HOW WIDE
Dec 8, 2011 09:32:08 #
Hoping for some input here from anyone with a hands on operation of use. I have a 18/300 Nikon lens for my D700. Is there any need or benefit of something wider? I am looking forward to an extended trip out West this Summer and just plain don't know if wider would be required. I am not worried about a 'fisheye' effect, do not need it, but I don't want any distorting in my photos. Have considered a 16/35 VR but just don't know if it would be that much more useful for what I will be doing?? Anyone??
Thanks!!
Thanks!!
Dec 8, 2011 09:40:31 #
The 16-35 is not worth the effort, as it will not buy you much in the angle of view. I just got the Sigma 10-20 mm, it has an angle of view of 102 degrees, with very little distortion. This reduces the need for stitching panoramas, and at f/11 a depth of field of 1 foot to infinity.
Dec 8, 2011 09:55:15 #
I have, considered the Nikon 10/24 but I have always protected my lenses with a filter. There seems no way to do this with the ten. Maybe I am just too protective of my equipment? :)
Dec 8, 2011 09:55:38 #
Roger Salls
Loc: Stratford, CT
J. R. WEEMS wrote:
Hoping for some input here from anyone with a hand... (show quote)
I would agree that the 16~35 isn't worth the investment. Buy a very wideangle lens such as a fisheye, the go to home desperate and pickup an inexpensive bubble level, place this on your hotshoe keep the bubble in the center and that will minimize distortion found in wide angle lenses seen when the camera is not level.
Dec 8, 2011 10:34:26 #
J. R. WEEMS wrote:
I have, considered the Nikon 10/24 but I have always protected my lenses with a filter. There seems no way to do this with the ten. Maybe I am just too protective of my equipment? :)
My feeling about "protective" filters is all they can do is degrade an image. The better way is a lens hood, and when not shooting a lens cap. When hiking, even if I am going only fifty yards, I stow the camera in my pack so no harm can come to it. Do not let a filter stop you from getting a very useful lens.
Dec 8, 2011 11:06:27 #
Adirondack Hiker wrote:
quote=J. R. WEEMS I have, considered the Nikon 10... (show quote)
The lens hood is a great idea, it has saved me more than once.
:D
I agree the extra 2mm wouldn't make a noticeable difference, getting 10mm would though. Although if you are not against stitching images together, the 18 would save you from carrying another lens and with only two images you have a wider angle than with even the 10mm.
GT
Dec 9, 2011 05:52:28 #
i use a sony 16-80 mm lens , can't see where i need more.
now panorama is a whole different ballgame.
start a new discussion for that one.
now panorama is a whole different ballgame.
start a new discussion for that one.
Dec 9, 2011 07:50:13 #
Adirondack Hiker wrote:
quote=J. R. WEEMS I have, considered the Nikon 10... (show quote)
I have heard that down through the years but don't know that I can agree with it. My 1000, 500 and new 600 lens 'require' a filter to operate correctly. It may be true however if you used some cheaper grade filter other than one made by Nikon. That, I would not know as I have never been a fan of such things. I always use lens caps and hoods as well. :)
Dec 9, 2011 07:53:58 #
As I do mostly landscapes, a 10-22mm will be my next investment ! I borrowed one a while back and it was awesome ! Got so much more in the shot !
Dec 9, 2011 10:06:52 #
If you don't have a wide lens with you, you will wish you had one. Try the slower Sigma 10-20, since you will have adequate light for scenery out west.
Dec 9, 2011 10:11:38 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
J. R. WEEMS wrote:
Hoping for some input here from anyone with a hand... (show quote)
I live in the SW - 18mm is wide enough
Dec 9, 2011 10:31:03 #
J. R. WEEMS wrote:
Hoping for some input here from anyone with a hand... (show quote)
I have seen an 18-200mm Nikon as well as own a 28-300mm Nikon, but have not heard of a 18-300mm Nikon lense. Is this a brand new effort???
Dec 9, 2011 11:32:16 #
Personal opinion: When I look at my panoramic shots they have limited appeal because of the lack of detail. I generally prefer several shots of distinct features that evoke more memory of what I saw.
Dec 9, 2011 11:54:43 #
TJ28012 wrote:
I can certainly echo the Sigma 10-20 lens for wide angle. I have had one for my Pentax K20D for some time and I'm using it to photograph courthouses in my state, so it's perfect for that purpose, particularly to allow closeness and eliminate extraneous traffic and other stuff. There are some interesting sites that discuss the use of wide angle lenses, and I recommend looking at them.If you don't have a wide lens with you, you will wish you had one. Try the slower Sigma 10-20, since you will have adequate light for scenery out west.
Dec 9, 2011 13:13:55 #
TJ28012 wrote:
If you don't have a wide lens with you, you will wish you had one. Try the slower Sigma 10-20, since you will have adequate light for scenery out west.
However, there is a learning curve involved with wide angle lenses. Don't wait 'til last minute to get yours. Practice lots before important shoots/trips. Think "foreground" for best scenery results.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.