What is the next lens I should buy? Thinking UWA...
Tweet

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 11:20 AM

Alright, my gear list is obviously posted in the thread but I only have 3 lenses I would prefer to shoot with; 2 zooms and a prime, which are:

Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens
Minolta 70-210mm f/4
Minolta 50mm f/1.7

I'd like to add another lens in a couple months, and am starting my homework on it now. I am not sure whether to replace the kit lens with something faster or to pick up a wider UWA. My Sony A100 is a 1.5x crop unlike most other people's crop sensors which are 1.6x, as I'm sure that matters to you guys. The lenses I'm looking at right now are:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM - $499
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical - $699
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood - $428.50
Tamron SP Autofocus 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro - $370.55
Tamron SP Autofocus 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) - $565.39
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC SLD ELD Aspherical Macro - $449

All prices are on Amazon. Thanks in advance guys!

- Chris

**iunno** · 06-13-2008 11:23 AM

what do you shoot?

**PhatheadWRX** · 06-13-2008 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by wrxfactor

My Sony A100

I say go wider. As long as you are happy with the Sony Kit.

**Colorblinded** · 06-13-2008 11:30 AM

Well if you're looking for UWA, then these aren't going to get you anything:
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood - $428.50
Tamron SP Autofocus 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro - $370.55
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC SLD ELD Aspherical Macro - $449

not to mention you already have a lens that goes down to 18mm. If you want ultra wide you need to consider something that goes down to 10 or 12mm, plus then you'll have the advantage of actually increasing your wide angle range unlike if you bought any of those other lenses I mentioned above.

**iunno** · 06-13-2008 11:35 AM

and for reference, this is 15mm on a 1.5x crop:

**LateApex** · 06-13-2008 11:38 AM

IIRC, the Sigma 12-24 works on FF bodies, and wouldn't be the best choice for a crop body since you can get wider. I don't think it takes screw on filters either. Of the two Sigma UWAs, the 10-20 would be my choice.

I think Daniel meant what type of things do you shoot?

**Berg** · 06-13-2008 12:00 PM

If you are happy with your kit lens, I would probably go with the 10-20 sigma. If you want something to replace the kit, I would go with the Tamron 17-50.

**Geekybiker** · 06-13-2008 12:08 PM

I would get a UWA and then replace the kit lens. In that order.

I know 17mm on my 1.5 isn't quite wide enough. I could live with about 14-15mm on a walk around lens if they made such a beast.

(wouldn't a 12.5-50mm make a really interesting reversal of the 17-70 4x zooms?)

**iunno** · 06-13-2008 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by LateApex

I think Daniel meant what type of things do you shoot?

that is what i meant, buying a lens because it's new/cool/everyone has it is silly if you aren't shooting what the lens was made for. i was just saying he needs to think about what he shoots and what direction he wants to take his photography before he decides on a lens

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 12:20 PM

Thanks for everything so far. I want to be able to shoot indoors in crappy-ish light and have a zoom, hence the lenses that would replace my kit lens with a better maximum aperture. Losing out on the distance wouldn't disappoint me that much, what is most important to me is how useful that lens is.

I am not happy with the Sony kit lens indoors and mediocre light. I definitely want to fix that. The question is really what do I pick up first? I love traveling, I'm positive I'll do more shooting on the Charles and downtown Boston, so I feel like the 10-20mm may really be what I want.

I just know that if I pick up the 10-20mm I'll have dropped $500 and my only option for shooting inside in low light will be with my 50mm and I'm worried it may be too much. I guess in that case I could pick up a 28mm f/1.8 or f/2.8 afterwards if that were the case. I am satisfied with the quality of the Sony kit glass, just not the maximum aperture.

**Geekybiker** · 06-13-2008 12:29 PM

Well f/2.8 is pretty dang slow to shoot indoors in available light. Maybe in the day in a room with lots of windows. Most of my Dim light shots are iso 800 f1.7 1/20-1/40 or so. Typical restaurant light.

You really need a fast prime to shoot like that (which you already have.) A f2.8 Might work in brighter areas, and has its own benefits though.

My thought is to look at the shots that you want to take, but your equipment is restricting you. Then take a look at where you shoot alot and think about getting higher quality lenses for that.

IE my first lens (aside from the kit) was a 70-300. I like to shoot animals. Quality isn't great, but at least I can take acceptable pictures there now. Second lens was a 28mm f1.8 for low light. Third was a macro 105mm 1:1 Only range I don't really have covered is UWA so that'll probably be next and then progressively replacing the lower quality stuff in the ranges I use most. (Though the 28mm and 105mm are here to stay)

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 12:37 PM

I have a 70-300mm Tamron Macro as well, f/4-5.6, but I like the Minolta f/4 over it, so I probably won't use it much anymore, especially when I pick up a 2x teleconverter.

I'm reading that this lens isn't sharp until you hit f/8, which coupled with the slower maximum aperture probably means indoor shooting is out of the question. However, I also want to shoot at night outside with it. I do have a tripod but am just concerned with the reviews I'm reading. I'll put some here:

Purchased this because it's the widest zoom lens you can get for the α mount and with the crop factor that's important. 15-30mm equivalent is a nice range but the Sigma 10-20 is only usable on 1.5x crop cameras which is a downside in terms of future full frame compatibility.
Autofocus isn't great with this lens but its not terrible and at the wide end the hyperfocal distance is such that it doesn't really matter - everything is in focus. The lens isn't particularly sharp wide open either, so stopping down is required and this makes an already slow lens slower.
In summary, if you need a zoom that goes to 10mm, this is the lens to get. If you want something sharp or fast, it's probably not your best choice.

This lens has really surprised me. It is rarely zoomed away from the 10mm end, which is a lot of fun to play with. As said in every other review here, it is very wide and makes a lot of shots possible that previously weren't. The colors are quite vibrant. The sharpness and colors together remind me of some of the results I get with my Min 50 1.7. It hunts a little in low light, but I don't consider that much of a negative seeing as many lenses do the same. Some shots taken at close range at the 10mm end have noticeable barrel distortion, but it is to be expected.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the results of this lens.

People complain about the distortion on this lens but really, there is very very little. Distortion is much better controlled than in the 17-35(D), certainly when you get to the 10mm end, which is where I've used it mostly.

f/4-5.6 is very dark. Disappointingly so, particularly when you're trying to AF some night / long-exposure photography. Given the huge DOF though, it's entirely possible to just set it to f/8, make a wild stab on the focus scale and then chimp a couple of times.

Sharpness is as good as the 17-35 and probably better but it can't match the 28-75 or 100-300 at all... not that that is to be expected for a lens of this design.

Flare is very well controlled; you can take images with major point-source lights in them and not lose all contrast or have a procession of green hexagons across the image. The hood doesn't do much but that's largely a function of how much this thing can see. I recently tried it with infrared and found it to be an excellent performer without the horrid bright spot in the centre of the image seen on many other lenses; presumably the anti-reflection coatings work out past 700nm.

Build: it has the nice EX finish and is reassuringly solid, nothing wobbles or creaks. It doesn't give quite the same tank-like impression as the 100-300/4; fine details in the mouldings make it look more delicate than it maybe is.

I got it at a stock-auction for a closed camera store, hence the unusually low price

These kind of reviews make me nervous to drop $500 on a single lens even though I want this kind of range!

**LateApex** · 06-13-2008 12:59 PM

Do you have an external flash? That would significantly improve your indoor shots if you are in a situation where you can bounce it.

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by LateApex

Do you have an external flash? That would significantly improve your indoor shots if you are in a situation where you can bounce it.

I don't have an external flash and have no experience bouncing a flash, though it looks easy if I were to get one. Looks like a rather expensive thing to add right now though, $300 for the middle Sony flash.

**jacobsen1** · 06-13-2008 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by LateApex

IIRC, the Sigma 12-24 works on FF bodies, and wouldn't be the best choice for a crop body since you can get wider. I don't think it takes screw on filters either.

yeah, the 12-24mm works on any body, but IMHO it's "home" is a 1.3 cropper... It's a bit too wide for FF IMHO (it's a cool effect, but it's not great optically in the corners) and it's not wide enough on a 1.6. On 1.3 it's perfect, but that's a very small segment and it's the only option IMHO for that segment.

As for filters, it takes REAR filters and "nothing else". The quotes are because it'll take the giant cokin X-pro filters with some creativity and DIY work. But it's not cheap, and only the rectangular filters work leaving you w/o a CP anyway.

Originally Posted by Geekybiker

I would get a UWA and then replace the kit lens. In that order.

I also agree with this. I know you want faster indoors in your kit lens, but IMHO I like to cover my bases first, then upgrade the coverage as I can afford to. So I'd buy the UWA zoom first since you don't have one. But if you feel you really need a standard zoom with a fixed f/2.8, another consideration is the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and tamron/tokina also make similar versions. It doesn't start at the typical "standard" zoom of ~17mm for a cropper, but with a 10-20 it makes for a nice pair.

**LateApex** · 06-13-2008 01:18 PM

Ouch... I was thinking it would be ~150. Sony is proud of their accessories, eh? Looks like the $200 one doesn't even have a swivel head, which is important if you wanna bounce in portrait orientation.

Oh well, it's just another tool to think about.

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I also agree with this. I know you want faster indoors in your kit lens, but IMHO I like to cover my bases first, then upgrade the coverage as I can afford to. So I'd buy the UWA zoom first since you don't have one. But if you feel you really need a standard zoom with a fixed f/2.8, another consideration is the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and tamron/tokina also make similar versions. It doesn't start at the typical "standard" zoom of ~17mm for a cropper, but with a 10-20 it makes for a nice pair.

Ben, I agree with you and Geekybiker that I should get the UWA first and then get something to replace my kit lens. However, will the f/2.8 really let me shoot in crappy light or am I still going to be boosting the ISO through the roof? If that's the case I will just pick up a 28mm f/1.8 as well and crop my pictures instead of using the camera to frame it where I want it.

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by LateApex

Ouch... I was thinking it would be ~150. Sony is proud of their accessories, eh? Looks like the $200 one doesn't even have a swivel head, which is important if you wanna bounce in portrait orientation.

Oh well, it's just another tool to think about.

Yeah, if I'm going to spend $200 and not get a swivel, I'll pay another $100 to get it. In reality, I'll look for used and hope to get a good deal, or put it off until I have a lot of extra monies.

**Geekybiker** · 06-13-2008 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by wrxfactor

Ben, I agree with you and Geekybiker that I should get the UWA first and then get something to replace my kit lens. However, will the f/2.8 really let me shoot in crappy light or am I still going to be boosting the ISO through the roof? If that's the case I will just pick up a 28mm f/1.8 as well and crop my pictures instead of using the camera to frame it where I want it.

With a f2.8 lens you're looking at iso 1600 and 1/15-1/30 exposures in a typical low light available light scenario. If that iso and exposure are acceptable to you, go for it. I don't know your camera and tolerance to noise. Mine rapidly degrades past iso800, and you have problems with subject movement with long exposures even with IS. Though beware the paper thin DOF of f1.8 Its hard to get multiple faces in focus if they aren't very parallel to the focal plane.

**user errors** · 06-13-2008 02:44 PM

My vote is the Sigma 10-20

and

@ daniel's pic. It looks so normal scrolling down and then you get to people in costume.

**jacobsen1** · 06-13-2008 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by wrxfactor

However, will the f/2.8 really let me shoot in crappy light or am I still going to be boosting the ISO through the roof?

Yeah, I'm a prime whore for this reason. Check the EXIFs on my baby shots, they're almost all at wider than f/2.8 and still have the ISO at 800, 1600, or even 3200 at times. If it's indoors and crappy light, get one or 2 decent primes specifically for that if you'll be shooting a lot like that. I did and I've been very happy with them.

**ride5000** · 06-13-2008 05:22 PM

2.8 has been good to me, usually staying 1600 or lower.

i just about never use flash.

your definition of "crappy light" and the subject matter play a lot into how "fast" you need your glass to be.

**Markitos** · 06-13-2008 05:46 PM

Everyone has pretty much covered it, and I give a +1 to everything. FWIW, switching from Nikon to Canon forced me to stop and think about what lenses/range I'd really need, and this is what I came up with:

17-40 f/4--I shoot wide outside most of the time, and inside I can use a flash.
50 1.4--I agree that f/2.8, while very useful for zooms, isn't a giant leap forward when you are shooting indoors. You are often talking about the difference between ISO800 and ISO1600, whereas an f/1.4 lens gets you down to 200--BIG DIFFERENCE. The flipside of that is it gives you much more leeway for higher shutter speeds at high ISO indoors to stop motion.
70-200 f/4 I don't need a fast telephoto because I don't shoot weddings or motorsports very often, and when I do shoot weddings, I hardly use the telephoto, so ~$500 for 1 stop isn't really a rational choice for me. I am getting an IS lens for stuff that's not moving.
Speedlight An external flash is very useful, though a pain in the butt. Some will argue that a fast lens is preferable to a speedlight, but when shooting portraits/people indoors, a speedlight gives you a catchlight in your subjects' eyes, which makes for a better portrait, and keeps the eyes from being dark holes.

For my Nikons, I had a fast f/2.8 midrange zoom (17-55mm on a 1.5x crop). It was my nicest lens, my primary walkaround lens, and my primary wedding lens. It was useful and I loved it, but it wasn't a NECESSITY, so I'm skipping it this time around, at least for now, and just using the 50mm instead.

For your cropper, you should consider a 30mm 1.4 or 1.8 to give you the ~50mm equivalent.

UWA lenses are fun, but only if that's your shooting style. They are very popular on NSOP for some reason, but it can be a very limiting range, depending on the situation.

Just my 0.02... dunno if it's helpful or not.

**wrxfactor** · 06-13-2008 06:25 PM

Markitos, EXTREMELY helpful. I already have a 70-210 f/4 so that works well for me

**jacobsen1** · 06-13-2008 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Markitos

They are very popular on NSOP for some reason.

**Markitos** · 06-13-2008 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Oh don't flatter yourself--all the new members have probably your indoor prime stuff and your FE shots.

**thechickencow** · 06-13-2008 11:17 PM

I'm hearing you say you want low light indoor shooting capability, and the sigma won't do that. Its pretty much gotta be shot in 'good' light to get a shot that is usable. This one is an example of a shot I took hand held in the lightest part of my friends apartment with the sigma:

At 20mm, 1/15sec, and ISO 800, f/5.6 you can see I'm struggling to get something sharp/usable.

Here's another example:

10mm, f/4, ISO 400, 1/25sec is slightly more useable, but this is a lot more light.

I like my sigma a lot, and probably won't get rid of it unless I go to a FF body, but now that I've got my midrange with f/2.8 and IS I'm better off for the low-light stuff. The UWA gets used for landscapes, city, other stuff, but I'd NEVER take it to a party now that I've got the other lens.

**thechickencow** · 06-13-2008 11:21 PM

I forgot to mention too, I am in definite agreement with the school of thought of increasing your overall focal length coverage before upgrading your current FL.

**jacobsen1** · 06-13-2008 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Markitos

Oh don't flatter yourself--all the new members have probably your indoor prime stuff and your FE shots.

wait, are you drinking too?

**Markitos** · 06-14-2008 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

wait, are you drinking too?

**wrxfactor** · 08-01-2008 10:36 AM

Bumping this back up. Once again in the Sigma 10-20mm vs the Tamron 11-18mm debate. I can get the Sigma through B&H for $500 or $440 through a shady vendor that seems OK for lenses. Or, I can get the Tamron from a different shady vendor with good reviews for lens purchases for $389 minus Tamron's $75 rebate. However, if they sell me a non-US version of the lens (do they have those?) I might get boned on the rebate.

I'd rather purchase from a reputable vendor but I can't afford to at the moment. Tamron's rebate goes until the end of the month, so I have some time to think about it.

I guess I'm asking you guys to sell me on that last millimeter and the price difference being worth it.

**BobbyT** · 08-01-2008 11:03 AM

For UWA, every mm counts. The wider the better. Not to mention you gain 2mm on the long end if you need it.

**wrxfactor** · 08-01-2008 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by BobbyT

For UWA, every mm counts. The wider the better. Not to mention you gain 2mm on the long end if you need it.

Yeah, my kit lens is an 18-70mm though. I was going to replace it with the 18-200mm but have decided that the glass isn't as good and I'd rather have a 30mm f/1.4, which is the other lens I want to buy. Damn I really need like, $1k to drop in my pocket.

**ride5000** · 08-01-2008 12:14 PM

i've mentioned it before, but i've still got my eyes on the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX. 11-16mm only, but a straight f2.8 across the range. also reportedly very sharp as well.

see also these two flickr groups:
Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX (F2.8 11-16mm)
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

**Geekybiker** · 08-01-2008 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by wrxfactor

Bumping this back up. Once again in the Sigma 10-20mm vs the Tamron 11-18mm debate. I can get the Sigma through B&H for $500 or $440 through a shady vendor that seems OK for lenses. Or, I can get the Tamron from a different shady vendor with good reviews for lens purchases for $389 minus Tamron's $75 rebate. However, if they sell me a non-US version of the lens (do they have those?) I might get boned on the rebate.

I'd rather purchase from a reputable vendor but I can't afford to at the moment. Tamron's rebate goes until the end of the month, so I have some time to think about it.

I guess I'm asking you guys to sell me on that last millimeter and the price difference being worth it.

IIRC that tamron is supposed to be a better lens even with a shorter range. I dont think 18mm vs 20mm is a big deal. I have it covered anyways if I really need it.

**user errors** · 08-01-2008 12:31 PM

That Tok looks awesome as I find myself wishing for something <f4 when using my Sigma

**wrxfactor** · 08-01-2008 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Geekybiker

IIRC that tamron is supposed to be a better lens even with a shorter range. I dont think 18mm vs 20mm is a big deal. I have it covered anyways if I really need it.

Every review I have read puts the Sigma on top of the Tamron/Sony. I don't care about losing on the zoom end, it's moreso the wide end that I care about.

Originally Posted by user errors

That Tok looks awesome as I find myself wishing for something <f4 when using my Sigma

That's good info to know; I'm gonna check out the Tokina more now.

**Geekybiker** · 08-01-2008 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by wrxfactor

Every review I have read puts the Sigma on top of the Tamron/Sony. I don't care about losing on the zoom end, it's moreso the wide end that I care about.

That's good info to know; I'm gonna check out the Tokina more now.

Maybe it was the tok I was thinking of. Its a newish lens that was f2.8 and had a smallish zoom range.

**wrxfactor** · 08-01-2008 02:42 PM

Quick search says the widest lens Tokina makes for Sony is the 19-35mm

Looks like the 11-16mm is only for Canon/Nikon. They also make a 10-17mm fisheye for Canon for under $600! Craziness.

**Markitos** · 08-01-2008 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Geekybiker

Maybe it was the tok I was thinking of. Its a newish lens that was f2.8 and had a smallish zoom range.

yes, that's the one you're thinking of--it's supposed to be the best of the bunch.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

What is the next lens I should buy? Thinking UWA...
Tweet

Posting Permissions