Do I need a wide angle lens
 

I Use a Canon 50D and can't make up my mind about the purchase of a wide angle lens.
I would likely go for a Sigma 10-20mm and there are a number of these on e-bay but I am left with the impression some people buy them and then sell due to lack of use !
I Tend to go for Landscape scenes but there can be times when a standard or telephoto lens can be the best one to use for Landscapes.
I Guess only I can answer this question.

I would be interested to know how much of the time others use a wide angle lens compared to the other lens they have or even more interested to know if you have bought a wide angle lens and have not used it as much as you thought you might.

[QUOTE=duncan22;25938]I Guess only I can answer this question.[/QUOTE]

I wish everyone was this honest! Yes, only you can answer it. We can tell you and show you what you'll see from having an ultrawide, but only you can say whether it will get used or not, or indeed if you like the style.I have a Tokina 12-24, and to be honest it doesn't get used a lot. When it does get onto the camera though I like the pictures it takes.

Chris

Hi Duncan,

As you know, when you're using any DSLR you will need to swap lenses to get the shot you want when you're out taking photographs of the landscape. There are occasions when you need a wide angle lens and times when you'll need a telephoto lens to just isolate a single object within your scene. It's not until you're actually scanning the scene in front of you and deciding what elements you want to include and which you want exclude that you really start to think about which lens you'll need for that shot.

Have you been out on many shoots and thought if only I had a lens with a wider field of view? If the answer is yes, then it would be beneficial to purchase a 10 - 20mm lens and the Sigma lens is a cracker. I don't have one myself, but I know of several members of this forum who do and they all swear by how good it is. It's also terrific value for money as you don't need to buy the f/3.5 version because the f/4 - f5.6 is optically very good.

I have the Sigma 10-20 and it spends more time on my camera than any other lens. It is a very good lens and if you can get some streaky cloud in the sky, you can shoot some magnificent skies. However, as you have said, there are time when other lenses will do the job so the decision has to be yours.

Steve

There are times when a wide angle lens is very useful, but it depends on time of year and what you are photographing. I used my Nikon 14-24mm the otherday to photograph trees in the forest, as I wanted to catch the last of the leaves against the sky, but also wanted to include the trunks to give depth to the scene. A lot of landscape shots I do, I use the 70-200mm F2.8 VR plus 1.4 converter to give me greater reach. I have even used my macro lens for landscapes. :D

Ultra wide lenses come with their own unique set of problems apart from the usual optical ones. One problem is being very vigilant to what is going to appear in your shot because they can pick up every bit of scrap paper or old coke can strewn in a very wide circumfrance. When using the ultra wides for landscape shots it best to scour the area for such litter. Also, you will have to watch out for simple things, like getting your feet in the shot, or the legs of the tripod. Another problem with ultra wide lenses is that your shots will need to have lots of foreground interest in them, otherwise you will have an empty scene with lots of little trees and bushes peppering the horizon and an expanse of open foreground which won't do a thing for composition. Just a different thought on wideangle lenses for you to chew over.

The thing you need to ask yourself is, does my current lens go wide enough for me? Have you ever needed the extra wider view?

If Yes - Not required
If No - Then the Sigma 10-20mm is for you

I do landscapes and I never need below 55mm on my 17-55mm. And when I do need that extra coverage... I simply create panormas

Having moved from a D80 cropped sensor to D700 the lens I miss most is my Sigma 10-20. broke my heart to sell it but no good on a full frame body - not even at 5mp like people say.
Yes i used it for landscapes but used it even more for architectural shots and in so many other situations. Got great angles with it and it was a belter that I never regretted. Got back almost what I paid for it when I sold it 3 yeasr later too so popular are they ! With some landscapes no other lens could do it I found

I have a 10-20 & it was the least used lens in my collection. When I upgraded to full frame I bought a 17-40 & that's now the least used lens in my collection.

You need to balance how often you think you'll need it versus how well you can afford it. If cost isn't an issue, they're useful to have in the kitbag but not essential.

Only you know how much stuff you shoot which might require one.

Here's an example of some Horse-Chestnut trees that I photographed at 14mm with my Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 on the 30th October. :)

[IMG]http://www.photoradar.com/files/imagecache/original_large/photos/users/oldboy/dsc-0162-treescape.jpg[/IMG]