File :-(, x, )
Sigma 10-20mm Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Hi there,

I've been researching into the Sigma 10-20mm Wideangle Lens; and can't make my mind up if I should risk investing in one.

My main problem is, is that 'll be using the lens to photograph gigs, and other such events. But due to the low-light conditions often at these venues.. I'm worried that the lowest f/4 stop will not let enough light in.

85% of the time I will not be using a flash, as it dazzles the performers and is generally annoying, so a high iso speed will be compulsory.

Im seeking a wide angle lens, with fairly "soft" distortion, so as I can get as much in the frame, whilst being as close to the performers as possible. (Im often about 2" away).

Does /p/ have any experience with the 10-20mm & low lighting conditions - especially music events?
Are there any alternatives within the same price range?

(please excuse the horrible wording of this thread).
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:09:11 21:39:18Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width424Image Height337
>> Anonymous
If you use a Canon body, their 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is a worthy alternative.

Tamron is developing a 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020102tamron1024.asp
this will effectively replace their current 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6. I expect it to be cheap like the Sigma, but you'll have to wait for the lens to even hit production and then wait some more for reviews.

Then there's also the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, but not only is it less wide, it's also the same max aperture at the widest setting.

I don't think 3.5 or 4 will make a critical difference - if f/4 is unworkable for you, I don't think f/3.5 will be. Then again it might just take you that little step further.
>> Anonymous
>>169726
oh yeah, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is $150-200 more expensive than the Sigma.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>169726
>>169727
Ah thanks for the tips, i'll look into that.
Although the Canon isnt an option, as I use a Nikon body.

The Tamron spec looks very enticing, the zoom range could proof very usefull for me. But no release dates have been set yet :( Have to wait I guess.
Thanks again.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Get the Sigma, the 10mm is ultra ultra wide on the Nikon.

For gigs, you're going to have to bump up the ISO a fair regardless. Just pray that the venue has decent lighting cause that's gonna be more critical than anything else.
>> Anonymous
>>169734
I thought that it was wider on Canon? Well maybe I should get one for my D80 then
>> Anonymous
>>169754

I'm waiting around for Butterfly to drop in and tell the OP to sell his camera and buy a Sony so I can ask her to marry me.
>> Anonymous
OP:

What I would suggest is going for something a bit more modest. The Sigma 20/1.8 sounds perfect for you, other than being not quite so insanely wide, which probably isn't a bad thing. It's wide, very fast, and focuses very close.
>> Anonymous
>>169758

not-the-op, but trying to decide between the 10-20 and 20 as well.
i mostly plan on shooting fashion (friends with some fashion design students), nature, and architecture. probably leaning heavier on the architecture and fashion.

any idea what the positives/negatives of each lens are? or where i could go to read a comparison?
>> Anonymous
>>169761
10-20: 10mm. More compact, I think. Pretty much it.
20: Faster, probably sharper and better bokeh, less temptation to go for weird ultrawides, because you're locked at a reasonable focal length. Will do double duty as a pseudo-macro lens. Distortion better corrected, important for architecture.

I'd go with the 20mm. Another option would be a manufacturer 28/2.8, faster than the zoom, though slower than the 20/1.8, but much more compact because of it. That's actually probably your best choice.
>> Anonymous
>>169764

Huh... I'm surprised people are so gay for the 10-20 if there really aren't that many benefits over the fixed-20.

Any thoughts on the "Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG IF Aspherical Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens"?
Based on the price I'm guessing it's shit, but I thought I'd ask.
>> Anonymous
i have this its great for live shots if you have a good flash
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>169765
10mm vs. 20mm is a much bigger deal than the handwave given by the guy you're responding to would suggest. There's a huge perspective difference between 10 and 20 millimeters.
>> Anonymous
>>169765
Fantastic lens. Both wide, zoom and macro in one lens.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Woah, huge responce, wasnt expecting this.

Thanks for all the comments.
I have a D80, so thats a 1.5x crop.

I'll have a look into the 20mm sigma Anon said about, but till try both lenses before I decide. Probably rent them both for a night, to compare their performance.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>169773

the problem is most venues i've shot DO NOT allow flashes, it'd most liekly cause a fit for those drug fucked musicians.

>>169748

Your venues must be really really poorly lit. That's why i said it's really important to shoot an places with decent lighting, 1/100 @ 2.8 @ ISO 800 is usually good enough.
>> Anonymous
>>170052
i disagree. its not important to shoot in well lit places, its important to be prepared for places that arent well lit. a lot of times you dont know what the lightings gonna be like until you get there. id rather not go there to take pictures and go home instead because bawww the lighting is gay.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>170064

The places i shoot mostly are really well lit and are the places known for the live entertainment or have a reputation. So whilst you may have never been to a venue before but you might have heard from a friend etc.

The point i'm making is, what's the point of preparation if the place you get to does not accomodate your lighting needs? No flash policy + shit lighting equals a real hard time trying to get a shot.
>> Anonymous
>>170064
>>its not important to shoot in well lit places
Not at all. Lighting is never important in photography. Ever.

GTFO you noob
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>170122
lrn2reading comprehension.

He's not saying lighting isn't important. He's saying that it's important to know how to take photos in poorly-lit situations.