Recommend me a wide angle lens

[biostud]

You can see my photo gear in my sig.

I'm looking for a wide angle lens to complete my setup.

I'm currently considering:

Sigma 8-16 mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM 4600kr/$840
Sigma EX, 10 mm - 20 mm F/4.0-5.6 3500kr/$640
Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G (used) 4800kr/$875
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 II 4700kr/$850

Obviously I don't want to pay more than necessary, and I'm just taking pictures casually.

 

[Spoooon]

I may be more casual than you.

So, FWIW, I've had no regrets with my Tamron 10-24. I paid 450 (499 +$50 rebate).

 

[AViking]

Consider aperture when you make your decision. I have a f2.8 wide angle lens for astrophotography and it's pretty nice. Heading to Abisko this winter and will see how it really does.

I'd add the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 to your list

 

[biostud]

Consider aperture when you make your decision. I have a f2.8 wide angle lens for astrophotography and it's pretty nice. Heading to Abisko this winter and will see how it really does.

I'd add the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 to your list

Great I'll add it to my short list if I can find a good price.

 

[Berliner]

Have you ever used a wide angle?

I was always convinced I needed one and have not used it much, unfortunately. Most of my photographs, even my landscape work, are taken with either the 50mm, 90mm or the trusty 18-55mm (which of course is a wide angle, but not an ultra wide, like you are asking here).

That being said, I think the Sigma 10-20mm is a very good lens, especially if you take the price difference into account. If you are going to spend more, I would consider the Tokina if you need f/2.8 or the Sigma 8-16, if you need, well, 8mm.

 

[biostud]

I'm not necessarily looking for ultra wide, I just want a lens that is wider than my 35mm.

 

[fralexandr]

I have the tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.5 as well. if you want a flexible lens, the tamron can also do .2x magnification, which is closer than most other "ultra"-wide angles (most are 0.15/0.12). Not that they are typically used for their close focusing .
the tamron has pretty poor corner sharpness and best results are through the wider part ~10-18mm.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fralexandr/sets/72157635386288770/
taken with tamron 10-24mm + pentax k-r + jpeg, no post processing

there are lots of 16-35 style lenses and the 16-50 f/2.8 or 17-50 are popular lenses if you don't do any house interior pictures (mostly what the ultra-wide lenses are good for, other than the perspective ).

you can also usually pick up a 14mm f/2.8 bower/samyang/rokinon/vivitar (vivitar listed as a 13mm, but same optics as the 14mm) for ~$300 that are pretty good budget prime ultrawides
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/30/rokinon-14mm-f-2.8-lens-review

-----
from the one's on your list I'd probably pick the tokina 11-16 (cause i like tokina [they have nice optics usually]), though their lenses are usually heavy [lots of metally bits]) or sigma 8-16 (for the wideness )
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

 

[AViking]

If you're curious about focal lengths I'd say that the 20-24mm range (FX) is probably what you'll use the most. I only use 16-19 for something like the inside of a Church or rare landscapes. I'd like to use it more at those focal lengths but I find it difficult. You get too much sky and pictures are very odd without a decent foreground subject to give it perspective. You need to really think about leading lines and composition with these UWA focal lengths.

I have the Tokina 16-28 F2.8 and it is heavy. You get used to it. If anything the bulbous front end is the only thing that I have to be a bit careful with and is not an issue for the DX version. The 11-16 DX version is about 70% lighter. That's a definite bonus of crop cameras and lenses.

 

[iGas]

I would get a 14~18mm prime such as the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm (manual focus & is tack sharp), or the Sigma 8-16mm.

IMHO, if you go wide might as well go for at least 24mm FF (16mm APS-C), and most of the time landscape/architect shooter would shoot at f5.6~f11 with wide/ultrawide lens so fast lens isn't going to make much different, unless you are going for astrophotography.

The Canon 24-105L on FF body work well for most of the wide angle shots that I take, however there are a few instants that I'm glad that I have the Rokinon 14mm, because it allow me to shoot in crowded places, and area where I can't back up enough to take in the scenery with the 24mm.

 

[AViking]

How is the mustache distortion though? I considered that lens but ultimately wanted AF and a bit more flexibility.

 

[Berliner]

I'm not necessarily looking for ultra wide, I just want a lens that is wider than my 35mm.

Have you tried the 18mm kit lenses? They are wide angle lenses (27mm equivalent) and the 18-55mm VR should be sub $100, especially used, AND they are good at the wide end. I bet you can find someone who has one for you to try out

 

[fralexandr]

autofocus isn't necessary on an ultrawide. With an ultrawide, your hyperfocal distance is typically at ~1-2m depending on aperture

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

distortion will be a problem for pretty much all ultrawides. many of them have noticeable mustache/barrel, but there's also perspective that can make things look funny.
If you're worried about distortion, go with the nikon 10-24. Your camera body has auto distortion correction in JPEG when using a nikon lens.

Since you don't need an ultrawide, it'd probably be better to go with either a kit lens (cheap, light, and versatile) or one of the f2.8 16-50/etc zooms (expensive, heavier, added low light versatility). These lenses pretty much have no noticeable mustache/barrel, and less pronounced perspective based distortion.

 

[iGas]

How is the mustache distortion though? I considered that lens but ultimately wanted AF and a bit more flexibility.

The mustache distortion suck big time when I first got it, but you can download 14mm Samyang Profile Correction plugin for LR 4 & 5 that pretty much eliminate the mustache distortion. (The plugin does a much better job than I could in Manual Lens Correction.)

As fralexandr said above, I use hyper focusing and lens scale exclusively to focus the 14mm, because it is almost impossible to focus ultrawide lens manually through the viewfinder, even with the Canon Eg-S Super Precision Matte Focusing Screen (that I replace the original Eg-A Standard Precision Matte screen with). Focusing still is difficult with the 1.08x-1.58x viewfinder eyepiece magnifier + Eg-A that I use for macro work.

 

[tdawg]

I used a Tokina 12-24 when I was on a crop sensor and it worked great (and was inexpensive). I loved the 10.5mm fisheye lens for travel / landscapes and used this lens exclusively in Hawaii, Chicago, and NYC. Didn't even bother with another lens, but I'm a sucker for expansive fields of view. The 10.5 is tiny, too, so it's amazingly easy to travel with.

If you just want something wider than 35mm, I like the previous suggestions of the 17-50 mm range from the likes of Tamron or Tokina, since they're inexpensive alternatives offering fixed f/2.8 apertures.

However, for bang-for-your-buck champion, I'd check keh.com for a Nikon 18-70 f/3.5~4.5. It was the kit lens for the D70 and it works great as an all around lens (and is usually faster than any 3rd party alternative anywhere near that price range).

 

[_Rick_]

I've spotted a Sigma 18-35/1.8 lens, that is slightly more expensive than the Tokina 11-16, but gives access to the non-ultra end of the wide-angle.
There are also a few third party 16/2 primes, that may well be "good enough" and fit with your other lenses.
And then there's the Zeiss Distagon....yeah never mind

I myself have the Tokina 11-16, and it's quite wide, even at 16mm.

What I'd like you to figure out, biostud, is whether you want a zoom or fixed focal length lens. Given that you have two fixed lenses already, I would say that adding something fixed would make sense - but that's a principal decision you have to make. I assume you will have to get a DX/DC/whatever lens, as 35mm compatible lenses cost around 4 times as much as the smaller ones. Even an 18/2.8 or 20/2.8 is going to cost more than the lenses you listed, especially new.
Wide angle (non-fishy) DX primes are few and far between: A Samyang/Walimex 14mm/2.8 and 16mm/2 are pretty much the only ones I found - might be available under a different brand in the US. Still, they're cheap and apparently not unusable.

In the end, almost any lens will be good enough to take good pictures with, especially those you listed - decide on the specs. Especially minimum focus distance is important with very wide angles - if it's too far you can't always get the composition you want. UWA is the best kind of lens for near-far compositions --- I'd go so far as to say, that it's pretty much the only thing you can do with them. Beyond 16mm has little use for landscape, for example - you get little to no detail, and a lot of sky - and that pesky sun is always trying to get into the frame

 

[AViking]

Well if the sky has lots of clouds you can get some really good compositions. It's the clear blue sky or the white boring sky that kills it. A sunset picture at the beach with awesome clouds and a UWA is pretty great though.

 

[_Rick_]

Well if the sky has lots of clouds you can get some really good compositions. It's the clear blue sky or the white boring sky that kills it. A sunset picture at the beach with awesome clouds and a UWA is pretty great though.

I'd say it depends on feature size. 16mm is usually plenty wide enough for landscape, and even 18mm does just fine. The wider you go, the more the interesting features of the background become smaller and less striking.
But of course, if you have massive features, then going wider pays off, if you can live with the geometric distortion.