Wide Angle Lens - Seems like it would benefit me

[TheBigE]

Thanks everyone for great feedback. Just to clear up a couple of questions - I am shooting with Nikon D5300 (so 1.5 Crop Ratio) and was considering the Nikon 10-24mm DX f3.5-f4.5 Lens. I am also looking at the Tokina as well - I just need to find one locally and put my hands on it and see how it feels. I have tried out the Nikon and was pleased.

You are making this selection in a very logical manner; looking back over the shots that you did and graphing out the focal lengths used. It seems that 53% of your imagery was shot at 35mm and shorter focal length. However, I wonder if 64 images are a large enough sample to make a judgement.

However, I suspect that you would be happy with a wide angle lens. The question is... which lens. Before we can make a recommendation, it would help to know: what brand/model camera you are using and what is your budget for the new lens.

I am quite happy with my Tokina 12-24mm f/4 Mk.i lens which I use on 1.6x Canon crop cameras. The 12-24 f/4 Mk.ii, supposedly addresses the problem of flare which some owners of the Mk.i lens complain about. I have not had any significant flare problems using this lens.

Looking at your breakdown of focal lengths, you have shot about 1/3 of your imagery at 18-24mm, This leads me to believe that you would be able to shoot a greater percentage with the 12-24mm focal range, given that you have an additional 6 mm wider focal length with which to shoot. Shooting 1/3 of my images with any given lens is enough to make the purchase of that lens a winner. I shoot 1/3 of my imagery with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and consider that lens a very good purchase.

Richard - I found the breakdown of focal lengths to be quite interesting, but certainly agree that their are many variables to impact these numbers - Sample Size, the fact that most were outside during bright sunlight,visiting tourist destination etc.

Erik,
With a DX camera you are just on the cusp of wide angle at 18mm, at 16mm you are still just on the cusp, anything smaller in focal length and you've stepped over the cliff of wide angle and its wonderful and kooky performance. Definitely get yourself into a camera store and check out the feel of the lens before purchasing.

Thanks John, I do feel there is more to be had with a UWA lens. I will post below a few of my last shots that I think the composition would have been enhanced by a bit larger FOV. I am hoping to find a Tokina locally and try it out for a bit.

Actually, Erik. If you look at your stats, you use the lens at wide angles (up to 35mm) 53% of the time and on telephoto 47%. Your shooting is pretty evenly distributed, between the wide angle and telephoto ranges. The other thing to consider is that your shooting style may change over time; mine certainly has and I shoot far less wide angle shots than I used to.

One question to ask yourself is are you continuously wishing you had wider or longer reach with your lens? If you keep running out at the wide side, consider getting a lens that will give you those features. It also depends a lot on where you see yourself going photographically; I've been a bit of a super-wide angle shooter for a long time, but find myself doing less of it than I used to.

Manfred - Thanks for a different look on the data. It certainly does open some more questions. The data is purely objective in nature and there has to be a bit of subjective approach as you have indicated. I think in some cases the extra FOV would have added to the composition. Honestly, at the time perhaps I did not see it and had to take what I could get with my equipment but afterwards reviewing the photos I can see some areas where extra FOV would have enhanced the composition.

I bought my brother the 11-16mm f/2.8 by Tokina for Nikon three years ago for Christmas. He loved the lens. Only reason he got rid of it was he pared down to a m43 system. It was the easiest lens for him to sell.

Venser - good to know that for the input on the Tokina lens

I do a lot of interiors and architectural and have found that a 14-24mm f2.8 is my most used lens for lots of reasons. It surprised me at first, but I have grown used to it being first out of the bag for most of these shoots.

Thanks Ian, I have looked at this lens and I shy away a bit because of the cost and the weight. Maybe in the future after I prove myself a bit more with the UWA.

Did the same analysis myself and determined the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 was a good lens for me at this point of my journey to discover my visual voice (BTW: I shoot with a APS-C "crop sensor" Nikon D3300).

The lens is heavy and cost about $800 U.S. I tried it out for a couple of days and I would have packed it up and returned it for a refund if I didn't like it. While I found the 10-24mm lens had a difficult and steep learning curve, with effort it produced some of my best images ever, so it's a keeper

Most importantly, UWAs are not for getting more into your images. They are for getting your viewer right smack into the middle of the scene you are shooting.

You might consider reading my "Utra-Wide-Angle Lens Lessons Learned" in the comment section here.

Click to view my images shot with Nikon D3300 / Nikon 10-24mm lens

Let us know what you decide.

Thanks Geri, looks like you were at about the same point as I am now. I am leaning towards the Nikon 10-24mm but still want to give token its fair due. Thanks for the links and great information!!!

That's what hit me too.

I also assumed that the OP has a typo and the lens used is a Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.

***

So, concerning advice, (just on a Wide Zoom Lens)

Erik - I suggest that in your quantitative analysis that you also consider:

> How often you use VR at the wide

> Did you often want to go WIDER than 18mm

> Is F/3.5 fast enough


. . . and I'd ask similar questions about the 35 to 140 FL too


WW

**** Hands over another Mars Bar ***** (Good thing I have a stash)

Yes you are correct there was a typo and thanks for the clarification. In short, I think to you answer there were times where a wider FOV was what I was looking for in my last set of photos. Regarding the f3.5, at this point I am not sure....yet.

Nice to see someone actually do some objective analysis to help make a decision.

Early on when one is accumulating lenses, zooms make the most sense for two reasons, 1) ease of use, 2) you're likely still figuring out how/what you shoot. Modern zoom lenses up to zoom ratio of 3x or so are capable of producing good quality photos. As a genral rule, the lower the zoom ratio, the higher the IQ. There is a reason you've gotten the recommendations here for 10-20, 14-24, etc. zooms. Zoom ratios of 2x or 3x can be produced with fairly good characteristics across the range. Beyond that the lens is going to have areas where IQ drops of significantly. "Consumer" or "kit" lenses are produced and sold to cover a wider range for those more interested in cost and/or convenience than in ultimate IQ. Many pros use zooms such as the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. As a matter of fact most Nikon shooting pros likely have exactly those lenses in their kit.

If you do some research on your existing 18-140, you can likely find information on which part of the range it is strongest. You can then start by adding a lens that is strong where the 18-140 is weakest.

Take all advice for what it is worth keeping in mind that most of us probably did not do the very things that we advise. And there is a cause and effect relationship there

Dan - I for sure can now see some of the points on my current 18-140 lens where I can get into some clarity issue. I really enjoy my 35mm f1.8 prime. It is a great lens that affords a me great deal of creativeness and really shows me how obtaining a lens that is fit for a specific purpose can really make a difference. This is one of the reason I am really considering a UWA with a low zoom ratio.

Certainly there is a great deal of cause and effect and perhaps the effect will be negative. Who knows, but in the end that is also part of the fun of the learning process. Thanks for the input

I might mention that grabbing an UWA lens is a gut reaction of the new photographer when confronted with a landscape or cityscape. The "more is better" school of thought is not necessarily a truism. Geri mentioned above, "Most importantly, UWAs are not for getting more into your images. They are for getting your viewer right smack into the middle of the scene you are shooting." I totally agree with this statement.

Simply using an UWA lens in order to get more in the image from left to right often results in a very boring image that is composed of cast areas of uninteresting foreground and equally vast areas of uninteresting sky with a thin band of photographically interesting subject in between.

IMO, one of the best uses for a UWA lens is when you have an interesting subject (rock or plant, etc.) in the foreground which "anchors" your image.

Another fetish of mine is shots of architecture with UWA lenses resulting in converging vertical lines or "keystone effect". People are another problem when shooting with UWA lenses. There are multiple problems in trying to shoot a group of people using UWA focal length and when shooting individual people the inherent distortion will produce exaggerated facial features and or massive heads and upper torsos and small spindly legs.

What I am trying to say is that the UWA lens is a specialty tool which needs to be used correctly because it is not very forgiving...

Richard - I agree the addition of UWA really needs to bring the viewer into the image. I will post a few image below that I think would have benefited from an UWA.


*****
So in the end here are a couple of photos that I think could have been enhanced by adding an UWA

The first is overlooking San Cristobal in San Juan. A bit wider view and I think the foreground could have been a stronger impact.


From Inside the Gun Emplacement - Perhaps a wider view of the opening would have been nice, as I wanted to also capture the colors of the stone on the opening, hence the reason I was so close


Night shot on the cruise. I was happy with my 35mm Lens performance here, but I think a bit wider angle and capturing some more of the "outside" details would have been nice.

Thanks again for everyone's input. I will let you know what I decide on going forward.

All the best
Erik

[Shadowman]

Erik,

Of the three shots posted I think the only one that might have benefited from a wider angle would be the last shot. The UWA would only push the viewer further from the subject of interest if used on the 1st and 2nd. The UWA might have made for a more interesting shot of the inside of the Gun Replacement structure.

[Manfred M]

Erik - Based on these three shots, I would have to argue that you don't need anything wider than you already have.

Image 1 - Too much foreground that doesn't add anything to the image. If anything, I would have used a longer focal length on that shot to get rid of the foreground.


Image 2 - Similar thoughts to the first image. You are using the hole in the wall as a frame and I would argue that you already have too much wall versus the subject outside the wall. Much like a "real" picture frame, it should compliment, not overpower the subject.

Image 3 - This one I really like. The framing and composition is great. I suspect that going wider would probably result in too much material in the shot. This one has just the right balance, in my view.


Again, I'm not suggesting that a UWA lens is not going to work for you, but extreme lenses are, both at the UWA and at the ultra-long telephoto are the most difficult ones to use well. When shooting UWA, even a cm or two can make the difference between an outstanding image and a fairly uninteresting one.

[Saorsa]

I actually like the gun emplacement image and the amount of structure used in framing shows that it is an integral part of the structure rather than just an artifically employed frame. It shows the field of fire. I do think there is a bit too much sea on the right and not enough of the structure on the left.

If it were possible to move a bit to the right more of the fortifications to the left would have been brought into the image and visually identified the opening as a gun emplacement. In this instance and lighting the WA would have kept the entire image in acceptable focus. I don't think a wider angle than that used would really add much.

[GeoBonsai]

All three shots would have benefited from an UWA lens. For #1, focus stacking might have achieved your objective, but an UWA could be effective here. For #2, with an UWA, you could have captured the entire width of the embrasure and the land features would have appeared more distant. For #3, it's a good example of a perspective where you could effectively use an UWA to capture "more."

Ekric, have you considered using the panorama feature to capture shots when you want "more"? Or, how about "manually" stitching multiple shots in post processing (you'll need a tripod)? Using these techniques, you might find you can achieve your objective using the lenses you already have.

[William W]

. . . In short, I think to you answer there were times where a wider FOV was what I was looking for in my last set of photos. Regarding the f3.5, at this point I am not sure....yet. . .

This to me is the most relevant bit of information as it indicates the artistic desire to move wider and the technical recognition of what is required so to do.

In this case you need a wider (than 18mm) lens.

***

With respect to the F/3.5 question, I was considering that question more in respect of that very fast F/1.8 zoom, but it only has a very narrow compass: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM.

I think that we have establish you need wider than 18mm, so in this case the difference between F/2.8 (Fastest Ultra Wide Zooms) and F/3.5 is minimal; but you might think about - VARYING Maximum Aperture versus CONATANT Maximum Aperture Zooms and consider whether that aspect is important or not.

I agree that Image Three could be enhanced by being wider . . . I have a few of "my personal shots" on my hard drive I made when working on a three day gig on a ship a couple of years ago - I think I understand part of your Vision - I'll dig a sample out or two and post it/hem later, but have to get to work now, though.

The Mars Bar comment made me laugh, thanks!

WW

[William W]

"Piano Bar"

This sample might be relevant to the Vision you want to express in Image Three.

The concept was to place the piano on the palate of the background, bar. That is to create a sense or relevance in the scene as well as importance of the Piano in the scene – that is: not just a picture of the “Piano as a Bar”.

It was a very tight space, but I could have stepped back and used a longer lens, perhaps even a standard lens – but the perspective created by the very close viewpoint to the Piano (by virtue of using an Ultra Wide Lens) accentuated the piano as ‘foreground’ and the bar as ‘background’.

It was made at FL =16mm, with a 16 to 35 on a 135 format camera, that’s about equivalent to FL 10/11mm on your Nikon APS-C.

WW

[TheBigE]

Erik - Based on these three shots, I would have to argue that you don't need anything wider than you already have.

Image 1 - Too much foreground that doesn't add anything to the image. If anything, I would have used a longer focal length on that shot to get rid of the foreground.


Image 2 - Similar thoughts to the first image. You are using the hole in the wall as a frame and I would argue that you already have too much wall versus the subject outside the wall. Much like a "real" picture frame, it should compliment, not overpower the subject.

Image 3 - This one I really like. The framing and composition is great. I suspect that going wider would probably result in too much material in the shot. This one has just the right balance, in my view.


Again, I'm not suggesting that a UWA lens is not going to work for you, but extreme lenses are, both at the UWA and at the ultra-long telephoto are the most difficult ones to use well. When shooting UWA, even a cm or two can make the difference between an outstanding image and a fairly uninteresting one.

Manfred - Thanks for the feedback on the photos. I certainly can understand how the difference in success versus "Muh" photo is within cm. I am hopeful to give it a try. Perhaps one question I would have and just need to try the lens on camera, but what would be the difference in my current Lens (18-140 mm) at FL =18 and an UWA (10-24 mm) at 18mm? Would the results be comparable or would the optics in the UWA "distort" (probably not the right word) photo?

Ekric, have you considered using the panorama feature to capture shots when you want "more"? Or, how about "manually" stitching multiple shots in post processing (you'll need a tripod)? Using these techniques, you might find you can achieve your objective using the lenses you already have.

Geri - I have not consider this feature, perhaps it is a good option and could work. While I have a Tripod, most of the photos love (minus the night shot) were taken via Handheld. I am sure I could line several photos up in PP to make it work, should an UWA Lens not be available. Thanks for the suggestion.

"Piano Bar"

This sample might be relevant to the Vision you want to express in Image Three......

WW

William - Yes that was my vision I was going for on the last image. Granted I was running a 35mm lens at the time, switching over to UWA and get up close would have pulled more of what I had in mind. Do not get me wrong, Image 3 is one of my favorites and I am very happy with the way it turned out....just keep thinking there is more there.


*****

Again, everyone thanks for the input. It is clear that this is much of a creative choice for the Photographer. In my examples above some saw the need for UWA and other not. I do not think there is or will be a concrete answer to the question - Will it an UWA Benefit me. However, I do feel that the discussion really has given me enough to purchase a UWA. I know what I can produce now with my current equipment, and I have an interest in what I can produce with an UWA.

To that end I have ventured to the Store today and given the Sigma, Tokina and Nikon a good once over and have decided to go with Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-f4.5 Lens. I feel comfortable with the lens, and thought the construction felt good.

Thanks again everyone. Once i have the lens in hand and had a chance to give it a go I hope to post some photos...wish me luck!!

All the best
Erik

[TheBigE]

A bit of follow up here....I purchased an UWA and gave it a go on my last trip to Thailand. There certainly is a learning curve and many of the photos ended up on cutting room floor. Here are a few that I think are worthy of posting...

Okay Standard Sunset Photo - Nice, but plain..


Sames lens, just dropped Tripod and took advantage of putting something in the foreground with UWA. I really like this one, despite the lens shading from the pop up flash. (I did not have my other flash with me) Oh well, still nice example of how I think the UWA can be used.


Again, getting up close and personal


Down on the floor...


As you can see, still a great deal to learn and practice with this lens. However, I do feel I at least have the basics to start to explore how to best use the UWA.

As always, I welcome any comments or thoughts.

[xpatUSA]

My experience, FWIW as a non-Photographer:

On the micro-four-thirds, I shoot stuff at 14mm (71 deg horizontal AOV) quite a lot.

On the 1.7 crop Sigma DSLRs, 17mm (70 deg horizontal AOV) is often used, too.

I received a 1.5 crop Sigma DSLR yesterday, so my max horizontal AOV has just increased to 79 degs

(I get my angles easily without trigonometry from sensor width / focal length = radians x 57.3 = degrees)

Which means I can frame the same but without using that horribly aberrated, soft-cornered and CA-stricken end of my cheap 17-50mm DC zoom. "DC" is offered as a bit of reverse elitism to counter the all-invasive "DX", lol.

A philosophical but somewhat OT footnote:

"wide" to me means horizontal, just as it's companion "tall" means vertical. I mean, if someone asks "how wide is that box" do we go measure it from corner to diagonally opposite corner? So, why do we base "wide angle" on the sensor diagonal? (tilt)

[Shadowman]

A bit of follow up here....I purchased an UWA and gave it a go on my last trip to Thailand. There certainly is a learning curve and many of the photos ended up on cutting room floor. Here are a few that I think are worthy of posting...

Okay Standard Sunset Photo - Nice, but plain..


Sames lens, just dropped Tripod and took advantage of putting something in the foreground with UWA. I really like this one, despite the lens shading from the pop up flash. (I did not have my other flash with me) Oh well, still nice example of how I think the UWA can be used.


Again, getting up close and personal


Down on the floor...


As you can see, still a great deal to learn and practice with this lens. However, I do feel I at least have the basics to start to explore how to best use the UWA.

As always, I welcome any comments or thoughts.

Looks like you were having fun and are aware of the issues that can creep into UWA shots. Hope to see more.

[selig1656]

What about fisheye lenses as an alternative to UWA ?

[Manfred M]

What about fisheye lenses as an alternative to UWA ?

A fisheye is just a special kind of UWA that is not rectilinear. I bought a Samyang 8mm lens for my D90 about four years ago. This is an inexpensive lens and the only reason I even bought it was because of the price. Even then, I would shoot with it perhaps once or twice a year. Now that I primarily shoot full-frame, I use it even less. My ultra-wide angle gets used several times a month.

Coincidentally, I am doing a shoot on Monday night, and given the subject matter, the fisheye will be in my camera bag.


Here are a few fisheye shots.

[Saorsa]

Fisheyes are fun but need some thought and care to use well.

Keeping the camera level and the horizon in the center of the frame and it becomes the ultimate UWA with it's own freaky characteristics. For example, Here is a birds in flight shot taken with the 10mm Fisheye Nikkor.



The birds were actually flying in a straight diagonal line as they are wont to do. The fisheye was slightly off level but because the horizon line is a tree line it doesn't look too unnatural.

DOF is incredible.





I have a short blog post on the fisheye learning curve at https://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/201...isheye-nikkor/