Back in the Tri-X/D76 days, I shot 35mm edge to edge. Not only that, but I filed out my enlarger's carrier so that a frame of clear film base appeared around the image. The print would contain the whole frame, and the black outline to prove I hadn't cropped it - at all. I'm not sure where I got my misguided sense of purism from, but a number of photogs in my circle were doing it, so it was a peer pressure and status thing.
Nowadays I just take pictures and do what I feel like with them in Photoshop...
I was going to respond with a reflexive suggestion of the Tokina 11-20/2.8. But then I'm remembered that I'm not actually a landscape photographer, more of a documentary/"Oh-that-looks-interesting" photographer. Gene51's comment above about landscape painters rings true for me. All of my successful DX landcape photographs have been shot in the 17-50mm range, and I've rarely wanted to go wider.
Where I'm going with this is to suggest that you examine what kind of photographer you are - not just in terms of subject matter but in how you see, and how you "make" your photographs before you take them.
Are you the sort of person who first constructs their images mentally and then creates them? Or are you the sort who recognizes images in what you see around you and then records them? The latter is a documentary style of seeing, the former is used in art and all types of commercial photography. They are very different styles with different psychological, artistic and technical requirements.
If you are a documentary style shooter as I am, I suspect you'll do fine with moderate focal lengths of the type you already own. If you're an "image constructor" you will need more technical scope (panos, UWA, filters, lighting etc), so you might want to invest in something like an ultra wide angle or even a tilt-shift lens.
As a documentary style shooter, I use a Sigma 18-35 Art almost exclusively on a D7100. I almost never reach for another lens unless I'm doing a portrait-style shot, for which I might use a 50/1.8. My Tokina sits in the bag, because 18mm turns out to be wide enough for me 99% of the time, and my Sigma has better IQ at 18mm than the Tokina. Even my new and amazing Sigma 50-100 Art gets only occasional use, given my way of seeing the world.
Perhaps my advice is to tailor your lenses to your vision. You may decide you don't really need anything beyond what you have.
Kissel vonKeister wrote:
I wouldn't have any Sigma lens, even as a gift.
In that case you might be missing out on one heck of a gift. Sigma's "Art" series lenses are not your grandfather's Sigmas, they are whole other kettle of carp. Every Art series lens I've handled is better made than the Nikon equivalent. I traded a Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX for my 18-35/1.8 Sigma, and it makes the Nikkor feel seriously underbuilt as well as putting it in the shade optically. I was staying away from third-party lenses just like you - Nikkors only, please - until I started doing some reading. I discovered that time has marched on, and so has Sigma.
I recently spent a lot of time thinking about putting a Sigma 50/1.4 on my D7100. In the end I decided against it. I have a 50/1.8G that is a lovely portrait lens, and is a featherweight in comparison. I also reminded myself that I've shot one decent image with the 50 in the last year, because I just don't use it much - I shoot almost exclusively with slight wide angles. The 50 is always in the bag, but almost never on the camera.
Buying the heavy, expensive Sigma in the face of these considerations would have been nothing but an ego-trip.
On the other hand, I traded in half a dozen lenses for the Sigma 18-35/1.8 without a second thought. That lens is the answer to my prayers of the last 40 years. The right focal range for me, the right aperture, great colour rendition and sharper than a bag of Summicrons (IMO). The only downside is its weight, but that wasn't much of an issue - one of the lenses I traded in was a Nikkor 17-55/2.8 DX that I'd been happily using since 2008. The Sigma knocked that redoubtable lens into a cocked hat.
So my advice is, don't let your ego trap you into a dose of retail therapy, as mine almost did. Figure out what qualities are really important to you in a lens, and buy one that fulfills those needs as perfectly as possible. It doesn't sound to me like the Sigma 50, as great as it may be, will make your dreams come true.
"Higher-resolution sensor." Everybody happy now?
nimbushopper wrote:
You are confusing # of megapixels with sensor size!
Um, no. You misunderstood my usage. Not the same thing.
24 vs 12 mp. That's bigger in my books.
I just upgraded from my D300 to a D7100 and I'm really impressed at how far camera and sensor technology has come in the last decade or so. I looked at the D500 briefly, but the sticker shock put me off. Also, it's a wildlife/sports oriented camera, and I shoot neither - I'm an art/street photographer. The buffer limitation of the 7100 doesn't bother me since I'm a one-at-a-time shooter, so I saved a few bucks by getting the D7100 instead of the D7200 - and then promptly spent the savings and a lot more more on a Sigma Art lens to take advantage of the big sensor. It really showed me what my old 17-55/2.8 was doing poorly! So IMO, unless you're into wildlife or sports, a 7100 or 7200 is tremendous value for money at the moment.
Mostly Aperture Priority. I even use it when I want to stop action, just by dialing open the aperture. I use Program Mode for street shooting, because the situation is so dynamic and I'm too busy thinking about subject matter. I left manual mode back with my film cameras.
The 35, no question for me!
Another old wedding photographer here - I'll never forget buying my first Hassy after a few years of using a Kowa 6 (anybody remember those?) There is something majestic and awe-inspiring about the mechanical quality of film cameras like a Hassy, a Rolleiflex or a Leica M4. What a nice thing to give someone you care about!
First camera was my parents' Samoca Super. First serious photography was with a Canonet rangefinder, during the Paris riots in 68. An Asahi Pentax SV started me off on SLRs.