Uwa 11-24

[shutterdown]

I like taking landscape shots. I like using as wide a lens as I can. My lens of choice is the 17-40 L. I typically stop it down, since the large majority of the time, it's in decent light.

I also shoot in lower light, and will use bracketing to eventually do HDR.

While the 11-24 seems like a nice lens, it's a lot of dough to achieve a few more mm of angle.

A much simpler solution is to take two shots, blend them into a pano.

Even realtors or architectural types do editing of their photos, so it's not a big deal to use a stitching program to get an even wider angle.

If one is going to spend 3 grand on a lens, it seems a better deal to buy the 17-14 or the 16-35 and put the extra cash toward more lenses or a camera body, to expand the kit.

Just my 2 cents.

[HDNitehawk]

Those few mm gives you a FOV about 45% wider.

I agree you can get the wide angle by stitching, I have been doing quite a few of those hand held lately and have had very good luck.

What you will not be able to re-create is the look and feel a lens this wide will have. I owned the 14mm L and the 16-35mm II, the 14mm had a complete different feel because of the width and distortion.

[Kayaker72]

Definitely some cash needed for that lens. But stitching isn't always the answer. Of course, it isn't really possible if any element of the scene is in motion or perhaps practical if taking a large number of shots. To Pros time is money.

That said, this lens isn't likely to find its way into my kit.

Btw, this thread reminded me of the group that stitched a huge number of shots of Machu Picchu taken with a 100-400. Great shot. File size was enormous.

[Sean Setters]

Btw, this thread reminded me of the group that stitched a huge number of shots of Machu Picchu taken with a 100-400. Great shot. File size was enormous.

I seem to remember something about that...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=4484

[peety3]

If one is going to spend 3 grand on a lens, it seems a better deal to buy the 17-40 or the 16-35 and put the extra cash toward more lenses or a camera body, to expand the kit.

I'm betting dollars to donuts that you've never shot with the Canon 14/2.8 or the Zeiss 15/2.8. Five minutes with the Canon, and you'll get it. Then five minutes with the Zeiss and you'll find yourself asking "do I really NEED autofocus to shoot XYZ?" just so you can take the Zeiss instead of the Canon. I bet five minutes with the 11-24 and I'd find myself asking "how quickly can I sell my wife's 14/2.8, and how many future rental reservations need to have the Zeiss 15 canceled and the Canon 11-24 reserved in its place?"

[Kayaker72]

I will await test results, but, another thought on the 11-24 f/4, it may be a great starscape lens. If you follow the 500/ focal length rule of thumb, that is a 45 sec exposure before you start seeing star trails. So, a bit less than a 1/2th stop more light than I get with my Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 14-24) or a bit more than a stop of light compared to a 24 mm lens.

[conropl]

...another thought on the 11-24 f/4, it may be a great starscape lens. If you follow the 500/ focal length rule of thumb, that is a 45 sec exposure before you start seeing star trails. So, a bit less than a 1/2th stop more light than I get with my Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 14-24) or a bit more than a stop of light compared to a 24 mm lens.

I do not know if I would go that far. For my 24 mm, the rule of thumb says I should max out at 21 seconds. For stars I would usually shoot 24 mm at 24 seconds, f/2, and ISO 3200.

Assuming the same ISO, your calculated shutter speed is one stop higher, but the two full stops lower in aperture value. I think it is going to be a little dim.

Even with your example, it needs a 1/3 stop more shutter speed than your Rokinon, but has 1 full stop less light getting through the aperture.

If you could make it work, it would be borderline. Having said that, I not implying everyone would want an exposure just like I do it, and lower exposure may very well work for someone else. However, you would leave yourself with very little room for adjustment to changing conditions or light pollution.

Pat

[Kayaker72]

Point taken. It would be ballparkish similar to a 24 mm f/~2.8 lens in terms of exposure. Looking at my post, I failed to mention what I thought may be unique, which is the 11 mm perspective. Perhaps a more accurate comparison, in terms of exposure: the Zeiss 21 f/2.8. I've seen several references to it as a favorite nightscape lens. The 11-24 would be letting in a similar amount of light (just a little less) at the 11 mm perspective.

Absolutely, some lenses will let in more light, but I think this lens will let in sufficient light for a nightscape at the 11 mm perspective.

Just another potential use of a lens I will likely never own. But I look forward to the pictures....

[Anthony M]

I'm dying to see some samples from this lens, I was about as excited to see this released as the 5Ds.

However, I'm hoping that Sigma might step in and release an update to their 12-24 sometime soon. I'd love a fixed aperture lens at f4, but would even take a variable aperture if it had the same characteristics of their latest zooms. I'm especially hoping for this so they can save me a lot of money!

[HDNitehawk]

If the MTF charts are any indication, and lately they have been an indication of where the IQ falls compared to other lenses in the lineup, this lens will be extremely sharp.

But the giant bulbous lens is a big negative because it would be very difficult to use external filters.