Considering UWA (again)

Hope everyone is having a good Christmas !!

I'm currently re-considering UWA lens options although being honest I'm not 100% sure if I need one. The reason I say this is that I previously owned the Sigma 10-20 and never found it quite to my taste, distortion was a bit too heavy and I often felt that UWA just left landscapes feeling a little lost/distant (hope that makes sense).

I currently use the DA 17-70 most of the time but I'm thinking again about adding the option of UWA but with a DA 12-24. Perhaps the range would be more suitable for my needs than the 10-20 and the 12-24 should exhbit much less distortion than the DA 17-70 in the 17mm focal range.

Although it's obviously up to me to make up my own mind I'd appreciate any thoughts on this from others into landscape photography - it's not really about the qualities of the 12-24/10-20 etc, more about the usefulness of UWA lenses for landscapes

thanks

Simon

Wide lenses can be a bit of a disappointement for landscapes, but that's usually because the advantages are not being exploited.

They need careful composition with strong forground interest and when handled properly can give stunning results.

I would suggest checking out books on landscape photography to see what the possibilities are.

Hi Simon - I came to the same conclusion as you with the Sigma and it lives with another forum member now! I bought a 16-45 which goes wide enough for me, but can see the attraction of the 12-24. Another option might be to buy the 15mm DA Ltd to stick in your pocket for the odd occasion when 17mm is not wide enough?

Hi Jon,

Pity it didn't meet your needs either. I have considered the prime option but having read a few reviews the DA 12-24 seems to be at least of equal quality to the 14/15mm options, with the added flexibility.

One reason I'm considering the 12-24 is that whilst I'm very pleased with the DA 17-70 it does show some distortion around 17mm, the DA 12-24 I believe is distortion free in the 15-20mm range which sounds quite appealing

thanks

Simon

Simon

I've just added the 12-24 (D-Xenon) to my lens collection after having two 10-20 Siggy's and returning both. I tried some Tamron 10-24's as SRS had ten to choose from, but I ended up with a s/h 12-24 which was better than even the best of the Tamrons, as they do have some distortion at all F/L's and the micro contrast was not as good as the 12-24.

I still use my DA 17-70 much more, but the colour and overall IQ of the 12-24 is very similar and I felt much happier with the lens, plus the construction and QS just put the icing on the cake.

Hope you find one at a reasonable price!

EDIT - The 12-24 is very free from distortion from around 14mm up, even at 12mm it's very low and easily correctable.

I personally find that the very wide angle end of things is very disappointing for landscapes usually and I end up cropping. I use my DA* 50-135mm or the Tammy 70-300 more. I do love the 12-24mm for things like interiors, however. As I used to use a 28mm lens on my film camera a great deal, the 12-24 covers that nicely and 24mm is long enough that I don't have to instantly change back to something else. The constant f/4 is good to have too. If I am forcing myself to travel light I find the 12-24mm, the kit lens and the DA* 50-135mm covers most of my needs.

HTH, Kris.

Since I bought the 16-45 lens I swapped my Sigma 10-20 for a Sigma 105 macro, a 12-24 would be nice but I have found the 16-45 seems to satisfy my wide angle needs as the sigma I think was to wide for landscape,
anyway here is a photo taken today with my K7 at 16mm of all the rain we have had here in Malaga, the is a shot of the river Guadalhorce and this is the most water I have ever seen in it.

Jack.

[IMG]http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq253/jackitec/river.jpg[/IMG]