Best Wide Angle lens (landscape) for my Nikon D7100

Give folk a 100% crop Kathy and likely they will tell you ...I notice a blur in the trees on the right of the first shot but that could be the subject matter as the second shot is good all over ... typical Nikon in my book after using a Nikon bridge before I went to Panasonic with their Lietz designed lens :)

Edit on reading #40
To be pedantic I would point out that there are two things you are confusing .. file size is expressed in bytes .... Kb and Mb while what you have done is given us a larger pixel sized image 1600 across instead of the 1000 of your first offerings. How you did this I do not know but what you need to establish is with the image on your screen at 100% you do a crop of as much of it as you can within the desirable limit of 1600 pixels across.
How Lightroom does this I do not know but it is how I would do it here :)

I am off to evening meal and bed ... will be back tomorrow :)

So John was my last photo a good size for evaluating???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathy O

So John was my last photo a good size for evaluating???

---

I really do not know because I am not into that sort of thing ... but to give you an idea I enlarged it up to 100% on my 24" monitor and then managed to make a 1600 x 800 pixel crop but it is no use for evaluation because I am working off the CiC image and likely things will have suffered a bit. But it is not my subject :)

http://i64.tinypic.com/35kq4gh.jpg

Whatever looks good to me :) but I suspect you focused on the mountain and the trees are a bit soft .. maybe.

Edit next morning :)
Using the file I made and posted in this space yesterday I selected the left hand half and applied a bit of sharpening and it makes a slight improvement. ell within what I am sure Lightroom can do and I follow the school of thought which says that one sharpens the image as the last stage prior to posting. There is another school which says you should sharpen in the whole original file but I suspect that is a precursor to making large prints using all 6000x4000 pixels. Though I can see some point to following both schools together depending on the output.

Kathy,

Great question about file size!

The topic can be a bit confusing if you haven't already sorted it out in your mind, and I suspect from your excellent questions that you understandably haven't yet done that. Consider the following: When you download an image file from your camera or its memory card to your computer, you have probably noticed that when you display it at 100% it is so large that only part of the image is displayed on your monitor. The corollary is that when displaying any image that fits entirely on your monitor and when displaying it at 100%, that file is far, far smaller. Good examples of that are the relatively small image files you have displayed in this thread.

That brings us back to one of my points -- that we can't effectively evaluate the quality of a lens when viewing files typically displayed here. As John mentioned, the most effective way to evaluate the quality of your lens is display the full-size image file (a JPEG that is the same size in pixels as your raw file). That's not practical because the entire image can't be seen at its full size when viewed using a computer monitor. So, the solution is to display part of the full-size file here but to display it at 100%, also as John suggested.

Make sense?

To repeat my second point, what output are you taking into account when evaluating the quality of your lens -- a 20" x 30" print, an attachment to an email, an image posted to Facebook, an image posted to CiC, etc.?

Hi Kathy,

When you are editing;
What aspect of the images makes you feel you need a better lens than the kit lens? (I assume it will be sharpness, but we need to know for sure)
Does the problem manifest more in shots taken at wide apertures? (e.g. f/3.5 - f/5.6)
Does the problem manifest more at the wider angles of view? (e.g. between 18mm and say 35mm)
Have you noticed that sometimes the lens is OK? If so, what made that so; do you think?

I ask because, as we're saying in this thread, by the time an image is post processed and reduced from the 6000px across that you shot to the 1000 (or even 1600) across to display the entire frame here, there is no way we can tell.
Good (after size reduction) sharpening will have obliterated any lens resolution deficiencies - and even if you don't sharpen after reduction, we still cannot judge because the down sizing will have averaged between 4 and 6 pixels in to one.

So we need to see what you see - and know what problem we are looking for.

You may need to actually go out and shoot some frames for us - because your example landscapes really do not contain good subject matter to judge lens quality from.
The image must be correctly exposed and shot using a lowish ISO, say; no more than 400.

The best way to do that is take a 6000px across image of a static subject that you shot with the kit lens - since that is the one you are concerned about.
The example shot should eliminate any other possible causes of softness, so be taken from a tripod, be of a subject that is not moving (e.g. not trees that might have blown in the wind), be accurately focused and with sufficient Depth of Field.

Now; take a crop of 1600px width from the middle (slightly less than that is OK), save it (without any downsizing) as a jpg.
Take another crop of 1600px width from the edge of the frame, save it (without any downsizing) as a another jpg.
Post them here.
It might be useful to see the entire image too, although that's just so we know what we're looking at in the crops.

These two crops both need to contain some black and white detail (e.g. green trees against a blue sky is not good) - this goes back to shooting a good subject to judge from, rather than a pleasant landscape.

Hope that helps, Dave

Kathy - I use a full-size image to evaluate my equipment. Once you downsample the image, we have no idea as to how the lens actually performed versus artifacts created by downsizing the image.

Test shots are taken from a heavy duty tripod to ensure that there is no camera shake to soften the image. I will also shoot in the "sweet spot" of the lens, i.e. an aperture that is stopped down two or three stops from wide open at the specific focal length. Depending on the lens, that will be anything from f/5.6 - f/11. Once you get to apertures of f/16 or smaller, you are going to start seeing diffraction related softening.

If I have read correctly that you are seeking a lens to replace your 18-55 mm Kit Lens, I would consider either the 17-50 mm f/2.8 Tamron or Sigma.

The Tamron comes in two versions: with and without VC (vibration control). The non-VC model is touted as a bit sharper but, for general purpose use; shake control of some type is quite handy. I own a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and love the Image Stabilization.

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens (isn't that a mouthful?) gets high reviews.

Sigma also has two variable aperture zoom lenses f/2.8-f/4; one 17-50mm and the other 17-70mm. The 17-70mm would be more versatile regarding focal length but, I like a constant f/stop in my mid-range zoom.

Neither of the above lenses will break the bank...

I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say I am a bit confused about all the file sizing (I think I will need to have someone come and show me exactly what I need to do.)

Do you all still shoot with your 18 - 55mm lens kit?? Is it truly a sharp, vivid lens?? I know I still have a lot to learn about correct settings to get that tack sharp photos and I am not saying that the lens is to blame for some of my photos being soft or that a new lens will make all the difference in the world . . . . I know that I am not a great photographer but I continue to try and improve, but I also know that sometimes a camera or a different lens can help -- please note I said HELP not FIX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathy O

I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say I am a bit confused about all the file sizing (I think I will need to have someone come and show me exactly what I need to do.)

Do you all still shoot with your 18 - 55mm lens kit?? Is it truly a sharp, vivid lens?? I know I still have a lot to learn about correct settings to get that tack sharp photos and I am not saying that the lens is to blame for some of my photos being soft or that a new lens will make all the difference in the world . . . . I know that I am not a great photographer but I continue to try and improve, but I also know that sometimes a camera or a different lens can help -- please note I said HELP not FIX.

---

I still use mine, I don't try to get every shot SOOC but you try when you can. For me, it's always about the time of day and the subject when evaluating my gear. I try to get the ultimate capture with an easier subject, say architecture, then I'll move on to trying to get the ultimate foliage scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I still use mine, I don't try to get every shot SOOC but you try when you can. For me, it's always about the time of day and the subject when evaluating my gear. I try to get the ultimate capture with an easier subject, say architecture, then I'll move on to trying to get the ultimate foliage scene.

---

I really don't like to shoot architecture that much, nature is where it is at for me :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathy O

Do you all still shoot with your 18 - 55mm lens kit?? Is it truly a sharp, vivid lens??

---

I don't shoot this lens very often any more as I tend to shoot either with my full-frame Nikon D800 or the micro-four-thirds format Panasonic GX7. When I shoot with my old Nikon D90, it is the lens I will use most often. If used properly, it gives better results than the Nikkor 18-200mm lens that my wife uses all the time. It works quite well. These shots were taken with the 18-55mm lens.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5230/...60a18e7d_b.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5149/...7ccd025a_b.jpg


https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8492/...873686d2_b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathy O

I know I still have a lot to learn about correct settings to get that tack sharp photos and I am not saying that the lens is to blame for some of my photos being soft or that a new lens will make all the difference in the world . . . . I know that I am not a great photographer but I continue to try and improve, but I also know that sometimes a camera or a different lens can help -- please note I said HELP not FIX.

---

It seems to me that you should concentrate on using the tools that you have and get the most out of them before investing in a new lens. If you find you are limited by some characteristic of the lens, then invest in something that will help overcome the shortcomings of that lens. If you want to shoot landscapes, the first thing I would suggest you invest in is a decent quality tripod. I suspect that will help you get better pictures, far more than getting a new lens.

Kathy,

At the risk of appearing rude, I'm going to ask you for the last time: what is your intended output -- large prints, email, CiC posts or what? The answer to that question has a LOT to do with whether a particular lens meets your needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

I don't shoot this lens very often any more as I tend to shoot either with my full-frame Nikon D800 or the micro-four-thirds format Panasonic GX7. When I shoot with my old Nikon D90, it is the lens I will use most often. If used properly, it gives better results than the Nikkor 18-200mm lens that my wife uses all the time. It works quite well. These shots were taken with the 18-55mm lens.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5230/...60a18e7d_b.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5149/...7ccd025a_b.jpg


https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8492/...873686d2_b.jpg






It seems to me that you should concentrate on using the tools that you have and get the most out of them before investing in a new lens. If you find you are limited by some characteristic of the lens, then invest in something that will help overcome the shortcomings of that lens. If you want to shoot landscapes, the first thing I would suggest you invest in is a decent quality tripod. I suspect that will help you get better pictures, far more than getting a new lens.

---

Your pictures are beautiful. I will still use my 18-55mm. I was just wondering if there was a more quality lens out there. And yes I do have a quality tripod and I very rarely shoot without it, I also shoot in raw, use my timer and the mirror up function. Thank you for your advice, I will keep working on getting better.

All sizes of prints, 16 x 20 probably the largest and yes you do sound kind of rude . . . but I do appreciated your input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathy O

Your pictures are beautiful. I will still use my 18-55mm. I was just wondering if there was a more quality lens out there. And yes I do have a quality tripod and I very rarely shoot without it, I also shoot in raw, use my timer and the mirror up function. Thank you for your advice, I will keep working on getting better.

---

It sounds like you have your toolkit together.

1. Most landscape photographers try to shoot just after sunrise or just before sunset ("magic hour" or "golden hour") and some will start shooting just before sunrise / after sunset ("blue hour"). Times where the light is diffuse,soft and beautiful for landscape work.

2. I find that I don't need mirror up in much of my shooting. I find it helps when exposures run from ~ 1/15th sec to perhaps 10 sec. At faster or slower shutter speeds the effects of mirror slap are negligible.

3. If you shoot during daylight hours, I suggest you invest in a polarizing filter. So long as you are not shooting too wide angle, you can use it to enhance the blue in the sky (the effect is maximized when you are shooting at right angles to the sun). You have to be careful with the sky on wide angle shots due, as you can get "banding" in the sky, especially at focal lengths below ~ 24mm.

More importantly that blue sky, a polarizer removes reflection from non-metallic surfaces. This can be useful when you are shooting water (lakes and rivers), but I find that your image will look crisper because it removes the reflections from leaves and grass. This hold true, even in overcast conditions.

4. Better lenses - that is a bit of a non-issue for a lot of landscape work, as landscape photographers are often shooting in the f/8 - f/11 range. More expensive lenses tend to be "faster", i.e. larger apertures, but this not something landscape photographers need or use. Faster lenses are much larger, heavier and more expensive, primarily to get good performance at larger apertures.

I believe I might have mentioned that my only really issue with the Nikon kit lenses is their mechanical construction (they are not particularly robust, especially the lens mount). Optically they are quite good, especially when stopped down to f/8.

Considering that you're striving to print 16 x 20 prints, my thinking is that you certainly might benefit from a better quality lens. The quality of your compositions and post-processing is wonderful, so perhaps using a better lens is indeed your next step to improving the quality of your prints.

Sorry to appear rude, but I did ask twice about your output and you didn't answer. Considering that you were asking for all sorts of help, it seems a bit rude to me to that you decided not to answer a question that was posed only for the purpose of potentially helping you. Now that I understand your thinking about that, I won't bother you again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Considering that you're striving to print 16 x 20 prints, my thinking is that you certainly might benefit from a better quality lens. The quality of your compositions and post-processing is wonderful, so perhaps using a better lens is indeed your next step to improving the quality of your prints.

Sorry to appear rude, but I did ask twice about your output and you didn't answer. Considering that you were asking for all sorts of help, it seems a bit rude to me to that you decided not to answer a question that was posed only for the purpose of potentially helping you. Now that I understand your thinking about that, I won't bother you again.

---

Mike I am sorry -- I don't mean to be rude . . . I was taking in so much information and getting very confused by it all and your comment was over looked by me because I didn't fully understand what you were asking. I do appreciate your help and please bother me again, I respect your knowledge, again I am sorry.

Thank you, Kathy. Very classy of you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Considering that you're striving to print 16 x 20 prints, my thinking is that you certainly might benefit from a better quality lens.

---

Mike I've done tack sharp 17" x 22" prints with that lens with images from the D90.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Mike I've done tack sharp 17" x 22" prints with that lens with images from the D90.

---

I understand, Manfred. I've made tack sharp 20" x 30" images captured with a D80 and prosumer lenses. But sharpness is not the only quality of a lens. Moreover, if a better quality lens becomes apparent to Kathy for whatever reason, she might be motivated more than ever to continue improving all aspects of her photography.

One does not need to perfect all of one's photography skills to benefit from a better quality lens; improving the skills and the hardware can coincide.