Originally posted by melissaSJ I primarily shoot portraits and I am in a good place on portrait lenses. That said, I'd like a nice super-wide-angle lens for my own personal use. I'd like something to take on vacations to shoot coastlines and mountain ranges...you know, typical family landscape stuff. Would you buy a wide-angle-only lens (I'm looking at the Sigma 10-20mm or the Tamron 10-24mm) or a "do-it-all" lens (18-200ish mm)? My reasoning for the do-it-all lens would be that I wouldn't need to take my whole bag on sightseeing trips while traveling. My reason for the wide-angle-only lens would be that the quality really is better.
So, given that I would only be using it for personal use, should I go with quality or convenience?
Hi Melissa,
I guess it depends on your budget and the amount of lenses (weigth) you want to carry around.
The 16-45mm is a very good choice, often 16mm is quite enough for coastlines and moutain ranges.
Not too expensive, not too heavy, excellent optics. See how far it can take you.
If you have more $$'s, get the DA* 16-50mm (with SDM, WR and a little more range and at f2.8) instead.
The 12-24mm is my next personal target, it seems to be an exceptionally good lens. I have the 10-17mm, but the optical barrel distortion is so much more than the 12-24mm, it really gives you that fish-eye effect, not something you want to see on a coastline I guess. I'd stay away from 10mm if I were you.
- Bert