I thought I would share a recent exercise in pricing ultrawide angle
options and some observations. Here are some sample prices for new and
used ultra-wide nikon mount lenses from the latest Shutterbug Ads (1/98)
Even if you don't use nikon, you can construct a similar decision matrix
Ultrawide market must be very shallow, as so few used lenses are listed
Sigma is main competitor below 17mm to nikkor primes (in Shutterbug ads)
Tamron or Tokina at 17mm, both f3.5 (and a relabeled Cambridge lens?)
Sigma is a third the price of equal speed nikkors (14 and 18 mm lenses)
Vivitar 19mm lenses are lowest cost ultrawides (f3.5, f3.8 same lens?)
Ultrawides are often slow (f3.5), so f4-4,5 zooms aren't much slower
Cosina 17-28mm f/4 zoom remarketed under samyang, vivitar, other names
17-28mm zoom isn't (it is 17.8mm to 25mm per feb 92 pop photo tests)
Given 30% drop in Korean currency, will these ultrawide lenses drop too?
Be wary of add-on costs, for mounts, filters, lens front/rear caps etc.
autofocus mounts
$120+ zooms, $370 Tokina 17mm, $600+ sigma 14mm
Realistically, how much can you expect out of a 17-28 f/4-4.4 zoom
ultra-wide lens that costs under $110? Fortunately, the tests show that
the lens works best at the widest (17.8mm) setting, poorest at the 28mm
setting (actually 25mm optically). If you already have primes in the
upper range, consider the similarly priced 19mm vivitar series I. If you
don't have any wide angle primes, than the 19mm-35mm zoom seems logical.
For around $200, you can get a 17mm f3.5 prime (tokina) that is far
enough from the usual 20mm wide angle to be very useful.
Don't give up on ultrawide fisheye photography! You can get a 180 degree
circular fisheye image on 35mm and medium format using one of the .18x
fisheye adapters. These adapters screw onto the front of your regular
lenses, providing a .18x times 50mm or 9mm f5.6 fisheye effect using
normal 50mm lens. Using a short-tele zoom, you can range between 9mm and
18mm (100mm setting). Optically you will get more flare, less contrast,
and more uneven light falloff than with a prime circular fisheye that
costs 10 to 25 times more. See fisheye article linked below
for details. But expect to have a lot of ultrawide fun for only $50+ (used).
I found out two surprising facts from this study. First, there are very
few used ultrawide lenses for sale. Darn! Second, there is a pricing
anomaly at 17mm, both for primes and the Cosina 17-28mm zoom. With the
drop in the Korean won, there may be a chance to snag a bargain here!
Even if you aren't a nikon lens user, I will bet that a bit of research will reveal a similar pricing and opportunity selection for your brand.
Email additions to rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
This page is at http://medfmt.8k.com/bronwides.html
See
http://medfmt.8k.com/bronfe.html
for fisheye adapter article
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 21-35 opinion
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998
Noel J. Bergman wrote...
I am interested in first hand experiences with this lens and/or
recommendations for a wide angle zoom. I have already checked photozone and
Pop Photo's '92 review. I own a Sigma 28-70/2.8, so for the most part, I
would be using the wide angle zoom towards the wide end and stopped down to
shoot landscapes.
The Sigma 21-25 I know of is used, but apparently in excellent shape
with a B+W 81B and Heliopan UV for circa $200.
The one I tried was, to be charitable, not up to my minimum standards...
I would try for a used Nikkor 20mm f2.8, or maybe a Tokina ATX AF 17mm.
Personally, I find tele zooms useful, mid-range zooms less so, and wide
zooms pretty useless - and I would rather have high image quality (it is
hard enough to find really good wide primes, let alone even decent wide
zooms...).
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com
[ED. note: David Ruether posts a very well respected review of Nikon..
lens quality and related topics at his web-site]
See Related Postings on wide angle lenses
by users on our comments page (split to speed up downloading this page)...