Hi Bruce! I must say this has opened my eyes up a bit. I wasn't aware of the Pentax 20-35 4, but that sounds like another contender for my dollar. A reason which might work against it would be a 77mm instead of a 58mm thread would be a bit more useful to me, so I wouldn't have to buy new filters or use step up rings etc. Also I must say I shut my book a bit too quickly on the Tokina, having read somewhere "why would *anyone* spend 599 on Tokina's offering in that range?" Hmm. As much as I'd like to be neurotic about it and gravitate towards the Tokina's 2.8, I suppose the truth is I wouldn't really need it. The Tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5 however, may have been what I'm looking for. For a while I was actually swaying towards the Vivitar, just to get used to the focal length and because of the incredible amount of good reviews it got here http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Vivitar,Series,1,19-35AF/PRD_84612_3128crx.aspx I thought I might get that one and keep it to get used to the focal length, and also I'm a sucker for a good bargain. Also, I found a strange looking version of it here http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2968006298&category=4688&rd=1 I thought that silver lens would look slightly appealing on a 5n.. but that price seems a bit off the scale for a Vivitar.. Anyway about the Tamron, I haven't heard much about it. Would be curious to see how much it differs from the same spec Sigma. Given your input, I think I'll get the Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 AF193 ($190 - $30 rebate) and upgrade when I have to (unless anyone has violent objections). Thanks Bruce!
Regards, Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:56 AM Subject: Re: Shopping for an ultrawide.. any advice? > Hello Ryan, > > I have just been looking and trying a few. You have left out a few > zooms: > Tamron SP 17-35/2.8-4 DI LD - slated for December shipment ($479) > Tokina 20-35/2.8 ATX ($599) > Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 AF193 ($190 - $30 rebate) > Pentax 20-35/4 ($475) > > > I have tried the Phoenix one you mentioned and it is surprisingly ok > for the price. I have tried the Tokina 20-35/2.8 ATX and it is a very > nice lens but heavy and expensive. It is the kind of lens that if you > are planning on heavy serious use, this is the one for you. > > The Pentax 20-35 gets very high marks from those who own it on the > list. Certainly worth considering... > > I also tried and decided to keep the Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 AF193. > Image quality is quite good, build quality is reasonable. All in all > a very good compromise in features/quality/price/weight. Here is a > link: http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-11.html > > One thing to keep in mind, I only tried the Tokina and Phoenix on the > *istD which doesn't use the image all the way to the edge like a film > camera would. I have heard that the cheaper zooms tend to have more > distortion near the corners than their more expensive counterparts. > > I also did quite a bit of reading on the web for user experiences and > the Sigma 17-35 got way too many negative comments to be something I > would be comfortable with. I realize that a person here and there > will be unhappy with a particular lens, but I was reading lots and > lots of negative feelings about it. The 15-30 and 20-40 Sigma's did > not garner that kind of negativity. So either of them would be seem > to be a better choice. > > HTH, > > > Bruce > > > > Saturday, December 6, 2003, 6:39:32 AM, you wrote: > > RL> Hi all, > > RL> Was just browsing thru some ultrawides, and I can't really decide which one > RL> I want. I'll just think aloud and any help's appreciated. > > RL> These are the ones I'm looking at: > > RL> Primes > RL> 1. Pentax FA 20mm f/2.8 (f/2.8~22, 67mm) USD$485 (B&H) > RL> 2. Sigma EX 20mm f/1.8 (f/1.8~22, 82mm) USD $360 (B&H) > RL> Zooms > RL> 3. Sigma EX 20-40mm f/2.8 (f/2.8~32, 82mm) USD$600 (B&H) > RL> 4. Sigma EX 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (f/2.8~32, 77mm) USD$440 (77mm version available > RL> January?) > RL> 5. Sigma EX DG 12-24mm f/4-5.6 (f/4~22, rear filter) USD$650 (though not out > RL> yet?) > RL> 6. Phoenix/Vivitar 19-35mm f/3.5-f/4.5 (f/3.5~22, 77mm) USD$140 (new on > RL> Ebay) > > RL> The main purpose will be landscapes, and I figure that what I really need is > RL> just 20mm, if it's any wider, I'm not sure if I'll get enough use out of it. > RL> I also hope to use it with a Singh Ray Gold & Blue Polariser. However, I > RL> just went over the website and they don't seem to have it in an 82mm thread. > RL> This being so, I sent off an email just to confirm (will prolly find out > RL> after the weekend). > > RL> Now for each specimen respectively, > RL> 1. It's Pentax- so yay for SMC and resale value etc.., and it's got a small > RL> enough thread for the filter. Only possible negative thing I can think of- > RL> it only goes down to f22. > > RL> 2. I've heard great reviews about this lens, not so much about the speed > RL> (since f1.8 will just provide too little dof for landscapes anyway), but > RL> about how sharp it is at f8, some say even more so than the Pentax and the > RL> Canon offerings.. Unfortunately its 82mm thread means I won't be able to use > RL> the identified polariser (:(!) unless I get a mail back saying that they'll > RL> custom make it or something. Also, I'm not sure if this is normal logic, but > RL> bigger aperture range = bigger sweetspot? > > RL> 3. I'm not really considering this one, since it is a bit pricier and also > RL> that it overlaps 12mm into my 28-70. But thought I'd mention it just in case > RL> anyone has anything to say about it. One good thing is it goes down to f32, > RL> one unfortunate thing is it's 82mm as well.. > > RL> 4. I've heard a bunch of conflicting reviews about this one so I'm not sure > RL> what to think. The extra 3mm down might come in useful, and the 7mm overlap > RL> into my 28-70 will ensure I won't have to use it all the way at 35mm, which > RL> I assume is a good thing. Also, I think it's pretty decent coverage for the > RL> cost. Unfortunately, it's only available January (the 77mm version) and > RL> that's cutting it a bit close to my trip. Also, I've read the 77mm has > RL> better glass, not to mention the fact that I can share filters with my > RL> 28-70. > > RL> 5. This one I like the coverage.. 12 to 24 seems massive. At f4-5.6 I > RL> suppose that's a bit slow but doing tripod landscape stuff, it doesn't > RL> really matter does it? Also it only goes down to f22.. I was wondering- does > RL> a rear filter mean you can't even use a Cokin P holder (let alone the > RL> Singh-Ray G/B)? > > RL> 6. I like the 77mm filter size, the 1 extra mm going down too. But I'm a bit > RL> hesitant because it's a Phoenix. However, Jafa photography wrote > RL> http://www.jafaphotography.com/bestbuys.htm that it was the best buy in it's > RL> focal length? I must admit that tiny writeup seems tempting. And yes it's a > RL> lot cheaper than the rest. Anyone have experience with this lens? (And lol.. > RL> if I do end up getting this one, the filter will be more expensive than the > RL> lens! I should put the lens in front to protect the filter! The irony is > RL> sickening..) > > > RL> Conclusion: > RL> I think I'm going to end up with either no.1 or no.4. Hopefully no.4 comes > RL> out soon. Anyone want to argue the case for (or against) either? I think if > RL> no.2 came in a 77mm thread, my decision would be a lot clearer. But that's > RL> just dreaming I guess. If Singh Ray gets back to me saying that I can get an > RL> 82mm filter I suppose I'll consider no.2. Also I know it's kinda weird > RL> basing a lens decision around a filter.. but for USD$210 (77mm thread) it > RL> does sound like quite a bit of equipment doesn't it? Also, I'm not sure > RL> about no.6.. > > RL> Any help is much appreciated! > RL> Thanks, > > RL> Ryan > > > > > > >
