Hi all,
I've recently been itching for a 'proper' wide-angle lens. My current widest lens is my Sigma 17-70 zoom, and while it's a great lens, it's simply not wide enough!
With this in mind, I've been looking at getting the following lenses...
Tamron 10-24mm
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6(/3.5 or whatever it is)
Sigma 8-16mm
Sadly I'm not looking at getting any Pentax glass as I really doubt whether the DA15 or 14 will be wide enough for what I need
I'm also looking into getting a 'telephoto landscape' lens. Any suggestions for this?
Now, STOP!
All this is well and good. Obviously, it's nice to get new glass, and there's no doubt if I want to get into landscapes/architecture in a more 'serious' sense, I'll need to get a wider lens, and one of more quality than what I already have.
But!
I'd like to pose a question to you all:
Does more money equal better quality, every time?
On face value, that question might seem absurd. But, to put it in context, I own a Sigma 70-300 and Sigma 55-200. Both these lenses are classed in the reviews section of this very fine forum as 'cheap,' and 'budget.' However, does this automatically mean that if I took exactly the same photo from my cheapie telephotos, and then another telephoto that costs 10 times more, would the more expensive model create a better exposure on its own merits?
Or, rather, does the creation of a great photo lie more in the way the photographer takes the photo, ie manipulating DOF, lighting, etc etc?
I'd be interested to know a few opinions on this...