Looking for opinions

[capt445]

We will be going to WDW in 30 days, and I am debating on renting a wide angle lens and or an ultra wide.

This is what I currently have, Nikon D5000 18-55VR kit lens, 55-200VR kit lens, and the 35mm 1.8.

I am looking at renting the Tamron 17-50VC (the non-VC is not available). Or renting the Sigma 8-16 ultra wide.

I guess what I am looking for is any feedback on the two lenses; will the Tamron be that much better than my kit lens, or just stick with my kit lens and go with the Sigma ultra wide?

Thanks in advance for any input and /or advice.

Mike

 

[Experiment_626]

The Tamron lens would be better than the kit lens for sure, if only because the f/2.8 aperture (and the optical stabilization) would let you do a lot more handheld shots.

I recently got this lens and have been putting it through its paces in sort of an informal "play-testing," trying to determine its limits. Last weekend, I ventured over to Marianna, Florida, home of the only tourist-accessible air-filled caves in the state (at Florida Caverns State Park). No tripods are permitted in the caves because they are considered a tripping hazard, and this is one location where I agree -- 25 people in a low-light environment where you have to watch your head and step and those around you, sometimes in very close quarters (and in a couple of places, a few seconds of absolute pitch black darkness), is not a tripod-friendly environment. Like you, I also have the 35mm f/1.8. I took it with me, but started the tour with the 17-50. And I never bothered changing lenses.

People often refer to trying to shoot photos in an enclosed, low-light environment as "shooting in a cave," and this was that -- literally. I was able to shoot at ISO 3200 at f/2.8 and get shutter speeds of between a quarter of a second up to 1/60th or so, depending on how much of the area I was shooting was under the lights and how bright they were. Without the stabilization, almost all my shots would have had visible motion blur. But with it turned on, the majority of what I shot -- at least 75 percent -- was acceptably sharp. Had I tried the 35mm, I would have gained about two-thirds of a stop in exposure, but I also would have sacrificed some depth of field shooting at f/1.8. And even with that, not having the stabilization would have meant I still wouldn't have had as many keepers.

Now, all that said, I would go with the 8-16 unless low-light handheld shots are more important than dramatic wide-angles. I got lots of use out of the 17-50 on my last trip to WDW earlier this month, but under most circumstances I like to go very wide in the parks.

Did you consider looking at a less-expensive UWA? You could rent something like the Sigma 10-20 (which I have) or the Tokina 11-16. I don't know how much it costs to rent any of these lenses, but if the price was low enough, perhaps you could get one of those and the 17-50, if what I described above appeals to you. Just a wild guess, but I'd bet those might cost a bit less to rent than the 8-16.

Some say the 17-50 with stabilization is not quite as sharp as the older model without it -- I wouldn't argue with that. But few people use proper technique to extract maximum sharpness from a lens, and I seriously doubt most people would really the notice the difference 98 percent of the time unless they're pixel-peeping. The vast majority of lenses are better than the vast majority of photographers!

Qapla'

SSB

 

[capt445]

"

The Tamron lens would be better than the kit lens for sure, if only because the f/2.8 aperture (and the optical stabilization) would let you do a lot more handheld shots."

This is what I was originally thinking, until I started reading reviews that said there was considerable IQ difference between the VC and non VC models.
So in you experience the VC models IQ would be better than my kit lens?



I would go with the 8-16 unless low-light handheld shots are more important than dramatic wide-angles


This is the tough part for me, I want both, but I really don't want to spend the $$ to rent both, when that money could have gone towards the purchase of one or the other.

I have checked into the other wide angles you suggested, and they are only a couple $$ less. I figure if I am going to rent one, then I might as well rent the widest one.

I appreciate your input, and any other advise or recommendations you might have.

Mike

 

[Experiment_626]

This is what I was originally thinking, until I started reading reviews that said there was considerable IQ difference between the VC and non VC models.

I've read enough reviews to think there is a difference, but not having used the non-VC version, I can't say whether it is "considerable" or not. I do know that proper shooting technique makes a big difference in image quality, and a lot of people don't do all they can to maximize IQ at time of capture. If I want the sharpest image I can get, it means using a stable tripod, preferably without using an extended center post (although my height vs. my tripod means I usually do wind up extending it anyway), turning the VC feature off (while using the camera on a tripod), using Exposure Delay, and using a remote release. For some people, it also means turning on Live View, using the magnified view, and fine-tuning the focus; these last steps are not something I do in most cases; I find the hassle outweighs the potential benefits. YMMV.

So in you experience the VC models IQ would be better than my kit lens?

In truth, I can't say. I've never used either of the kit lenses you have -- the only kit lenses I have are the 18-135 non-VR and the 18-55 non-VR, and I've hardly ever used the latter. According to what I read, the largest difference between the VC and non-VC versions of the Tamron are that the corners are softer, especially wide open, on the VC lens. I can attest that they are, indeed, rather soft, but so far that hasn't bothered me. I don't generally put subjects of critical interest right at the edge of the frame, except by accident. I also don't shoot test charts or pay much attention to the numbers others get as a result of doing so. I don't photograph test charts; I'm more interested in how well a lens performs in the kind of shooting I actually do on a regular basis.

There have been some reports that newer copies of the VC lens are better than earlier ones with regard to the IQ issues some have reported. I don't know whether that's true or not. Lots of people talk without really knowing what they're talking about. Others talk and do know their stuff, but if you're just Googling reviews and skimming the results here and there, it's hard to tell who is knowledgeable and who is not. There are a lot of parrots out there, and they don't all stay in the Tiki Room!

I want both, but I really don't want to spend the $$ to rent both, when that money could have gone towards the purchase of one or the other.

That's always the way it goes, isn't it? Some advocate buying lenses rather than renting. If you take care of them and then decide you'd rather have something different, you can sell the lens and get almost as much as you paid for it. I have no doubt that would work.* If you have the cash on hand, that could be a good way to go. I don't have a credit card and wouldn't buy anything on credit except a house, so I wouldn't do that. I've also never rented a lens, though I have been tempted. If you can do that, you might wind up paying less in the long run than the cost of the rentals.

If you're in a position where you can only rent one of them ... well, I don't know. 17mm is decently wide, but it certainly isn't 8mm or even 10mm. If you can rent both, I'd still say get both. If you must limit yourself to one, you'll just have to decide what's most important for you to shoot.

Just for reference, here are some of the cave photos I mentioned earlier ... the two boys you see closest to the camera in a few shots are mine. I like those images because they give a good approximation of how dark it was in there to the eye. All of them were shot at f/2.8. More than half are at 17mm. Shutter speeds ranged from a high of 1/60th (on the darkest shot of my little boys) to a low of 1/4 of a second (on the one with the blue-lighted formations in the foreground).

*From eBay, I once bought a kit that included a Nikon N2020 film SLR, an old 28-300 push-pull zoom, A Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens, and a camera bag. I wanted the 50mm lens. I paid just about the going rate for the 50 for the whole kit. I got it, kept the 50 for myself, cleaned everything else and made really good photos of it all, then sold it for more than what I'd paid for it in the first place. I love it when that happens!

Here are the photos I mentioned:


Caverns 4323 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


Caverns Stitched Panorama 2 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4346 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4341 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4335 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4220 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4219 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4216 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4144 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


Caverns 4138 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr

SSB

 

[capt445]

Scott,

After seeing you cave shots, and looking at the EXIF I'm not as worried about the negative comments that I have read. Being able to hand hold at 1/8 of a second and get something usable would be nice. Most of the time when I will need to do that, I will have my tripod with me and utilize it, but just knowing that it is an option would be nice.

As far as renting both, I am leaning that way, I just have to convince the person that controls the purse strings.

Thanks again for all you input.

Mike

 

[Experiment_626]

As far as renting both, I am leaning that way, I just have to convince the person that controls the purse strings.

Believe me, I know aaaall about that!

Thanks again for all you input.

Glad to help!

SSB

 

[ssanders79]

Mike,
I am unable to compare the 2 lenses, but Im in love with the sigma 8-16mm. It makes for some creative compositions.

 

[capt445]

Mike,
I am unable to compare the 2 lenses, but Im in love with the sigma 8-16mm. It makes for some creative compositions.

I am looking forward to using this lens. Hopefully a day in a half will be enough time to practice with, and learn it before we leave.

Are there any tricks or advise you can offer, or is it straight foward enough that I should be ok with it?

Mike

 

[ssanders79]

I am looking forward to using this lens. Hopefully a day in a half will be enough time to practice with, and learn it before we leave.

Are there any tricks or advise you can offer, or is it straight forward enough that I should be ok with it?

Mike

I would say just play around with it. This lens exaggerates everything.. Some things can look really cool while others down right terrible. I find myself trying many different angle to see what happens. People are not that flattering at 8mm, but it can be done.

 

[Experiment_626]

Have you ever previously used an ultra-wide-angle lens? If you haven't, rule number one is "get close." Most people like UWAs best when you have something in the foreground, something in the mid-distance, and of course an interesting background. And you'll likely be startled at how close you can get to your foreground object and, indeed, how close you'll need to get to make it look close. A UWA exaggerates the distance between objects front-to-back in the frame, so something a foot away may look three or four feet away in the image. I've never used one quite that wide (my widest is 10mm, but just that 2mm difference is quite significant). I have used an 8mm fisheye, however, and when I get as close as I want, I actually have to take care that I don't let the front element of the lens physically collide with the subject!

Also, watch your feet and tripod legs when shooting that wide -- you may find them in the bottom of the frame, and it may take a little effort to get them out of the way!

SSB

 

[capt445]

So I probably don't want to use this lens to take portraits of my DW.

I plan on using it mainly for landscapes, and trying to get all of some objects in the frame.

Mike

 

[capt445]

Have you ever previously used an ultra-wide-angle lens? If you haven't, rule number one is "get close." Most people like UWAs best when you have something in the foreground, something in the mid-distance, and of course an interesting background. And you'll likely be startled at how close you can get to your foreground object and, indeed, how close you'll need to get to make it look close. A UWA exaggerates the distance between objects front-to-back in the frame, so something a foot away may look three or four feet away in the image. I've never used one quite that wide (my widest is 10mm, but just that 2mm difference is quite significant). I have used an 8mm fisheye, however, and when I get as close as I want, I actually have to take care that I don't let the front element of the lens physically collide with the subject!

Also, watch your feet and tripod legs when shooting that wide -- you may find them in the bottom of the frame, and it may take a little effort to get them out of the way!

SSB

I have never used an UWA before, so I'm sure there is going to be a learning curve. I never thought of the tripod legs being in the frame, I guess I might have to frame a little wider a then crop them out if it becomes a problem.

Mike

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

Hey capt445. Not sure where you are renting the lens from but....

Have you considered renting it from lensrentals.com? According to their website they have an arrangement between a Sigma dealer. If you rent the sigma 8-16 and decide you like it, they will give you a $50 credit towards purchasing it.

Sort of try before you buy.

 

[Experiment_626]

I have never used an UWA before, so I'm sure there is going to be a learning curve. I never thought of the tripod legs being in the frame, I guess I might have to frame a little wider a then crop them out if it becomes a problem.

It just takes some getting used to; it isn't usually all that difficult to avoid once you are aware of it.

SSB

 

[capt445]

Hey capt445. Not sure where you are renting the lens from but....

Have you considered renting it from lensrentals.com? According to their website they have an arrangement between a Sigma dealer. If you rent the sigma 8-16 and decide you like it, they will give you a $50 credit towards purchasing it.

Sort of try before you buy.

Thanks, That is where I am getting it from. I've rented from them before and it was a pretty simple proccess. I wish they had the same deal with the Tamron, it will probably be the next lens I purchase, but who knows I might really like the Sig and go that way.

Mike