</p>

<p>My Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 was my favorite and most used lens on my aps-c body. Now that I've gone full frame, I use both the Canon 17-40 and Sigma 12-24 quite frequently....I shoot a lot of landscapes and often want to go as wide as possible.</p>

<p>I sold off my Sigma 10-20 years ago. I'd say less than 5% of my pics when I still had it were taken with the ultra wide. I occasionally lust for an ultra wide, but I know I won't use it much.</p>

<p>Re: Landscapes - I was over at Santorini last week, alot of my landscape-y kind of shots were just shot using my 16-85, with both wide and tele angles, and for the wide vistas I wanted to capture, I stitched like 9 vertical frames together, handheld. Much prefer that feel vs an ultra wide.</p>

<p>One other thing: if you're considering a camera upgrade as well, and if you think wide-angle is in your future, consider the Sigma 12-24. It's still wide on a DX sensor (more so than, say, the 14-24) and it's got full-frame coverage. It's not as good as the 14-24, but I believe it's reasonably well-regarded.</p>

<p>I got 3,978 photos out of 14,054 under 10-24; second most used after 18-200 (4,254 photos). It's used for architecture, hiking, snowboarding, and landscape shots. Most of my highly rated photos in my Lightroom were taken with 10-24.</p>

<p>Definitely a must for me for landscape photography.</p>

<p>If you use filters a lot, you'll get plenty of room before you get vignetting.</p>

<p>All I can say is, you won't know if you like UWA until you get your hands on it and start shooting with it.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for all those responses, it makes interesting reading. Seeing how much others use these lenses helps me gauge how much potential use I might get out of an UWA.<br>

One thing that I would love to have been able to do (and if there any Photonet administrators out there reading this!) would to have been able to search the photonet datatbase by lens type and by focal length. Entering this kind of info is not mandatory at the moment when uploading, but it would be an extremely useful tool if it were!.<br>

Thanks again.</p>