Which Lens

[Weeanne]

I am going to Canada on holiday next year and I am looking to find a wide angle lens for a Nikon D3100. Not sure what one would be best for landscapes. Nothing too expensive. Any advise would be great. Thanks

[Shadowman]

Have you tried the 18-55mm kit lens at 18mm? If you are looking for UWA you'll need something in the 10-24mm range, anything below 16mm will get you the ultra wide angle look. You're better off with the 18-55mm as you'll have to get very close to your subject or have something of interest in the foreground to make up for the UWA effect.

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC, Anne.

This is not an easy question to answer, Anne without knowing what lenses you already own and why these are not going to be adequate for your planned trip. Also, what does "not too expensive" mean?

You might not have to spend any money at all as the lens(es) you already have could be perfectly adequate. Kit lenses with their 18mm minimum focal length are often perfect for that kind of photography. My wife and I recently got back from a (mostly) Canadian landscape photography trip and the widest focal length she used was 18mm. I shot most of my images at a focal length equivalence on your camera of 16mm.

Getting much wider that that can be problematic for landscape work as these images often have far too much foreground and far too much sky in them.


Updated comment:

Anne - I just looked at the two images that you have posted on this site. Both were taken with the 18-55mm lens, that I assume came with your camera. This should be plenty wide enough for your upcoming trip, BUT if you want something wider, then your choice will be somewhat limited if you are looking to go with a relatively inexpensive lens. Nikon makes several, but these are fairly pricey. Your could look at something like the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm. It is a very good lens and should be discounted now as Tokina has recently come out with a f/2.8 11-20mm lens.

Several of us own this lens and it is mechanically and optically as good or better than the Nikon products. The only word of warning is that there are two models of this lens; the older model required that the camera body have an internal focusing motor and is NOT compatible with the D3100. The newer version has a built-in focusing motor and is compatible with your camera.

http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/pro...atx116prodxii/

Here are three images taken in the Canadian Rockies (Peyto Lake on the Icefields Highway) a few years ago. The 11mm and 16mm image are with the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm and the 18mm shot was taken with the Nikkor 18-55mm.










All three shots were taken from a tripod, so the only thing that really changed is the focal length.

[tclune]

Shadowman's got the right idea to my way of thinking. I have a UWA lens, and it can give good results in the right situation, but most of my "landscape" work is done with more standard length lenses. The basic problem I find with UWA landscapes is that everything in the background is just too small. You end up with massive amounts of sky -- but then all the landscapes look the same -- and, after the first shot, boring. I also shoot with a DX camera, and my favorite lens for most work (including landscapes) is my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It "sees" like I do, and captures the shots I'm interested in. http://www.ipernity.com/doc/1295788/album/839958 is a small sampling of my landscapes this fall using that lens. I'm not trying to say that I'm the ultimate landscape photographer by any means, just that the perspective from a standard zoom is well-suited to landscape photography. FWIW

[Donald]

Welcome to the forum, Anne. You didn't post a message in the welcoming thread (there's no rule that says you have to) and that's where I usually see who's joining the forum.

Anyway, to build on what the guys have said above .............

Don't think of a wide angle lens as just something that will allow you to get more of what you'd normally photograph, into the frame. Wide angle photography, especially ultra wide angle photography, is a part of photography, but a very different thing to photography with a more standard size lens. If you want to get into it, great. I did have a Tokina f2.8 11-16 on a Canon 40D. I now have a Canon 11-24 f4L on a 5DS and it is W I D E!

So, think about what it is your wanting to do on that trip. If you know you're going to be looking to make images that involve you getting really close in to the foreground subject (i.e. inches) and then have a big background behind and all of that in focus then, absolutely, go for it. It's great fun. On the other hand, if what you're thinking about is the big sweeping vistas of mountains etc, then as the guys suggest above, an 18-55, or something like that, will do that job very well.

And what does an image made with an ultra wide look like? This is on Loch Lomond. That lump of wood was about 6 inches from the front of the lens. The summit of Ben Lomond on the right is about 8 miles away. (When you're working with an ultra wide, you've usually got to be willing to get muddy and wet, because you'll be on the ground most of the time.)

[Ndukes]

You might like to consider the Nikon 16-85 f3.5-5.6. I had one for years which covered most things on a succession of APS-C Nikon cameras (before switching to full frame). 16 mm is usefully wider than the standard 18-XX and I found that 85mm was enough for most other than wild life. I also found it to be quite sharp throughout the zoom range and should balance well on D3100. Try to borrow one and see what you think.

[Polar01]

Anne nice of you to drop bye for a visit. One thing you have to realize about this country is that it is big and I mean big. As a result of this, it you be nice to know where you intend to visit, and time of year, as that can make a big difference in what lenses to use. I saw the two images you have posted since joining CIC and they are very good, As to the wide angle lens, it would help greatly to know what lenses you are presently using as you may not need one wider.

Cheers: Allan

[xpatUSA]

A personal comment about the 18-55mm kit lens:

I bought one for a Nikon D50 and was a bit disappointed with the ease at which veiling flare appeared in the shots, not seen with the 60mm micro-Nikkor G - the only other lens I had at the time.

Just a sample of one lens and not on a D3100 but I would hate to take a kajillion shots of Canada and see that kind of thing happening.

As to "nothing too expensive" a Sigma might work for you, zooms can be seen here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/31

In wide-ish, I am currently using the 17-50mm OS APS-C size and, for outrageously wide, I have just bought the 8-16mm APS-C size which is an excellent lens:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1329/cat/31

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1330/cat/31
.

[Shadowman]

A personal comment about the 18-55mm kit lens:

I bought one for a Nikon D50 and was a bit disappointed with the ease at which veiling flare appeared in the shots, not seen with the 60mm micro-Nikkor G - the only other lens I had at the time.

Just a sample of one lens and not on a D3100 but I would hate to take a kajillion shots of Canada and see that kind of thing happening.

As to "nothing too expensive" a Sigma might work for you, zooms can be seen here:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/31

In wide-ish, I am currently using the 17-50mm OS APS-C size and, for outrageously wide, I have just bought the 8-16mm APS-C size which is an excellent lens:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1329/cat/31

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1330/cat/31
.

Is the flare a camera or lens issue? There was recent reports of lens flare with a particular camera model and it had more to do with the inner positioning of some of the metal components near the mirror. I know you can always get flare, I had some recently with a 50mm lens but it was sporadic and nothing to be too concerned about. The important thing was to be able to notice it while in the field and if possible reshoot.

[tclune]

I would just add that there's been a few iterations of the 18-55 kit lens since the D50 was current. If there was a version of the 18-55 that had a flare problem, it may be a problem of the past. I don't have any version of that lens, but I don't recall hearing complaints about flare in the last few years.

[xpatUSA]

Is the [18-55mm kit] flare a camera or lens issue? There was recent reports of lens flare with a particular camera model and it had more to do with the inner positioning of some of the metal components near the mirror. I know you can always get flare, I had some recently with a 50mm lens but it was sporadic and nothing to be too concerned about. The important thing was to be able to notice it while in the field and if possible reshoot.

I would just add that there's been a few iterations of the 18-55 kit lens since the D50 was current.

Yes, I should have mentioned that this was about 5 years ago and the eBay-sourced lens could have been old stock separated from it's camera at birth, so to speak. As I said, I didn't have that trouble with another lens on the same camera and I did try to emphasize that I wasn't talking about all 18-55s.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Anne,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me too - just to complete the moderator trilogy


I agree with others that have posted suggesting that it may not be necessary to go wider than 18mm for conventional landscape shooting. However, one idea that's not been mentioned above (so far) is that if you do occasionally needs extra width for a landscape, especially if shooting from a tripod, is the stitching of a panorama together from two (or more) shots in Post Production.


I agree that shooting with something like a 10-24mm on your camera is another new skill to learn, so if you do get one, please take the time before the trip to practice shooting with it AND assessing the results on your computer, so you can hone the skill.

I have a 10-24mm and do find myself ending up shooting in the 18-24mm part of the range - possibly half the time.

Enjoy the trip (although I know it's a long way off yet), Dave

[tclune]

I am going to Canada on holiday next year and I am looking to find a wide angle lens for a Nikon D3100. Not sure what one would be best for landscapes. Nothing too expensive. Any advise would be great. Thanks

When Polar01 mentioned your photos posted here, I looked them up. I notice that both were taken at 55mm on your 18-55mm lens. Based on this very small sample, it would seem that you might get more use out of a longer lens than a wider one. So I am quite curious as to why you want to go wide angle.

[William W]

. . . I am quite curious as to why you want to go wide angle . . .

Good question.

***

Hello Anne,

Standing-by for your answer.

WW