Worth buying a 10mm lens?

[blake09]

Hi all,

Fairly new to photography, but I bought an R7 a few weeks ago and I’ve really been liking it. I have a 100-400, 18-150, and 50mm lens, and I’m going to Scotland in a few weeks and taking trip through the highlands. I’ve been there before and I know there will be some great opportunities for landscape photos.

My question is, do others think it’s worth it to get a 10mm lens for wider shots? I’m considering the RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 but not sure how much of a difference it will make for me compared to the 18-150.
I know others really like the sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 but that’s more than I want to spend right now.

[SignifDigits]

"Worth it" is always subjective.  Wide is important to me, but might not be to you.  I have a 15-35mm lens for my full frame.  A 10-18mm on an APS-C is effectively a 16-29mm lens.   If my R50V APS-C were my primary camera ( it is not, but I really enjoy it still ) the 10-18mm would be a "must have" lens for me.  I would probably never use the 50mm in your lens arsenal, and get the 10-18mm.  But that's just me.  For you, I suggest you look around at images that are made in the full-frame 16mm range and ask yourself how important getting those shots are to you.

If you DO get a wide lens I found this article by Ken Rockwell pretty good - https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm.  It's good to know why you are getting a lens and what it is really good for.  

I've found that most of the time touring even shooting wide I wind up preferring the narrower shots that focus on what I found interesting.  A few "big sky" shots (where the sky is really amazing are nice, but more often than not what I'm seeing with my wonderful brain that alters depth perspective doesn't get captured on "film", if you will.

That said, I got in close on a waterfall in Iceland with a 16mm prime and am very glad I had a wide lens.  Again, wide is a "must have" for me.  But it might not be for you - hopefully this will give you something to help you decide "worth it" to yourself.  Don't forget that if you have a good phone camera you could also capture wide shots with it.   That would probably be a good way for you to decide, in fact.  If you wind up reaching a lot for your phone to take wide shots then you might want that wider lens.

IMG_0307small.JPG

 

[Waddizzle]

As it has been pointed out, “worth it” is in the eyes of the beholder. I like wide and ultra wide angle lenses, too. But, I don’t use them for landscape photography, anymore.  They are great indoors, but can be too much outdoors. The wider the lens, the more distant the landscape will seem to look.  Translation, you lose details. Compare these two photos, captured on a full frame 6D at 26mm and 35mm. 

IMG_0149.jpeg

 

IMG_6613.jpeg

Something else to consider besides focal length is aperture. If you will be capturing photos indoors, then you may want to consider an aperture in your decision making process. In addition to the lenses pictured below, there’s also the RF 45mm f/1.4 STM prime.  In this price range, I am going for the 16mm prime, mainly because it is full frame.

IMG_6094.jpeg

This photo was captured using a full frame Rokinon 14mm on a Rebel T5.  The APS-C sensor captures the center portion of the image, without any of the barrel distortion near the edges, which a full frame sensor would capture.

IMG_4991.jpeg

 

 

[kvbarkley]

Your camera has a built in panoramic mode:

Untitled.jpg

Or you can go ahead and take multiple shots and merge them in your favorite editor.

But with a WA lens, you can frame the shot exactly how you want it, and a single shot eliminates errors from movements.

[ebiggs1]

Worth it is only worth it if it is worth it to you. Keep in mind when dealing with WA lenses the numbers become closer together which means there is a bigger difference in relationship.  If you are thinking on the tele side where numbers can be farther apart with much little change you can become confused. You have the 18-150mm but going all the way down to 10mm will be a significant difference in AOV. Even though the numbers are only 8mm apart.

[Waddizzle]

Panoramic images is how I typically like to capture landscape photos.  My lens of choice is a 70-200mn.  I rotate the lens to portrait mode, and overlap images by 1/3. 

IMG_1147.jpeg

 

if you’re shooting hand held, tuck your elbows close to your body, stand erect, and rotate your upper body at the waist. 

[pzphotomama]

If you want to go wide, get the 10-18mm as well. On the crop sensor that would be 16mm which would be a fantastic wide angle shot. Having the f4.5-6.3 would be ok, if most of you wide shots are outdoors in natural light you could easily shoot at f6.3 outside and it would work great for you! 

I have the R6MII and just got the R7 - last year when we went to Nova Scotia I purposely got the RF15-30mm lens for wider shots - I had a 24mm lens - which 15 and 24 are close - but the difference is honestly magnificient! 

If you had the 10-18mm, along with your 18-150 and your 100-400 you would be set! The 50mm is more like 80mm on the crop sensor - however for indoor shots IF you may need that option the f1.8 would be helpful. I will be honest, when we traveled I did not bring my 35 or 50 and opted to simply use my cell phone if I needed any indoor photos that my other lenses couldn't do - it honestly comes down to weight and ease for sure. If you can throw it in and you wont notice the weight or bulk take it! 

Edited to Add, look at used options this may allow you to look for the f2.8 options! 

[atam1]

Ultra-wide lens is probably (IMO) the most difficult to work with. Because “getting it all-in” would make your target very hard to see, especially landscapes without fore and midgrounds. But for other man-made static targets like cars, airplanes, trains, or fountains- it proved very good (for me) visually. Because I made sure to position myself as close as possible (inches from my camera) to get image’s scale in relation to the rest of the frame. And that is where I needed to be careful- what other things you need or need not include in your final frame. Bottomline, 10’s are hard to use, again, for me. Good luck!

[ebiggs1]

"Ultra-wide lens is probably (IMO) the most difficult to work with."

Remember this is for a R7 so it would equaventate to a 16mm lens (FF) which would be at the very top of what is considered "ultra wide" angle. Some will even say a 14mm is the top of UWA.

[shadowsports]

As stated, this might be a question only the OP can answer.

The Canon's FOV is 109° at 10mm.  The Sigmas FOV at 18mm is 73°.  At 10mm you are at f3.5 (Canon).  At 18mm you are f2.8 (Sigma).  Although the Sigma does not have IS, it's still a great match for the R7 which has IBIS.  

While you get a wider FOV with the Canon 10-18, It may not be as noticeable if you are shooting panoramas and stitching images together.  (Also stated)

The 10-18 is not an expensive lens.  It's not big and doesn't weigh much.  Note that at 10mm the lens has quite a bit of barrel distortion.  It relies heavily on lens correction.  The lens profile actually stretches out the image a bit and then crops out the edges to straighten the lines. This introduces a little vignetting too, but peripheral illumination correction or correction for any vignetting is usually enough to brighten up the edges. I had one for a while and didn't use it as much as I thought I would.  I sold it in a trio of EF lenses.  10-18, 17-70 and a 50.  The 10-18 is not a bad lens, but it's not a great lens either.  In the end I decided against keeping it.