I am going mad with seriousness. Came into a little money and completed my lens suite with a Sigma 10-20 mm F4-5.6 (semi-fisheye--roughly 15mm-30 mm in 35 mm terms). I'll be posting some wide angle shots very soon. I've always liked wide angle lens because they give even the most mundane and ordinary scenes an air of gravity.
You're a wild man!
The Sigma's a good and remarkable lens, and it's quite the addition, and by my math nearly doubles your investment. (It doesn't take long, does it?) Very cool. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with such a wide view.
There's a difference, though, between wide and fisheye -- fisheyes still squeeze more in despite some of them having nominally longer focal lengths. (my 7-14 at 7mm doesn't have the field of view of the 8mm fisheye.) The difference is the distortion, and the Sigma 10-20 is a rectilinear lens without the extreme barrelling of a fisheye lens. That's usually a good thing -- rectilinear lenses are much more versatile and useful.
Thanks Matt. That about finishes my lens purchases. I agree--the semi-fisheye is a lot ore attractive general image. I looked at the Nikkor 10mm (I think) fisheye. It was 100 dollars more and I didn't find the strong fisheye effect pleasing.
Don - I have been seriously considering buying the same lens for some time... (and have been putting it off for financial reasons...)
Im also looking forward to seeing some images from it and hearing your opinion.
I looked at a few reviews (after buying-not before) and others think the lens is excellent. I will certainly give my opinion after I've used it a bit. On first try it really looks excellent. It covers the entire range of wide angle from 10 mm to 20 mm which links it up nicely with my wide angle kit lens (18-55). In 35 mm equivalents, I've go everything from 15- 300 mm covered.
Absolutely excellent news, Mr S. I swear you're being transformed!
I too am a wideangle nut and my biggest hang-up of the digitalisation of my photo-life was the sheer paucity of wide angles.
I bought the Sigma too: sadly my copy was under-par, so as it had just come out I had to save up the pennies and get the Canon's own one instead. I've subsequently seen many an excellent pic with the lens(Sigma) so I realise that both my initial purchase was a duffer and that there are superb copies out there. My initial postings on this lens may still be around in these forums' archives, but bear in mind they were about the one copy I had.
Don, if you're into filters(for either lens protection or effect), be aware that there'll be a degree of vignetting unless you get a super-thin one, which are a bit dearer. Actually, this didn't bother me too much, as I still found the edges too soft and would gleefully crop away.
I remember in my Nikon days having a Sigma 24mm prime, which I'd advise against, to be honest.
Congrats in advance. Yes, you're most definitely right: "gravity" is a nice word here. I really like maximising this by ,say, composing vertically, then getting about a foot above the ground...the things that "go on" at this viewpoint can lend all sorts of "meaning" to whatever is in the shot further back in the frame.
Ah, Don, the anticipation before arrival of a wideangle lens....there has to be a word for this! I'm sure German/Yiddish would definitely have such a word, and it would be spot on...
....really looking forward to your forays with this...
Whoa!
Iv totally missed you got a D40 Don!!!
Congrats on the new WA zoom, looking forward to see some ultra wide stuff.
Thanks guys. I'm so daring and free these days. I get some money. I spend it on my passions.
ps. I later traded in this lens for the Nikkor 10.5 mm fisheye. It simply wasn't kinky enough.
Why did you trade it in? Quality? Usability?
I only ask as I have been looking at the same lens.
I just didn't find the wide angle wide enough. I wanted the fisheye. The Sigma 18-200 mm lens gave me the moderate wide angle perspective (27 mm equivalent) anyway.