Ultra Wide Lens Dilemma
Mar 3, 2018 22:29:55 #
azi
Loc: Columbia, Marylamd
I've been using a nikkor 10.5 prime. Very sharp lens and the f/2.8 is very useful in low-light situations. I get a good deal on mine on e-bay.
Mar 3, 2018 22:45:04 #
Many wide angle lens’s distortion can be corrected in Lightroom. I personally had no need for a fast super wide as I don’t use it for dimly lot interiors or astrophotography.
Mar 4, 2018 06:46:15 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
Many wide angle lens’s distortion can be corrected in Lightroom. I personally had no need for a fast super wide as I don’t use it for dimly lot interiors or astrophotography.
Might be good for some nice night shots on your Yellowstone trip!
Mar 4, 2018 08:31:57 #
azi wrote:
I've been using a nikkor 10.5 prime. Very sharp lens and the f/2.8 is very useful in low-light situations. I get a good deal on mine on e-bay.
Interesting comment. I currently use a Nikon 18-140 mm lens on my D7100 or D300 as a "walk around" lens, which is normally very nice for what I need. Any distortions are usually, easily correctable in PS. But we are going to Italy later this year and I want to explore something that might be better for interior shots. When in France a couple of years ago, I was somewhat disappointed at the lens I have, because the architectural shots were limited in the tight streets of Paris and some other towns. I will check this lens out, carefully. Thank you.
Mar 4, 2018 12:51:26 #
Robert Bailey
Loc: Canada
d2b2-
I also have a D7100 (as well as 2 other Nikon DSLRs).
I used to use the 18-140 mm lens but have stopped using it.
It does not fare well in tests on dxomark (proved true by actual use).
The sharpness in particular is horrible if you go past f 11.
I also have a D7100 (as well as 2 other Nikon DSLRs).
I used to use the 18-140 mm lens but have stopped using it.
It does not fare well in tests on dxomark (proved true by actual use).
The sharpness in particular is horrible if you go past f 11.
Mar 4, 2018 13:00:50 #
Robert Bailey wrote:
d2b2-
I also have a D7100 (as well as 2 other Nikon DSLRs).
I used to use the 18-140 mm lens but have stopped using it.
It does not fare well in tests on dxomark (proved true by actual use).
The sharpness in particular is horrible if you go past f 11.
I also have a D7100 (as well as 2 other Nikon DSLRs).
I used to use the 18-140 mm lens but have stopped using it.
It does not fare well in tests on dxomark (proved true by actual use).
The sharpness in particular is horrible if you go past f 11.
After several thousand shots, our 18-140 is a proven walk around lens, but rarely do we shoot above F11. I review all of our shots on Nikon ViewNX, so I am not speculating. The Tamron 18-400 proves to be quite similar. All personal opinion for sure. Excellent bangs for the buck and I have plenty of glass for comparison, so hopefully DXOmark doesn't prohibit some from taking advantage of these low cost performers.
Mar 4, 2018 15:41:15 #
Robert Bailey wrote:
d2b2-
I also have a D7100 (as well as 2 other Nikon DSLRs).
I used to use the 18-140 mm lens but have stopped using it.
It does not fare well in tests on dxomark (proved true by actual use).
The sharpness in particular is horrible if you go past f 11.
I also have a D7100 (as well as 2 other Nikon DSLRs).
I used to use the 18-140 mm lens but have stopped using it.
It does not fare well in tests on dxomark (proved true by actual use).
The sharpness in particular is horrible if you go past f 11.
Agree wth both you and DaveO. Hence my search for an alternative.
Mar 4, 2018 16:25:50 #
d2b2 wrote:
Agree wth both you and DaveO. Hence my search for an alternative.
LOL, our quest never ends! Carrying/changing lenses in the field is an alternative, as is carrying two cameras. I chose the latter and we know it is a decision that has to work for us. I'm not purchasing any more equipment for a while, and if you don't believe me, just ask my wife!
Mar 4, 2018 18:21:09 #
DaveO wrote:
LOL, our quest never ends! Carrying/changing lenses in the field is an alternative, as is carrying two cameras. I chose the latter and we know it is a decision that has to work for us. I'm not purchasing any more equipment for a while, and if you don't believe me, just ask my wife!
My usual statement to the The Wife is: If I just had this one camera/lens/tripod/etc., I would never
need to buy anything more in me whole life!
Mar 4, 2018 18:49:11 #
d2b2 wrote:
My usual statement to the The Wife is: If I just had this one camera/lens/tripod/etc., I would never
need to buy anything more in me whole life!
need to buy anything more in me whole life!
Mine knows she goofed when she pushed me into it when we retired. I shall leave it at that. Safer!
Mar 4, 2018 18:51:51 #
d2b2 wrote:
My usual statement to the The Wife is: If I just had this one camera/lens/tripod/etc., I would never
need to buy anything more in me whole life!
need to buy anything more in me whole life!
Wouldn't work with my wife.... I have too much already...BTW, I used to live in several places on the West side of Baltimore. Although I graduated from Woodlawn in 67, I also went to Catonsville's prom in 68...My wife was from Milford.
Mar 4, 2018 20:33:45 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
Wouldn't work with my wife.... I have too much already...BTW, I used to live in several places on the West side of Baltimore. Although I graduated from Woodlawn in 67, I also went to Catonsville's prom in 68...My wife was from Milford.
I graduated from Woodlawn in 1970. 10 years ago I moved back into Catonsville. My wife doesn't buy any of this either. It doesn't stop me from trying.
Mar 6, 2018 03:22:05 #
My thanks to all who responded to my question about adding an ultra wide lens to my kit. I expected (actually hoped for) there to be a clear consensus about the way to go. Instead, I got dozens of great ideas arising from your collective experience. I now have several more options to pursue before I make any purchase or purchases. Thank you all.
On a sort of unrelated note, you might recall that I was planning to add a Nikon D500 to my D7100. So when opening the Nikon website, what pops up but the new D850. Yeah I saw the price and I know it is an FX body and the 7100 is a DX platform. Of my two current lenses, one is specifically DX and the 50mm prime is FX. Both are significant upgrades from the kit lenses by the way. Good glass.
One of the D850 specifications which I initially thought compelling was the 45+mp sensor. But when I considered that the image size of the FX was 2.7 times larger than the DX image, I realized the the pixel density of the D850 was some what smaller than that of the D500. So if all ofter factors are held constant, would not the D500 be able to provide the same resolution as the 850? Does pixel density matter? Am am I nuts to go from DX to FX? OBTW - I consider myself a wanna-be enthusiast .
On a sort of unrelated note, you might recall that I was planning to add a Nikon D500 to my D7100. So when opening the Nikon website, what pops up but the new D850. Yeah I saw the price and I know it is an FX body and the 7100 is a DX platform. Of my two current lenses, one is specifically DX and the 50mm prime is FX. Both are significant upgrades from the kit lenses by the way. Good glass.
One of the D850 specifications which I initially thought compelling was the 45+mp sensor. But when I considered that the image size of the FX was 2.7 times larger than the DX image, I realized the the pixel density of the D850 was some what smaller than that of the D500. So if all ofter factors are held constant, would not the D500 be able to provide the same resolution as the 850? Does pixel density matter? Am am I nuts to go from DX to FX? OBTW - I consider myself a wanna-be enthusiast .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.