CO

When there's a colon between the numbers it has to do the the reproduction ratio associated with macro lenses. A 1:1 ratio is object's actual size is recorded on the sensor. 1:2 is half size.

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, here we go again ~ another little man with nothing else to do but to lie in wait for someone as myself to post something that can be interpreted in a way whereby the little man can distort that which I've said just so he can jump in to inflate his small man ego while hiding behind his PC acting like a hero with a piss ant brain !

Listen up, hero ~ in the world of photography, when a person refers to a lens having nomenclature such as f1.4, the person is referring to the speed of the lens or the aperture of the lens and when a person is referring to nomenclature such as 1:4, the person most often is speaking of the ratio of magnification in relationship to the latent image's size on the film's plain and or the sensor in a camera compared to the actual size of the subject.

In no way was I suggesting that Nikon makes a lens as the OP had mentioned and the lens have a fast 1.4 aperture nor was I suggesting that Nikon makes a lens as the OP had mentioned with a zoom range ratio of 1:4 !

I suggest that you spend more of your time trying to answer the OP's question and spend less time attempting to defame others and or the posted responses that others have made attempting to help the OP. AND, if you want to impress others, why don't you do or say something that merits impressing others in lieu of your trying to make others look as meaninglessly goofy as are you ! AND, when you were a kid, were you a hall monitor or did you spend most of your idle time trying to scorch insects such as piss ants with sunlight focused upon them with a magnifying glass ~ of which you seem to have become one yourself !

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Lens aperture is very commonly listed using the notation 1:4, which is equal to f/4.

And yes that can mean reproduction ratio (0.25 magnification) or the zoom range (4x). The only way to know is by the context.

CO

This is an excellent point. Ultra wide angle lenses give you such an exaggerated perspective when you have objects up close relative to objects further back. I'm going to have to look into stitching together vertical shots.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Gene's point is not true!

Lens focal length is not what determines perspective!

If you stand in one spot and use an ultrawide to shoot a given shot, and then switch to a medium tele focal length to shoot 4 images that are then stitched together to show the exact same framing of the scene taken with the ultrawide, the perspective will be identical.

Rustyphotographs

To your question as to f/1.4 is fast the answer would have to be yes although appropriate for portraits due to its shallow depth of field and low light conditions a fast lens is not necessary for real estate photography not to mention fast lenses are very expensive.

What is most in operant in Realestate photography is an wide lens more specially ultra wide between 10mm-21mm. The Tokina 10mm-16mm is a favorite for RE.

NikonDad Loc: Bothell, WA

I use the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX lens on my D7000 for my real estate shooting. I get great results and at f/2.8 it's considered by most to be fast, especially for a zoom lens. I picked up a used lens for $400 up here in the great northwest :D

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

The designation of 1:4 is the same as f/1.4. What it means is that the lens is able to shoot at f/1.4 through the entire focal length, in this case from 12mm to 24mm. Less expensive zoom lenses will show the f/stop as something like 1.4:3.5, meaning that you can open the lens to f/1.4 at the shortest focal length, but it stops down to f/3.5 as the fastest setting at the longest focal length. Of course, you can use higher f/stops throughout the range of the focal lengths available.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is never true.

1.4 != 4


That would be shown as f/1.4-3.5 (note the dash, not a colon).

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

:) I would love to see a photo of *any* f1.4 zoom lens. You could probably carry it ok, presuming that you were able to carry the suitcase full of money to the camera shop in the first place!

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Then why did you mention it in this context?

BTW, "pissant", I love how you become so eloquent when anyone challenges your misinformation.

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

Why has this discussion devolved into a urination and one-upping contest regarding who knows what about lenses. The man's original question was about a wide angle lens for his Nikon 7100, and NikonDad had an excellent answer and what I would recommend. I own a 7100 and use a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens for my wide angle. It is a very well-built lens, under $500 new and works well with the 7100.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

CO - I did a quick comparison for your benefit. Sometimes the drama of an ultrawide is creatively desirable - lots of impact. But sometimes a more "normal" perspective, achieved with the lens in portrait orientation and shot as a pano, provides a more pleasing look. Typically, when my client was a real estate agent, I would go for the ultrawide, but no architect or interior designer would accept an image like that, so pano was the obvious answer. When it is really critical, and the budget allows, my favorite two lenses for interior photography are the 24mm and 45mm PC-E lenses, for different reasons beyond the scope of this thread.

BTW - you are dead wrong on this one, dude. See attached images.

Edge distortion - volume anamorphosis - is an issue with ultrawides, less of an issue with longer focal length lenses to about 40mm or so. Beyond 60mm, you start to see a compressed perspective.

I took the images below with a tripod and two lenses - a 14mm and a 24mm lens - from the same position. For the 14mm shot, the camera was in landscape orientation. For the 24mm shot the camera was in portrait orientation, and I took 4 overlapping images.

The 24mm pano is more accurate and natural to the eye - and it is even wider in horizontal coverage than the 14mm ultrawide. On the other hand, the ultrawide, at 14mm, has considerable volume anamorphosis, seen in the brickwork vanishing point and the size and proportion of the mailbox on the left, and the planter on the right, and it provides, falsely, a greater sense of depth. Given the confines of my shooting space, I just kept it to 24 mm just for a quick demo. If I had a more suitable subject and a little more room the differences would be even more apparent. Ideally, I would shoot this at around 45mm for a more "normal" sense of depth and perspective, and possibly a double row pano to be able to get even more coverage for the top and the bottom of the image. But these are good enough to back up my statements, and completely discredit yours.

If you want to dispute this - back it up with an example or a reference. Otherwise eat a box of Exlax or a bag of prunes and let me know how things turn out - on second thought, that would be TMI.

Floyd you are terminally full of yourself - and a far cry from the expert on everything that you consider yourself to be. A true legend in your own mind if I ever saw one.

Now I fully expect that you will wriggle and squirm and figure out a way to come out on top with this one - being the weasel that you are. But as far as I am concerned I prefer to get my oats BEFORE the horse eats them, not afterwards.

14 mm

(Download)


(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not on a Nikon lens - on the barrel. Nikon Macro lenses often have a designation in the distance scale that shows magnification as you state. Read the link - it explains this completely.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/gg1e57vo/how-to-read-your-nikkor-len...

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

The Zone System Troll started it. :XD: