going to buy a wide angle....

[crz4mm2]

I have a Canon 7D. Going to invest in a wide angle, but would prefer to spend less than 500.....

I have looked and looked and because I don't really know what I am looking for, I don't know which one to buy..

Someone want to help a gal out?
thanks.

 

[C&B Young]

Your sub $500 options are really only the Tamron 10-24, or the Sigma 10-20. I've got the Tokina 11-16 which is around $600 & I like it a lot, although it's usually hard to find in stock. The Sigma 8-16 and Canon 10-22 are other (even pricier) popular choices.

Check out the UWA thread to see examples of what the DISers use. An UWA lens is definitely a good thing to have at WDW!

 

[crz4mm2]

Thanks.
Do you have an opinion on the Tamron or the Sigma? I need to try some out.
I have been on the UWA lens thread. TOoooo many choices.

 

[Frantasmic]

the Tokina 12-24 f4.0 is also a good lens.

this was a kid's toy I was playing around with

If you could spring for the wider side at f2.8 like the Tokina 11-16 mentioned, you won't be disappointed. But, the f4.0's aren't bad either.

 

[pjacobi]

If you can afford a 7D, why can't you afford the Canon 10-22? Anything else is like putting regular gas in a sports car.


-Paul

 

[crz4mm2]

If you can afford a 7D, why can't you afford the Canon 10-22? Anything else is like putting regular gas in a sports car.


-Paul

Didn't say I COULDN"T afford it,just didn't want to

 

[crz4mm2]

the Tokina 12-24 f4.0 is also a good lens.

this was a kid's toy I was playing around with

If you could spring for the wider side at f2.8 like the Tokina 11-16 mentioned, you won't be disappointed. But, the f4.0's aren't bad either.

Nice ! Thanks.

 

[zackiedawg]

Just to be clear - you mentioned going 'wide' but all the discussion is about 'ultrawide' - I'll assume you mean ultrawide for this thread.

All of these are pretty decent lenses and capable, but require a bit of a learning curve to know how to get good results. It isn't so much the lens that's the issue, but the style of shooting that a UWA lens requires. All of them will fare best when stopped down a bit, and all are capable of massive depth of field. All will have more exxagerated curvatures at the corners, all will be slightly softer in the corners wide open, and all will be slightly prone to some chromic abberation at the corners when at the widest angle. Knowing the right aperture and setting for your shot can help you get wonderful results from any of them. The faster lenses, like the Tokina F2.8 and Tamron F3.5, do allow you to use them in slightly lower light conditions handheld when you need to, but both will be even better when you get a tripod at night and stop them down a bit.

I've had a great time in the past 2 years with my Tamron 10-24 lens. I keep a lens/gear gallery online, so feel free to look through my gallery of all shots I've taken with this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_1024mm_f3545_lens&page=all

 

[crz4mm2]

Just to be clear - you mentioned going 'wide' but all the discussion is about 'ultrawide' - I'll assume you mean ultrawide for this thread.

All of these are pretty decent lenses and capable, but require a bit of a learning curve to know how to get good results. It isn't so much the lens that's the issue, but the style of shooting that a UWA lens requires. All of them will fare best when stopped down a bit, and all are capable of massive depth of field. All will have more exxagerated curvatures at the corners, all will be slightly softer in the corners wide open, and all will be slightly prone to some chromic abberation at the corners when at the widest angle. Knowing the right aperture and setting for your shot can help you get wonderful results from any of them. The faster lenses, like the Tokina F2.8 and Tamron F3.5, do allow you to use them in slightly lower light conditions handheld when you need to, but both will be even better when you get a tripod at night and stop them down a bit.

I've had a great time in the past 2 years with my Tamron 10-24 lens. I keep a lens/gear gallery online, so feel free to look through my gallery of all shots I've taken with this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_1024mm_f3545_lens&page=all

Thanks so much. LOVE the pics

 

[SorcererGrandma]

I also have a Canon 7d and opted for the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM lens. It costs under $500.

I have to say that I am loving this lens! Images are quite sharp and the colors are vibrant. It's fun to put your lens up against a store window and find the an object just half a foot away will appear in it's full length (ie. 3' high). This is shooting at 10mm.

It's a great lens to have in your collection.

 

[crz4mm2]

I also have a Canon 7d and opted for the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM lens. It costs under $500.

I have to say that I am loving this lens! Images are quite sharp and the colors are vibrant. It's fun to put your lens up against a store window and find the an object just half a foot away will appear in it's full length (ie. 3' high). This is shooting at 10mm.

It's a great lens to have in your collection.

Thanks. Got any samples of your pics?

 

[Code]

Here's all the Disney pics I've shared taken with my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=10-20mm&w=63202442@N00

or here on flickriver

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/_code_/tags/10-20mm/

Definitely the cheapest option, but it is well known for quality control issues (left-side softness seems like the biggest problem). If you go with this option, you must be willing to test when you get it, and return for exchange if you get a bad copy. I'd probably go with the Tamron if I had it to buy again.