Best Wide Angle lens (landscape) for my Nikon D7100

[jcuknz]

The 18 - 55 mm is great as far as wide angle goes, I just don't like the quality of the lens. Is there something out there that is similar but helps with a better quality photo? Love my 35mm for that reason but sometimes I need a little wider shot than what the 35mm provides me. Hope that makes sense.

Sorry while it makes sense in a way for years I had nothing wider than 35mm but I didn't get anything wider until recently when I got 28mm as part of the deal with my zoom ... there was no alternative. 28-280 is what came

NO instead of getting a wide-angle lens I learnt to stitch two or more frames together with the immediate result I had more pixels for detail and didn't waste a third to half on my existing pixels on sky and foreground when I wanted the wide view.

So I suggest you use that 35mm ... it is not ideal and preferably you use a 50mm or more but it saves money and is viable.

Plus no way do you need a tripod and I have done dozens of wide views hand-held ... it does of course mean you need a good or proper editor which has layers and IMO that is a far better investment than a good wide lens

edit .. reading back I see Dave also suggested stitching and do not be put off by the nay-sayers who say stitching is limited, as you get more experience you will find that is far from true if you use an editor a I do rather than one of the myriead of stitching programmes.

So to your #7 I would ask do you have a good editor with layers? You have already spent enough on gear so is time to spend a bit on the 'equal partner' to your camera. Personally I have used Paint Shop Pro for around a decade now and it is not too expensive while in its clunky way the free download Paint Dot Net is quite capable ... but how much of that is my experience with PSP and lateral thinking when I don't find the tool or variant I want I really do not know

Another thing you do not need and that is a polarizing filter as these are a strict NO-NO with stitched shots and even wide-angle lens ...
Have fun and try my idea before you spend money ... that is the DSLR disease that afflicts most people here because they have an ILC. I largely cured myself of that in my early digital days by using a bridge camera and now with an ILC I am aware of the suseptiblity of the ILC owner

[jcuknz]

I would also r commend you pop a couple on in the shop to get a feel for the perspective that the UWA lenses will give you.

Correction The distortion you get from the UWA lens.
I also bought for fun rather than serious use a 15mm prime when I had a weak moment with money to burn.

[jordand]

Manfred, are you sure that the older Tokina (the one without the motor) won’t work on D7100?
I have one and it works perfectly well on my D7000.
The second version main difference is the presence of a focusing motor, but most of the reviews I’ve read claim that it has similar to the older version optical characteristics.
As for the rest, I’ll agree with you. Wide angles are not easy to use.
I saw Manfred’s second post. Tokina I will work with D7100 and I believe it is a good bargain if you can find one.

[Donald]

Yes Donald that is what I am asking, thank you for helping me clarify this

Thank you, Kathy.

It will help others on here to better focus on what it is you are asking. Many of us been referring to ultra wide-angle lenses in this discussion and that is not what you are wanting. You are looking to get a lens that will give you better quality than your existing 18-55 kit lens.

I think one of the most important questions to ask when we decide we want a better lens is - What is that is wrong with the lens I already have? It is easy to say to ourselves - 'The quality is not good enough'. But sometimes we just say this to convince ourselves that we need, as opposed to want, the new lens.

So, have you told yourself (and can tell us if you wish) what is not so good about the 18-55 lens that you currently own?

[Tringa]

Good advice already given here but one thing that might help is to see one or two of your photos taken with your kit lens that you feel do not have the quality you want. Please include info on the settings.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Manfred, are you sure that the older Tokina (the one without the motor) won’t work on D7100?
I have one and it works perfectly well on my D7000.
The second version main difference is the presence of a focusing motor, but most of the reviews I’ve read claim that it has similar to the older version optical characteristics.
As for the rest, I’ll agree with you. Wide angles are not easy to use.
I saw Manfred’s second post. Tokina I will work with D7100 and I believe it is a good bargain if you can find one.

My mistake that Mike already pointed out. I misread and thought she wanted a lens for a D5100. I know that the D7000 series of cameras does have the focusing motor.

[Kathy O]

Thank you all for you helpful advice and suggestions I will try to post a couple of photos with my 18-55mm lens soon.

[DNSJR]

Manfred, are you sure that the older Tokina (the one without the motor) won’t work on D7100?
I have one and it works perfectly well on my D7000.
The second version main difference is the presence of a focusing motor, but most of the reviews I’ve read claim that it has similar to the older version optical characteristics.
As for the rest, I’ll agree with you. Wide angles are not easy to use.
I saw Manfred’s second post. Tokina I will work with D7100 and I believe it is a good bargain if you can find one.

The D7100 has a focusing motor; therefore, I believe a non-motorized lens should work on a D7100

[Shadowman]

The D7100 has a focusing motor; therefore, I believe a non-motorized lens should work on a D7100

Keep in mind that in post #10 Kathy said she typically uses manual focus, but will use autofocus when necessary.

[Kathy O]

Okay so looking back at some of my photos that I shot with the kit lens are really not that bad or are they?Here are a couple of examples.

1/200 sec, f/8, ISO 320
shot in raw, tripod, enhanced in lightroom





1/100 sec, f/13, ISO 200
shot in raw, tripod, enhanced in lightroom

[Shadowman]

Okay so looking back at some of my photos that I shot with the kit lens are really not that bad or are they?Here are a couple of examples.

1/200 sec, f/8, ISO 320
shot in raw, tripod, enhanced in lightroom





1/100 sec, f/13, ISO 200
shot in raw, tripod, enhanced in lightroom

Not bad at all.

[Mike Buckley]

Kathy,

You can't effectively evaluate the quality of a lens by posting such small file sizes. As an extreme example, an image captured by the worst lens in the world will look great when printed on a postage stamp.

For me, it's not possible to determine the ideal lens in terms of cost, weight, image quality and other more nuanced factors unless I make those considerations in the context of the output. As another example, if I want to print images that are 20" x 30" and have them look great when viewing them at a reasonable viewing distance, the lens quality should be very different than if I only display in email, Facebook and here at CiC.

So, what output do you want to take into account when evaluating the quality of your lens?

[Kathy O]

Kathy,

You can't effectively evaluate the quality of a lens by posting such small file sizes. As an extreme example, an image captured by the worst lens in the world will look great when printed on a postage stamp.

For me, it's not possible to determine the ideal lens in terms of cost, weight, image quality and other more nuanced factors unless I make those considerations in the context of the output. As another example, if I want to print images that are 20" x 30" and have them look great when viewing them at a reasonable viewing distance, the lens quality should be very different than if I only display in email, Facebook and here at CiC.

So, what output do you want to take into account when evaluating the quality of your lens?

Forgive me for sounding dumb . . . but are the sizes of the files that I posted considered small??

[jcuknz]

Mike has asked what is probably the critical question and I quite frequently read both folk saying "I only have the kit lens" while others more knowledgeable point out that even 'kit' lens are pretty good these days [and a Nikon? say no more]and then there is the saying 'that a poor workman blames his tools' and we continually read people asking for a better lens when they have not mastered what they have.
I see you use Lightroom so I believe stitching is not an option for you until you get a proper editor with layers. For heaven sake you have a 24Mp camera ... with just simple stitching of two frames that becomes 36Mp with generous overlap. even if you were printing 30" x 20" that should be plenty while for CiC etc it is horrendous over-kill. Even if you posted full sized files I suspect Tinypix would reduce them.

[jcuknz]

Forgive me for sounding dumb . . . but are the sizes of the files that I posted considered small??

By some peoples standard yes they are and many seem to post a horizontal 1600pixels but if you want comments of the lens you need to take 1600 pixels across out of the centre of the file, or wherever you think is appropriate., and post that. The camera shoots 6000 pixels so you need take 1600 out of some part of the image. Personally it might be better to simply take out 700 across and then there is no risk of Tinypix adjusting it. Sorry I do not really know what it does But I always resize to what I hope the site will display it as BUT for critical assessment a "100% crop" is the thing to give us.

[jcuknz]

Don't bother about feeling dumb because we all are that when we do not know the answer and it is the really dumb who stay quiet

[Polar01]

John the newest version of LR stitches images so your statement is out dated, if Kathy's version is predated to the CC version.

Cheers: Allan

[Kathy O]

By some peoples standard yes they are and many seem to post a horizontal 1600pixels but if you want comments of the lens you need to take 1600 pixels across out of the centre of the file, or wherever you think is appropriate., and post that. The camera shoots 6000 pixels so you need take 1600 out of some part of the image. Personally it might be better to simply take out 700 across and then there is no risk of Tinypix adjusting it. Sorry I do not really know what it does But I always resize to what I hope the site will display it as BUT for critical assessment a "100% crop" is the thing to give us.

So you can't tell whether, these photos are shot with a good lens at the size they are posted on here?

[jcuknz]

John the newest version of LR stitches images so your statement is out dated, if Kathy's version is predated to the CC version.

Cheers: Allan

The fact that it can stitch images doesn't mean it will be any better than the dozens of programmes that can do this, I have three which came free with cameras I bought and I only use one of them for a quick and nasty job. For anything good I use layers in my editor and I believe that Lightroom does not have layers and the tools I use in PSP to do an intelligent job manually instead of a dumb machine, however clever it is. I would have one reservation about that statement because I have been told G-ui [ or something] is very good but for simple landscapes I have not invested in it so far.
I stand corrected if in fact I am wrong about Lightroom, but to date it doesn't rate as an editor in my books.
Not that I have anything of the standard that Kathy is showing us because I am not into landscapes though if I had her locale I could be tempted as both are very nice.

[Kathy O]

By some peoples standard yes they are and many seem to post a horizontal 1600pixels but if you want comments of the lens you need to take 1600 pixels across out of the centre of the file, or wherever you think is appropriate., and post that. The camera shoots 6000 pixels so you need take 1600 out of some part of the image. Personally it might be better to simply take out 700 across and then there is no risk of Tinypix adjusting it. Sorry I do not really know what it does But I always resize to what I hope the site will display it as BUT for critical assessment a "100% crop" is the thing to give us.

Okay so I export this photo at a larger file size (I am hoping that is what I have done), this photo was taken with my 35mm prime lens.