Macro or Wide Angle Zoom

VapourTrail · 3 Dec 2007 at 21:03

I've been quoted £150 for my old Canon EOS 5 with my 28-105mm and 100-300mm lenses so I'm in the market for a new lens to add to my D80 and 18-200mm lens. I've narrowed my choice down to either a Sigma 10-20mm wide angle zoom or a 105mm macro. Any thoughts/comments on which one would be a better complement to my kit for the time being? Eventually I plan to get both but I'm not sure that going down to a 10mm wide angle is better than getting a fast 105mm lens that would be good for both portrait shots and macro work.

n30_mkii · 3 Dec 2007 at 21:22

I personally have the sigma 10-20mm and am looking out for a sigma 105mm or 150mm, my main interest is landscape, and I think the 10-20mm is a great lens for the money!

Just depends on what your main interests are, as they are two completley different areas

Rhumsaa · 3 Dec 2007 at 21:32

As above, it does really depend on where your interest lies.

All other things equal tho, the macro lens is probably more versatile (i.e. portraits / macro) whereas the 10-20 (although a great lens) has more limited uses. That said, I'd never sell my 10-20. Never ever.

n30_mkii · 3 Dec 2007 at 21:47

That said, I'd never sell my 10-20. Never ever.

Indeed the same for me, one of the best purchases I have ever made, the only down side is the 77mm filter size, but thats to be expected.

wez130 · 3 Dec 2007 at 22:11

< another 10-20 owner, it's a great lens and i would never get rid of it either, i like macro photographybut i make do with my 35-80 lens reversed onto the body.

robmiller · 4 Dec 2007 at 09:04

Surely it depends what you shoot, given that a rather long tele and an ultrawide are virtually polar opposites :confused:

a1ex2001 · 4 Dec 2007 at 12:21

robmiller said:
Surely it depends what you shoot, given that a rather long tele and an ultrawide are virtually polar opposites

Exactly it's not really a problem that we can help you with, both are good lenses but for very different things, personally I'd go with the wide angle but thats because I'd get more use from it.

Horses for course I'm afraid and you'll have to decide.

robertgilbert86 · 4 Dec 2007 at 12:52

I'd say the Sigma 10-20 is much more versatile compared to a prime macro, I use mine all the time, not just for landscapes, but anything, it's really fun, gives photos instant impact. Buy it and you won't be disappointed.

Messiah Khan · 4 Dec 2007 at 12:57

robertgilbert86 said:
I'd say the Sigma 10-20 is much more versatile compared to a prime macro, I use mine all the time, not just for landscapes, but anything, it's really fun, gives photos instant impact. Buy it and you won't be disappointed.

Whereas I would say the opposite. It really depends on what the OP finds more interesting as to which lens will be most usefull.

n30_mkii · 4 Dec 2007 at 13:01

Indeed both lenses offer lots of shooting possibilities. We could do with more info on shooting habbits from the op

robmiller · 4 Dec 2007 at 13:34

robertgilbert86 said:
I'd say the Sigma 10-20 is much more versatile compared to a prime macro, I use mine all the time, not just for landscapes, but anything, it's really fun, gives photos instant impact. Buy it and you won't be disappointed.

And then I would find a fast ~100mm prime infinitely more useful than a 10-20. As said, it depends entirely on what you shoot.

Rhumsaa · 4 Dec 2007 at 14:37

robertgilbert86 said:
I'd say the Sigma 10-20 is much more versatile compared to a prime macro, I use mine all the time, not just for landscapes, but anything, it's really fun, gives photos instant impact. Buy it and you won't be disappointed.

Tbh Rob, 50mm is the longest I've seen you use on a regular basis.

VapourTrail, maybe you should get both....

GeX · 4 Dec 2007 at 14:52

indeed, its all down to what you shoot more of. it's rare i move away from 10mm on my 10-20

robertgilbert86 · 4 Dec 2007 at 14:54

Rhumsaa said:
Tbh Rob, 50mm is the longest I've seen you use on a regular basis.

Hey! Who are you!?
Anyway, meh, I played with that Tamron 90mm macro we just got, quite fun actually, but also my walkabout lens is the 18-135 so

And to all others; I'm right grrr!

VapourTrail · 4 Dec 2007 at 20:58

VapourTrail, maybe you should get both....

[/quote]

Wish I could afford to

Really posted this partly to see where the discussion would go.

As I'm only prepared to buy one new lens at the moment I'm not convinced that as I already have a 18-200 that going down to a 10-20 will give me much more - but I may be wrong as I've never used a wider lens than the one I currently use. Getting a F2.8 105 macro however, would give me a faster lens that could be used for portraits as well as macro work which is an area that I would like to experiment with. At the end of the day I want everything - but don't we all