Do I need this lens

[duncan22]

Most of my photos are Landscape and I use a 17-55mm on a Canon 50D and am quite happy with the results, however I have been looking at the sigma 10-22 3.5 and the 4.5 but do I really need such a lens which I would purchase second hand due to the cost.
If for example I take a couple of overlapping photos in portrait mode and merge them using CS3 would I
end up with a similar result to what I would get with a 10-22 lens ?
The photos would be taken using a tripod and taken in RAW mode on the highest setting ?
When replying please bear in mind this question is posted in the beginners forum !
l

[KeithT]

My philosophy is this: if you have to ask whether or not you need something, then you probably don't. My take is if you buy a new lens make sure it is an upgrade on what you already have in terms of glass quality, and sell what you already have to part pay for it.

[flake]

Stitching works well for most uses, but it does introduce artifacts intp images, if that isn't an issue for you then it's fine. The other time you might need a very wide angle is to capture a scene with movement. Imagine being on the beach facing the oncoming waves, not much chance of producing a series of images which can be stitched there!

Economists often talk of 'opportunity cost' if you have this money earmarked for photography, then by opting for this lens, which one do you forego? Compare the two and go through the Pros & Cons before reaching a final decision.

[matt wilson]

my answer .....you may not need it but it will make a huge difference to your enjoyment .I have a 50 d with the 18 200mm .The number of times I wanted wider became too much.

Bought the sigma you are interested in and find it amazing .The angle of view makes a massive change to landscapes.

[duncan22]

Thanks for your responses.
The lens would be an additional purchase rather than an exchange so my only other question regarding the sigma 10 -22 is if you think the 3.5 is worth the additional cost of the 4.5 ?
It would be useful to hear from anyone who has had the chance to use both lens......Cost is a factor as I am on a tight budget but equally would rather wait a further 6 months to save the extra cash if it was worth it.
The only other concern is that the cost of good lenses appear to be increasing !

[matt wilson]

I read a review and I think there may even be a gear review on this site .A long term user of the 4.5 said they would not be buying the 3.5 as not really a significant advantage for the cost.

Consider also if you really want those lanscapes looking good how often are you going to be using 3.5 and shouldn't the camera be on a tripod anyway?

[ap4a]

Even if you match the field of view and subject elements, stitching won't give you the same results as the perspective will be very different. A wide angle has a dramatic perspective with foreground elements appearing very much larger in relation to far away background ones, and that perspective becomes gradually more flattened as the focal length increases.

[jinky]

Isn`t the Sigma a 10-20? I think the Canon is 10-22. I`ve got the Siggy 10-20 4-5.6 and don`t see any need to go 3.5.I can get great results hand held down to 1/8 second or even less and the effect / perspective is brilliant. If I ever go full frame it`s the lens I would miss most and would keep my D80 just to use it!It`s brilliant not just for landscapes and just get in close with it.

[ap4a]

Originally Posted by jinky

Isn`t the Sigma a 10-20? I think the Canon is 10-22. I`ve got the Siggy 10-20 4-5.6 and don`t see any need to go 3.5.I can get great results hand held down to 1/8 second or even less and the effect / perspective is brilliant. If I ever go full frame it`s the lens I would miss most and would keep my D80 just to use it!It`s brilliant not just for landscapes and just get in close with it.

If you went full frame you could always get a 14-24 which would give you an even wider field of view

[jinky]

If you went full frame you could always get a 14-24 which would give you an even wider field of view ap4a

Yes and I know it`s a better lens but the cost.....