There's some serious UWA poison going on in the 10-20 flickr pool...

The love hate relationship for UWA and fish-eye is a good description. Some hate it, others love it. I hate it only 10% of the time

Unfortunately, I also wish the Sigma would be sharper. It's quite cumbersome to sharpen my wide angle shots. But they're passable for me (trying to justify owning the lens here teehee), again some might want sharper lenses.

Would love to get the fisheye as well, but the wallet is still reeling. Perhaps in the future.

Shinchan, what do you use to shoot girls?

Ah... quite difficult to answer.

If we are talking about range & ssuming APS-C sensor:
<10.5mm - usually fisheye
10-16 - usually ultra-wide angle
16-70 - the standard zoom
>70 - telephoto (some might categorize >200mm as super telephoto, but I just bundle everything in)

macro lenses can fall between 55-150mm (macro lenses are usually characterized by their extreme close focusing distance and also magnification instead of range, hence the diverse coverage)
portraits are usually >70mm (but some use the 10-20 & fisheye for unique, weird shots)
landscape lenses usually fall into the fisheye & UWA group (but some use a long zoom to pick out details or isolate certain landscape features)
walkaround lenses usually the standard zoom (but some folks use UWA lenses too)

Remember, only valid for APS-C. Full-frame cameras have different range (e.g. 17mm is considered UWA already).

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 11:08 AM

God damn post better fisheye pics la. Only darthbaboon's pics seem ok (something to do with being a sith maybe)

Redang viewed from a fisheye
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasey/2865176...57604332679442/

Disclaimer: Not my lens, not my pic. Just a flickr contact that I met in Redang.

Oh, just to test sharpness. Yeah, that must be it la. Riiiiight.