Wide Angle Lens - Seems like it would benefit me

[TheBigE]

All,

I just ran some numbers on my recent set of photos. It was interesting to see the results with respect to my 18-140 mm f2.5-f5.6 lens. For the night shots, I used my 35mm f1.8 so I took those out of the analysis. Below are the percentages of the final processed photos on this lens against the Focal Length. As a note, in the end I had 64 total Final Photos that were processed and called "Good".

Focal Length/Percentage in Range
18-24/34%
25-35/19%
36-60/11%
61-85/17%
85-140/19%

Seems that I was near the Wide Range the most on this lens, certainly not the optimum point. I think this gives me good insight on where I was shooting, and what may benefit me in the future.

It would appear that a Wide Angle Lens would be a good choice for me and get some good work on future trips. From a practical standpoint, I know for a fact there were some opportunities where a bit more FOV would have added to the composition.

Any feedback or thoughts are welcome. Thanks

[DanK]

Your own use is the best guide, better than the experience of others who may shoot differently. I think you answered your question:

I know for a fact there were some opportunities where a bit more FOV would have added to the composition.

[rpcrowe]

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.

I don't know what camera you are using but, I suspect that it is a crop format camera - either Nikon at 1.5x or Canon at 1.6x.

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.

The relatively slow f/4 aperture doesn't impact my use at all since I most often use a UWA lens at smaller apertures.

OTOH, Tokina has other wide angle lenses to fit a variety of camera bodies. The one thing that these Tokina lenses have in common is good value and a build like a tank...

[Shadowman]

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.

[Polar01]

I have been using the Sigma 10-20mm for a few years now on my DX camera and have not had any problems quality wise with the lens.

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

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.

[chauncey]

When I was young and more affluent, I amassed most of Canon's L glass. It has been 15 years since
I used anything other than a 180 macro or a 300mm f/2.8.

[Shadowman]

I'm still working on how the UWA benefits my captures, seems to work well with figurative, interiors, and cityscapes, still looking for the perfect landscape.

[Venser]

OTOH, Tokina has other wide angle lenses to fit a variety of camera bodies. The one thing that these Tokina lenses have in common is good value and a build like a tank...

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.

[William W]

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%. . .

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

[shreds]

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.

[Ken MT]

When I was young and more affluent, I amassed most of Canon's L glass. It has been 15 years since
I used anything other than a 180 macro or a 300mm f/2.8.

In Today's market you could have 34 L lenses in your kit!

[Manfred M]

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.

While I have the f/2.8 14-24mm lens, I find that more and more I'm shooting the f/3.5 24mm PC-E lens for architectural work.

[GeoBonsai]

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.

[NorthernFocus]

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

[rpcrowe]

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...

[Saorsa]

I don't usually think UWAs are really good for landscapes. You have a lot more data from that wide angle to cram into a limited pixel space.

This is a stitched Panorama from Edinburg Castle.



This is a crop from that specific stitch. Not the original, the stitched image. The tower is above the bridge about 1/4 of the way in from the right side.



Had I taken that with my 10.5 mm fisheye and cropped to a rectangle, that detail would be about two pixels wide.

[Shadowman]

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.

Those gunpowder images are really wild.

[jcuknz]

Apart from the bug-eye [ 15mm equivalent ]which I bought for 'fun' my digital experience had been with a 35-280 or 35-430 and I never felt the WA was justified because I dislike the distortion of the WA, except when it is so pronounced with the BE it is a thing of itself, and prior to getting the BE I early on learnt to stitch and for the rare occasions when I want wider than either 35 or my current 28 I know I can stitch and do ... so no point in getting a WA

I also hold the view that an essence of photography is selection and my serious photography was with 16mm movie film where the 'normal' lens equates to about a 90mm on full frame SLR ... eventually I got a 10mm in addition to the normal 25mm and it was useful in a medium where stitching is not possible Of course with film one can pan to show the wide view.

My two pence worth ....

[Manfred M]

I would suggest that UWA lenses are not typical landscape lenses, but for the right shot, they are irreplaceable.







Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm @ 11mm focal length. Panos are one way to do certain shots that cover a large angle of view, but the technique has pretty significant limitations too. Most of my landscapes are shot at more moderate angles, with me reaching for more moderate focal lengths.