Need help making a decision between 2 lenses
Aug 17, 2020 21:39:09 #
[quote=dfrost01]
I use polarizing filters all the time at 17mm, and it does make a difference in certain lighting conditions and at certain shooting angles. Cheers
DirtFarmer wrote:
Just remember that a polarizing filter will be of limited utility on an ultrawide lens.
I understand. But I will probably want to use a graduated ND filter.
I understand. But I will probably want to use a graduated ND filter.
I use polarizing filters all the time at 17mm, and it does make a difference in certain lighting conditions and at certain shooting angles. Cheers
Aug 17, 2020 21:41:19 #
dfrost01 wrote:
Thanks everyone for your help. I think the ability to use a filter (whether it's polarizing or ND) will be important to me so I've decided to purchase the 16-35. And I save $900 that I can use for something else!
A good choice IMHO, cheers and enjoy.
Aug 17, 2020 22:15:51 #
dfrost01 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a wide-angle zoom le... (show quote)
Both lenses are excellent, but I wouldn't dismiss the wider lens with the fixed hood. The extra 4mm makes a pretty big difference. The diagonal angle of view for the 16mm lens is 107 deg, and the 12mm is 122 deg.
Other than neutral density filters, what other filters would you want to be using? I am not a fan of CPL filters with very wide lenses - if there is sky in the image it can often look pretty uneven. In any case, you can get a variety of filters and filter holders that will adapt a square/rectangular filter to lenses with fixed lens hoods. They aren't cheap and are not as convenient to use as screw on filters.
I like this system:
https://luminous-landscape.com/wine-country-camera-filter-system-review/
FWIW, I shoot a lot of lanscape, and I own a Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8 but it rarely gets used. I much prefer the results I get doing stitched panoramas. You can see some examples here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/albums/72157687713807602
Most were taken with 45mm, 85mm and longer lenses. A couple were done with a 24mm lens.
Aug 17, 2020 23:47:00 #
Makes sense.
azted wrote:
I don't know astro, but for landscape work you will want the availability of Polarizing lenses. It is far easier to attach one to the 16-35 mm lens. The other lens might be useful if you are doing real estate photography.
Aug 18, 2020 07:26:57 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
dfrost01 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a wide-angle zoom le... (show quote)
Personally, I would get the lens that allows for filters. I shoot landscapes with graduated filters. I would not shoot landscapes without them. Plus u can use other filters also.
Aug 18, 2020 08:27:32 #
I have Canon equipment, 16 - 35 f4 L. It will take front mounted filters without much of a problem.
When it comes to astro you will want the extra 4mm on the lower end, it will make a big difference. So it depends upon how much wide field astro you will want to do vs how much landscape the lens will be used for. Can't go wrong w/ the 16 - 35 and decide later, if you get hooked on astro, to get the other.
Below is a panorama taken w/ the 16 - 35 @ 16, it took 4 - 5 shots stitched to get the entire arch in.
Cherry Springs State Park PA.
[ Getting an error when uploading the photo ]
OK The pano and a single 16mm astro shot are here; https://mega.nz/folder/YYpzXRCZ#DDiZefG38hoKlY3BHBVD9A
Hope this helps.
When it comes to astro you will want the extra 4mm on the lower end, it will make a big difference. So it depends upon how much wide field astro you will want to do vs how much landscape the lens will be used for. Can't go wrong w/ the 16 - 35 and decide later, if you get hooked on astro, to get the other.
Below is a panorama taken w/ the 16 - 35 @ 16, it took 4 - 5 shots stitched to get the entire arch in.
Cherry Springs State Park PA.
[ Getting an error when uploading the photo ]
OK The pano and a single 16mm astro shot are here; https://mega.nz/folder/YYpzXRCZ#DDiZefG38hoKlY3BHBVD9A
Hope this helps.
Aug 18, 2020 08:40:42 #
mizzee
Loc: Boston,Ma
While I can't comment on the IQ, I can comment on the bulbous lens. I rented a wide angle with a bulbous lens for a Niagara Falls trip and it was a PITA. No possibity of filters and a very bulky lens cap.
Aug 18, 2020 09:21:48 #
[quote=dfrost01 is the 4mm difference worth the $900 extra cost? I will appreciate all of your thoughts. Thanks.[/quote]
NO.
NO.
Aug 18, 2020 09:32:06 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
I use polarizing filters all the time at 17mm, and it does make a difference in certain lighting conditions and at certain shooting angles. Cheers
The frequently parroted advice against using a PL on an ultrwide is shortsighted. It deals only with sky, and for sky it’s a valid warning. The other uses of PLs are not limited in that way.
PLs are capable of reducing surface reflections, or emphasizing them when reflections are important elements.
PLs can enrich color when surfaces like foliage are presenting themselves at multitudinous angles to the viewer/lens. All across the scene, such surfaces present minor amounts of surface reflections that reduce/mask the color depth of the actual surfaces. A PL can reduce that haze-like effect, bringing out more of the true colors.
Aug 18, 2020 10:02:20 #
I use the Tammy holy trinity. F2.8 in all three with excellent results. 17-28 is wide and sharp, 28.75 is light and bright, 70-180 is a great, light weight longer lens. No VR in them but the cameras take care of that.
The price about a third of the three Sony GM’s.
Look at on YouTube and read reviews of these lenses. They are definitely ground breaking for Tamron.
Have fun!
The price about a third of the three Sony GM’s.
Look at on YouTube and read reviews of these lenses. They are definitely ground breaking for Tamron.
Have fun!
Aug 18, 2020 10:21:38 #
Aug 18, 2020 11:42:28 #
16 to 35 mm for many reasons. Just the fact that you can use filters is a good reason
Aug 18, 2020 13:22:41 #
I use several Sony "A" cameras. Mostly the a7iii for low light and star shots. The a7Riv for landscape. 90% of my star shots are with a Samyang 14mm F2.8. I also have the Sigma 12-24mm DG in A-mount via LA-EA4 converter. I am sure the Sigma DG is not as good as the "Art" . Like you I have the Sony 24-70mm and the 70-300G. The 14mm Samyang is better than the Sigma for Star shots. I would Opt for the Sony 16-35mm and with the extra cash I would get the Samyang 14mm in manual focus. Star shots require you to be in manual focus anyway so why pay for it. I use CPL all the time with all of my other lenses. I do miss not having one on my 12-24mm Sigma. I don't do too many landscape shots below 20mm due to distortion of the Sigma 12-24mm. I have considered renting the "0-D" Laowa 15mm F2.8 lens since it is supposed to be near zero distortion. You cannot go wrong with the Sony Lenses.
Aug 18, 2020 17:38:30 #
[quote=dfrost01]
Bulbous front element is a drawback in SWA design. It is almost unavoidable when the focal length goes down to 12 mm for FF. You pick the 16 mm flatter front element, as long as you realise the trade-off of losing some focal length and live with that it is fine. Life is compromise.
DirtFarmer wrote:
Just remember that a polarizing filter will be of limited utility on an ultrawide lens.
I understand. But I will probably want to use a graduated ND filter.
I understand. But I will probably want to use a graduated ND filter.
Bulbous front element is a drawback in SWA design. It is almost unavoidable when the focal length goes down to 12 mm for FF. You pick the 16 mm flatter front element, as long as you realise the trade-off of losing some focal length and live with that it is fine. Life is compromise.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.