Tamron vs Sigma

UWA uses

D.P. said:
Except, landscape photography means tripod and any benefit of fast glass goes out the window. Although at the wide end even an aperture of 2.8 gives some DoF, you don't want to be shooting a landscape at 2.8 without a specific reason.

Maybe I shouldn't have said outdoors, but for most uses of an UWA a tripod is normally a requirement. The exception would be indoor group shots of people etc where you want a fast shutter speed.
Click to expand...

I guess my point is really that whilst to many taking landscapes will involve a tripod, it isn't necessarily the case and flexibility is important (hence the need for a zoom at all).

Having a brighter lens means that all options are availalbe and there's not obvious downside, so if picking up a new UWA lens, and there are no significant quality concerns, buying the faster glass makes sense.:)
 
Mud said:
Not sure I'd trust those Dyxum ratings if they rate the Tamron 10-24 so highly, by most regards it appears to be a dog.



I can shoot landscapes with my 24/1.4 on FX, with such wide angle lenses the DOF with the lens focused towards infinity quickly gets very deep. Of course anything nearby is out of focus, but at 11/2.8 on DX you'll struggle to get much out of focus, even on purpose.



The other advantages of fast glass are the brighter viewfinder and better autofocusing (more light on the AF sensor). You could argue that the better autofocusing is pointless if you're setting hyperfocal distances.
Click to expand...

Fair enough; I've never shot ultra wide and using fast glass, so I have no first hand experience of the their effect and result.
 
I am leaning towards the 10-20 f.3 but a bit worried about sigma and the quality of the product. Also how bad is the distortion on this? Can you put PL filters on them. And should you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom