# 10-20mm lens for full-tank shots?



## George Farmer (28 Oct 2009)

One for the shutter bugs out there...

I've been considering the Sigma 10-20mm for a good while now.  

I'd mainly use it for landscapes, but wondered how effective it would be for photographing aquariums, in particular full tank shots.  

I think the deeper front to rear perspective could look really cool.  

I remember well a shot from Dave Spencer's 60cm tank using his Nikon 12-24mm, and on a FF sensor, the depth was incredible.  But that's a relatively expensive lens and imagine the optics are far superior so distortion is minimised.

I know my Sigma 17-70mm has significant barrell distortion at 17mm and wondered how much there would be with the 10-20mm.  I'd like to keep the edges of the tank looking as straight as possible.

Another option is the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II, but it's way out of my budget.

Also the Canon 10-22mm?  Stu???!!  And even that is a couple of hundred quid more than the Sigma.

Any ideas?


----------



## Dan Crawford (28 Oct 2009)

A nice conundrum to be in pal!

Here are a couple of shot from TGM using Stu's 10-22mm Canon. Possibly a bit extreme LOL I'm sure Stu could show you some better images using it, i'm just an amateur with a pro's gear  










I swear, the full tank shot was taken with the end of the lense less than a foot away, honestly!


----------



## Stu Worrall (28 Oct 2009)

im not entirely sure on barrel distorion on the sig 10-20mm although it is a really good lens, probably best to check with someone whose got one.  I got the canon 10-22mm at a time when it was cheap(ish) compared to now (Â£430 and UK sourced).  There's no (or hardly any) barrel distortion on the Canon which was the reason I went for it, at the time this was for landscapes but since then ive used it on most tanks including my nano since getting back into fishkeeping.  It does give a real sense of depth when you get down below the 17mm which was something that Graeme and I were testing on his tank the other month althought the 10mm end on a small tank can give a bit too much depth.

theres some links below for light reading. I did find a really good comparison review between the sig and canon which was what pushed me towards buying it. I "think" it was the ken rockwell comparison below but cant quite remember  :? 

The other one to think of is the tokina 12-24mm which also gets rave reviews although its not as wide.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=145045
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=298
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

This is also a prety good read.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm


----------



## Stu Worrall (28 Oct 2009)

Dan Crawford said:
			
		

>


There does look to be a bit of distortion on this one but its not a straight on shot so you will get some wobble at angles.  

George, if you want I can take some pics of my tank straight on tonight to see if theres any distortion but this doesnt answer your sigma question unfortunately.  Maybe someone else on the forum owns one?



			
				Dan Crawford said:
			
		

> I swear, the full tank shot was taken with the end of the lense less than a foot away, honestly!


 :text-coolphotos: Superb shot dan, real nice


----------



## George Farmer (28 Oct 2009)

Cheers, guys!  



			
				stuworrall said:
			
		

> George, if you want I can take some pics of my tank straight on tonight to see if theres any distortion but this doesnt answer your sigma question unfortunately.  Maybe someone else on the forum owns one?


If it's not too much trouble mate, that would be great!  Â£430 is less than I thought for the Canon 10-22.... hmmm.


----------



## Stu Worrall (28 Oct 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Cheers, guys!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sorry if ive confused Georeg, i was saying id got mine at a time when it was cheap (about 3 years back). its closer to Â£560 now so a real big gap compared with the sig


----------



## George Farmer (28 Oct 2009)

Oh dear!  Nevermind!  Thanks anyway, Stu.

I'm still interested in your shots though, please.

Are you going to take some of your sexy 90cm?


----------



## Dave Spencer (28 Oct 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> I remember well a shot from Dave Spencer's 60cm tank using his Nikon 12-24mm, and on a FF sensor, the depth was incredible.  But that's a relatively expensive lens and imagine the optics are far superior so distortion is minimised.



It is an awesome lens George, and worth every penny. The 12-24mm is a DX (cropped) lens, so I bought the 14-24mm f2.8 to get the full wide angle benefit of a full frame sensor. It is my most used lens, and one I will use for as long as I am still in to photography. I should have a tank or two to photograph again, once I have moved house.

Was this the pic? This was just about the last time I pointed a camera at a tank. With the lens parallel to the front of the tank, I don`t think there was any barrel distortion at all. I suspect so because I am useless at cropping tank pics to the edge of the picture.   I think there is some distortion in the bottom left of the picture. 








			
				George Farmer said:
			
		

> Another option is the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II, but it's way out of my budget.



I have two prime lenses George, 105mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4. I never thought I would notice the difference in optics between a zoom and a prime, but the 105mm in particular is absolutely razor sharp. The Canon 14mm is major bucks, but one you would rarely ever take off your camera for landscapes . The lens will outlast you, and really come in to its own should you ever go full frame. My 14-24mm is used mostly at 14mm, so the 14mm prime would have certainly been a good choice in my experience. There really is no substitute for quality glass.

Dave.


----------



## John Starkey (28 Oct 2009)

Hi George,
don't know if this lens is quite wide enough for you but it has some great reviews,and a lot of guys on potn rate it highly,Its the tokina 11-16mm uwa lens,
regards john.


----------



## elanmak (28 Oct 2009)

We've had decent results with the Canon 50mm - no zoom facility but very little glass and what there is, is good quality, well polished. The only problem is you have to be about 12' away from a 5'3" tank to fit into view finder.
Less of a problem for smaller tanks in smaller rooms. 
There's very little 'fish eye' effect and lots of light gets through to the sensor. 
Unfortunately they're not cheap.


----------



## George Farmer (29 Oct 2009)

Thanks, Dave.  That's the shot!

Cheers, John!

elanmak - I've got the 50mm already, cheers.


----------



## plantbrain (29 Oct 2009)

I do not like the sigma, they are okay for the $.
The Canon $$$$$ lens are worth it IMO when it comes to wider angles.

You can take a pix and then zoom in on a nice contrasted leaf on the edges to see how well the lens performs by zooming on the LCD on the back. Keep zooming till you start to see distortions etc.

this is fast and quick.

I'd suggest using the Canon 5d(Mark II if you can afford it) or any full sensor camera. The Canon 17-40 works well, and the faster and more $$$ 16-35mm is excellent. The cheaper lens for the smaller sized CCD's are not anywhere as good.
The 17-40mm and the 24-105mm are the two most used lens I have. I have a 105mm macro Sigma also. 
For indoor pics, landscapes, aquariums etc, a good zoom wide angle is ideal.

Go high grade particularly if you can sell the photos to magazines for $, to of course, pay for the camera equipment and other "wallet black holes".
That and a pair of good flashes!

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## George Farmer (29 Oct 2009)

plantbrain said:
			
		

> I do not like the sigma, they are okay for the $.
> The Canon $$$$$ lens are worth it IMO when it comes to wider angles.
> 
> You can take a pix and then zoom in on a nice contrasted leaf on the edges to see how well the lens performs by zooming on the LCD on the back. Keep zooming till you start to see distortions etc.
> ...



Thanks, Tom.

Have you ever used the Sigma 10-20mm? 

I use the 10x live view on my 50D a lot.  It's really useful, especially for getting uber-sharp images of still life and it saves on reviewing the LCD post-shooting all the time.  Also saves on using mirror lock-up.

I always buy the best gear that my cash flow allows - it's tax deductable, after all.  I went for the 50D over the 5D, as I prefered some of the features that the 50D has.  It was a tough decision though.  The 5D MkII is still too pricey for me.  We pay a lot more for camera gear that you guys.  I do have studio lighting though.

The Sigma 17-70 is a great lens for the Â£Â£Â£.  These two were taken at widest and max zoom.  Not too bad for a cropped sensor and 'cheap' lens.  I recently shot a wedding, mostly with this lens too.


----------



## Stu Worrall (30 Oct 2009)

i did a quick n dirty comparison at different focal lengths on the 10-22mm. Pic is below, sorry for the size but it needs to be big really.  Its quite surpising that the 10mm makes teh 90cm look square with the depth it shows!  Probably wont be photographing mine at 10mm due to this but it also shows some barrel distortion here but this it is easily fixed in photoshop.  Ive done lots of seascapes at 10mm on this lens and there isnt any bend in the sea so it must be more apparent at close range.

There are bends on the tank but this is probably due to me not being square on. I should have used a tripod really


----------



## viktorlantos (30 Oct 2009)

hmm intresting to see how this adds the deepness to the photos. thanks for sharing mate


----------



## George Farmer (30 Oct 2009)

Thanks, Stu!

I'm also considering the Canon 24mm f/2.8.  Should be nice for FTS I reckon.  Do you have any experiences of it?


----------



## Stu Worrall (30 Oct 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Thanks, Stu!
> 
> I'm also considering the Canon 24mm f/2.8.  Should be nice for FTS I reckon.  Do you have any experiences of it?


none mate but being an L and primte its bound to be ace 

Â£1400 though


----------



## George Farmer (30 Oct 2009)

stuworrall said:
			
		

> George Farmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol.  Not the f/1.4L version mate!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

It's actually not far off in terms of optics, and only Â£250 or so.


----------



## sgl101 (21 Nov 2009)

Some great pics in there and can the barrel distorsionnot be corrected ??

Steve


----------



## plantbrain (21 Nov 2009)

The Canon 17-40mm is good option for the $ and really well made/sharp, the Sigma 21 or 24 mm is a good lens.

You really just have to try them out, zoom in at edges and corners and see how well the lens do.
17-40 full sensor sizing is really a good lens.
Low light is not an issue for you in most cases, so no need for the 16-35mm for 400-500$ USD more.
I got a 17-40 used off ebay for 500$ in top shape.
That's 350Â£ or so UK.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

