Wide angle lens help (Page 3): Get the Tokina 12-28mm f4 - does full frame from 18mm up ! - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/12-28mm.htm...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

soxfan941 wrote:

Planning a trip out west, and would like to shoot some landscapes. For example: Zion National Park, Grand Canyon. I'm thinking my Nikon
24-120mm will not get what I'm looking for. I've been reading about the Nikon 18-35mm G series lens, also have an interest in the Sigma
18-35mm F4, maybe the Sigma 8-16mm. What do you guys think? What recommendations would you offer?

I do have both a APS-C and full frame cameras.

Get the Tokina 12-28mm f4 - does full frame from 18mm up ! - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/12-28mm.htm

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

cambriaman wrote:

I have an 8mm Super WA and I must say that all my "keepers" have been taken with a narrower angle lens, either 24-120 or 16-35. The novelty of the super WA really only works for a few scenes.

I agree. I rarely use my 17mm glass (full frame film shooter), but I use my 20mm quite often.

SVP

(Download)

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

In the Utah parks last year, I used my Sigma 10-20 exclusively on my D7000. I also use ProShow to make professional looking slide videos. You can do all sorts of pan and zoom effects. Including more in the scene with a wide angle lens is a benefit to the video show. I especially liked the fly-over effects I did on the Deadhorse Canyon photos.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

Your Nikon 24-120mm should be more than adequate. I would bet that a 300-500 mm lens would also be useful as well. Some things are hard to get up close.
Have a nice trip.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

soxfan941 wrote:

Planning a trip out west, and would like to shoot some landscapes. For example: Zion National Park, Grand Canyon. I'm thinking my Nikon
24-120mm will not get what I'm looking for. I've been reading about the Nikon 18-35mm G series lens, also have an interest in the Sigma
18-35mm F4, maybe the Sigma 8-16mm. What do you guys think? What recommendations would you offer?

I do have both a APS-C and full frame cameras.

If at all possible, I'd recommend a Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 FX lens... 2mm wider (which DOES make a difference), reasonably compact, not as big or expensive as f/2.8 lenses and possibly even sharper edge-to-edge. Ultrawide on your FX camera and moderately wide on your DX. The current Nikkor 16-35mm also has VR, which some of the others don't.

Sigma 8-16mm is DX only and the widest non-fisheye lens available for that format. It's got a lot of inherent, strong distortion effects at the widest end. (If you occasionally want an ultrawide view, an alternative is to use a less extreme lens, take two or three shots and then use panorama software to stitch them together.)

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

soxfan941 wrote:

Planning a trip out west, and would like to shoot some landscapes. For example: Zion National Park, Grand Canyon. I'm thinking my Nikon
24-120mm will not get what I'm looking for. I've been reading about the Nikon 18-35mm G series lens, also have an interest in the Sigma
18-35mm F4, maybe the Sigma 8-16mm. What do you guys think? What recommendations would you offer?

I do have both a APS-C and full frame cameras.

I often photograph in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Leave the APSA-C camera at home--crop sensor cameras narrow the lenses field of view, and that is exactly what you don't want to do. I always photograph landscapes with a full frame camera, on a tripod, at base ISO, and sometimes with a circular polarizing filter (CPF). While 24mm is wide enough in the mountains and down at the bottom of the smaller canyons, Zion and Grand Canyon need wider angles unless you are doing a multi-shot panorama. I think the Tamron 15-35mm lens would be ideal for the parks you intend to visit. Anything wider than 15 or 16mm will not accept a screw-on CPF.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Mac wrote:

I'd say take the 24-120mm. What's the 18-35mm going to get you on an FX camera that the 24-120mm won't?

Take your zoom and save your money. >Alan

picture perfect paul Loc: oklahoma

Hi Soxfan, I have read over several of the comments and there are a few I would like to comment on but not at this time.I shoot a Nikon 7200D and Canon 70D and Canon 7dMark 2 . The one all around lens I have that works for almost every situation, near , far and wide is the Tamron 16 to 300. It has plenty enough wide angle for almost any circumstance.,It has the zoom it takes to reach out and "touch some one " It is a small light lens and durable, I hate to admit it but on a few occasions I have put it to the test on that, Drop, spills and falling down with camera in hand, Not easy on my old body but the lens survived, It is relative cheap compared to some. My self and every one else who uses this lens loves it, It is our daily walk around, all purpose piece of glass,

clickalot Loc: Chicago area

I visited Arches, Canyonland, Mesa Verde, Black Canyon and the Great Sand Dunes this year in late May. I took many shots with my Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS lens, the Nikon 60mm f2.8 and some with a Nikon 200mm f4. I can recommend these lenses.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Minor miss-spelling D7200 not 7200D.

picture perfect paul wrote:

Hi Soxfan, I have read over several of the comment... (show quote)

Toddzzilla Loc: Modesto california

I recently purchased both the sigma 8-16mm ultra wide and the sigma 18-35 wide f1.8 lenses. Haven't really got to put them through the paces yet but so far the 8-16 is my fav of the 2. Its 1st off much lighter than the 18-35, both lenses are amazingly built. Both are great looking lenses. The thing i like most on the ultra wide is the amazing colors that come through, can't put a filter on it but I don't think you need it for effect. I have only used it for architecture shots so far, very little landscape but enough to know I still like the ultra wide better. The 18-35 is heavy and longer, more of a low light lens and that ok too. Bottom line both those lenses are awesome and well worth the money. Portability goes to the 8-16 ultra in my opinion. lots of good youtube stuff on both lenses to. Good luck

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

from 1957 until I could afford a 28mm lens in 1975, I did all my landscape work with a 50mm lens.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Winslowe wrote:

What software will stitch either RAW (NEF) or 16-bit TIFF files?

Adobe Lightroom

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

At the wider focal lengths, there is a very discernible difference between only a few MM's of focal length. My 17mm lens is considerably wider than my 20mm glass.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Kiron Kid wrote:

I agree. I rarely use my 17mm glass (full frame film shooter), but I use my 20mm quite often.SVP

Excellent examples, KK! You’re one of the very few here who actually understands the use of a wide angle lens.