CO wrote:
If you don't have a circular polarizer yet be sure to get one before your trip. They can cut through the glare on foliage...
What foliage LOL? But CPL will be needed a lot in the rocky areas you'll be shooting. In three weeks we barely had a few days with significant clouds. Tennessee it's not! And the CPL will help bring out the rock colors, which can be awe-inspiring. We were there too early for desert blooms, but the filter will help bring out colors if you are lucky enough to hit the desert flowers in bloom.
karno
Loc: Chico ,California
Gene51 wrote:
These are nice images you posted after this post.
But in your second image in particular, what is your subject? The flowers or the waterfall in the background? It's a composition that is often done by people who use really wide angle lenses, and while pretty cool, it's not how we see the world, and it is definitely a "forced" perspective, that forces you to split your attention to two subjects in the composition, weakening it IMO.
I prefer to compose my landscape images with a more natural perspective, and more like a landscape painter might view the scene - not like a photographer with an ultra=wide lens. The UW lens is an aesthetic I am not a fan of. But as you know, photography, and art in general, is very subjective. So just because I don't care for it doesn't mean it's not good. . .
On the other hand, I don't understand your reference to an "illusion of movement" and that somehow it is missing from stitched images - is that because the image is stitched, or because of the focal length used and it's lack of extension distortion? I fail to see any illusion of movement in either of your two images. And other than shooting a few extra images and spending a few extra seconds stitching them, once a pano is stitched it is no different than any other single image in terms of post processing.
https://petapixel.com/2016/10/27/stitching-panorama-forget-wide-angle-lens-home/Have you tried stitching yourself? (asks the guy who owns a 14-24 and uses it on FX cameras).
These are nice images you posted after this post. ... (
show quote)
I added an example of a stitch first and movement second, first with a 35mm second with a 15mm on full frame. Just for fun
If you were going for detail, that is not what a wide angle is for. Zoom in for specific detail. Wide angle for the WHOLE scene!
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
karno wrote:
I added an example of a stitch first and movement second, first with a 35mm second with a 15mm on full frame. Just for fun
These are wonderful - great time of the day to get these and a nice job done on post processing. I still like the first image better. it is really unusual, and the lighting is stunning. In the second image, the GG bridge looks like a foot bridge and the rock looks like Gibraltar. I have stood at that very location and just enjoyed the jaw dropping beauty of the whole experience, but I don't recall it ever looking like that.
This was a pano, done with a 45mm PC-E lens, of Alamere Falls a little further up the coast from you GG and rock shot. I did a test shot with my 14-24 but was unhappy with the extension distortion and the way the foreground especially the stuff in the bottom left corner, dominated the image. There weren't many options for changing camera position, so I opted for the pano. Normally in close quarters like this the wider lens is very convenient, but not here. I'd love to get your opinion on it.
.
Before purchasing any other wide angle lens, go out and take few pictures with the lens you already have and then make the decision if you need or not another lens. And as you buy any lens always think: do I want it or do I need it. This way you always will save some money.
ppkwhat wrote:
Before purchasing any other wide angle lens, go out and take few pictures with the lens you already have and then make the decision if you need or not another lens. And as you buy any lens always think: do I want it or do I need it. This way you always will save some money.
Not specifically a bad suggestion. Except that the OP lives in Tenn. Vistas in Tenn are hugely different and not nearly as vast as those I found in Utah and Arizona. Not sure that test would really show him much.
Your choice for the Nikon 10-20mm is great! If you really want to be prepared and are short of funds, trade the new 35mm for a 55-300mm or 70-300mm for detail shots and compressed, distant shots. For night photography you do want a large aperture, but on a wide lens - 15 -24mm FX equivalent. Going to throw in another choice not yet mentioned. The new Tamron 10-24mm f4 with IS and weather-sealing. Longer range and better built than the excellent Nikon, but also more expensive. Stitching/blending is hit and miss and definitely time consuming in pp... Cheers, Peter S.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.