Im embarking on a 10 day journey this summer to Europe and was looking to spend some money on new equipment for the trip. I really want to capture the architecture/statues/inside of castles and cathedrals while I'm there. I can't justify spending more than 350$ on a lens at the moment so please refrain from the "save up for a tokina" comment.
At first I really wanted the distortion of a fisheye. I think I could capture some sick ass shots and would also use it after the trip for photography/ski and skate videos. Ultimately the fisheye has my attention because of its 100$ less pricetag. The only downside is that it is all manual, this frightens me because I want to be able to snap quick pictures that I may not be able to take if I'm wasting my time setting up the shot and whatnot.
Now I came across a friend selling his sigma 10-20 UWA for 375. I think he may be able to do 350 for me. I think this is what most of NS is going to suggest because you guys have a thing against fisheyes. The plus side to this lens is that it does in fact have the auto focus option, and would be more useful down the line in terms of filming skiing/skating.
I understand the two lenses are far from similar. I just need some opinions before I pull the trigger on one vs the other.
Going on trip to europe, want new lens to take pictures of castles/inside cathedrals and whatnot. Would use lens later on for filming skiing/skating and photography. Can get a manybrand fisheye for ~$260 or a sigma 10-20 for $350. I know that both lenses are different, but want opinions on what to get.