Comparable lens to Tokina 11-16?

**interested_observer** · 09-06-2012, 08:28 AM

If you are really going for the best IQ - image quality, then like lytrytyr posted, do not overlook stitching. Wide angle lenses are not necessarily just for landscapes. They encompass a large field of view, which contains a significant amount of foreground. Many times you want to bypass or overshoot the foreground for the landscape - thus a longer focal length will be perfect. The longer focal length brings better definition to each pixel. Even though I really liked the 12-24 and thought it was very sharp, shooting and stitching the 31 Ltd killed it. The difference in IQ with the smaller representation of area for each pixel can't be matched.

If you look at most of the commercial landscapes, you will see that they used something between 24/28 to 35mm for a focal length. Why - lack of distortion and great pixel definition. You can use any lens for a landscape - even telephotos (which flatten the view quite a bit). There are reasons for using various focal lengths in lenses for specific views and composure. For wide angle, there are some applications where you can only get a single shot due to motion or whatever.

PushTheRedButton · 09-06-2012, 04:47 PM

Thank you all for the input, I appreciate it all.

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Under those circumstances,
stitching might serve you better
than any ultra-wide angle lens would.

I completely misspoke on that. More so like capturing objects but still having a lot of scenery around them. I can't really describe it, but let's just say I've been inspired by a lot of wide-angle shots in the pictures thread (as well as the Flickr Sigma 8-16 group) and that's what has led me down this road. It's really from what I've seen done by users on this forum.

cali92rs · 09-06-2012, 05:03 PM

These shots were all shot with the Sigma 8-16mm at 8mm...and yes I do believe you are correct that ultra wide angles are difficult to shoot because of the crazy perspective. But that's why they are so fun

I think people that use ultra wides for landscape type purposes are often disappointed due to how small objects are in the distance.

USS Midway:

A nose cone on an airplane:

cali92rs · 09-06-2012, 05:06 PM

A couple more thoughts about the Sigma 8-16mm.
It's a big sucker.
Also, you have to get close, like surprisingly close, to your subject to get the most out of ultra wide angles (i was literally about 1" away from the nose cone above). This is something that you have to be aware of because the front element bulges out and you do run the risk of hitting it if you are not careful :/

Last edited by cali92rs; 09-06-2012 at 05:12 PM.

PushTheRedButton · 09-06-2012, 08:20 PM

I'm definitely looking forward to some creative shooting. The 8-16 will be here Saturday. I might call up a friend and hit up the Getty. I don't really know what they'd have to shoot but I figure that would be the best place to start.

DSims · 09-09-2012, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by PushTheRedButton

I might call up a friend and hit up the Getty. I don't really know what they'd have to shoot but I figure that would be the best place to start.

They have the gardens, they have interesting architecture - you'll find things!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nex 5n Comparable to the K5?	Colorado CJ	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	40	10-09-2012 11:00 AM
Is the K10D comparable to K-5 for night photography at iso 100?	pcarfan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	02-21-2012 10:45 PM
longer zoom lens with IQ comparable to Pentax 12-24mm?	ardentartichoke	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-04-2011 12:55 AM
Hmmmm....Al Comparable Cameras..	Eric Seavey	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	11-09-2010 04:54 AM
Comparable lens to pentax 77ltd.	winglik	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	01-20-2009 01:00 PM

09-06-2012, 08:28 AM	#16
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	If you are really going for the best IQ - image quality, then like lytrytyr posted, do not overlook stitching. Wide angle lenses are not necessarily just for landscapes. They encompass a large field of view, which contains a significant amount of foreground. Many times you want to bypass or overshoot the foreground for the landscape - thus a longer focal length will be perfect. The longer focal length brings better definition to each pixel. Even though I really liked the 12-24 and thought it was very sharp, shooting and stitching the 31 Ltd killed it. The difference in IQ with the smaller representation of area for each pixel can't be matched. If you look at most of the commercial landscapes, you will see that they used something between 24/28 to 35mm for a focal length. Why - lack of distortion and great pixel definition. You can use any lens for a landscape - even telephotos (which flatten the view quite a bit). There are reasons for using various focal lengths in lenses for specific views and composure. For wide angle, there are some applications where you can only get a single shot due to motion or whatever.

09-06-2012, 04:47 PM	#17
PushTheRedButton Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 83 Original Poster	Thank you all for the input, I appreciate it all. Originally posted by lytrytyr Under those circumstances, stitching might serve you better than any ultra-wide angle lens would. I completely misspoke on that. More so like capturing objects but still having a lot of scenery around them. I can't really describe it, but let's just say I've been inspired by a lot of wide-angle shots in the pictures thread (as well as the Flickr Sigma 8-16 group) and that's what has led me down this road. It's really from what I've seen done by users on this forum.

09-06-2012, 05:03 PM	#18
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	These shots were all shot with the Sigma 8-16mm at 8mm...and yes I do believe you are correct that ultra wide angles are difficult to shoot because of the crazy perspective. But that's why they are so fun I think people that use ultra wides for landscape type purposes are often disappointed due to how small objects are in the distance. USS Midway: A nose cone on an airplane:

09-06-2012, 05:06 PM	#19
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	A couple more thoughts about the Sigma 8-16mm. It's a big sucker. Also, you have to get close, like surprisingly close, to your subject to get the most out of ultra wide angles (i was literally about 1" away from the nose cone above). This is something that you have to be aware of because the front element bulges out and you do run the risk of hitting it if you are not careful :/ Last edited by cali92rs; 09-06-2012 at 05:12 PM.

09-06-2012, 08:20 PM	#20
PushTheRedButton Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 83 Original Poster	I'm definitely looking forward to some creative shooting. The 8-16 will be here Saturday. I might call up a friend and hit up the Getty. I don't really know what they'd have to shoot but I figure that would be the best place to start.

09-09-2012, 09:32 PM	#21
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by PushTheRedButton I might call up a friend and hit up the Getty. I don't really know what they'd have to shoot but I figure that would be the best place to start. They have the gardens, they have interesting architecture - you'll find things!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search