Which wide angle lens?

[Steve66]

Hi there.

I have recently bought myself a D90 and I am enjoying the upgrade from my D40. I can use all my lenses on full AF which is nice and I have managed to get some good shots.

Now, when I am out and about I like to take some nice big landscape shots to widen up the location for me and others. The trouble is I have been so intent on taking close ups of birds from far away, and thus I only long some long lenses.

Can anyone recommend an affordable good quality wide angle lens with a good range of apertures, f2.8 would be nice. I don't mind if it is a zoom or prime but it would be mainly for landscapes.

I have looked about but I am still a bit confused as to the x 1.5 effect of my DX body.

Sub 500 pounds preferred.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

[nirofo]

The Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6G VR ED AF-S DX Lens, (24-127 35mm equivalent) is an absolute cracker and under £500. If you want something Nikon with f2.8 then you need to spend a lot more money. I have a 24-70 f2.8 and can honestly say I have never used it wide open, I usually stop down to at least f5.6 for landscapes, flowers etc. if your main interest will be big landscapes then f2.8 will have very little use, more like stick it on a good solid tripod and set f11 to f16.

nirofo.

[bkrownd]

I like my inexpensive Sigma 10-20 fine, though the newer Tokina 11-16(?) is certainly more fashionable these days. The wider the better. Great POV type photos if you have a monitor large enough to do them justice. Look at the thread "wide angle options" on page two of this subforum. Of course you'll get a lot more info on an actual photography forum like dpreview.

[RJM]

I have the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 but I use it primarily for cityscape and architecture. I think for landscapes a 18-24mm focal length at F5.6-F8 or slower for good DoF focus is all you need. Modern digital allows easy panorama stitches so a really wide lens is not needed for landscapes. Just make sure to shoot it with a tripod and vertical camera orientation to minimize the "bow-tie" effect of the stitch. With that in mind, the 18-55 VR is a bargain landscape lens.

cheers,
Rick

[Duke Leto]

Hi I have a Tokina 12-24/4 which I find a very useful lens, its well built and performs well, this may well be a good one to look for in the 2nd hand market, although the newer 11-16 would be worth a gander.

[Steve66]

Hi and thanks guys some food for thought there. I have stitched photos befroe and never really liked the results unless I used about 10% of each image, but then I had to take 100s.

I think the best thing to do is to go and try some at a shop just to see the comparison.

Thanks again

Steve

[bkrownd]

I think for landscapes a 18-24mm focal length at F5.6-F8 or slower for good DoF focus is all you need. Modern digital allows easy panorama stitches so a really wide lens is not needed for landscapes. Just make sure to shoot it with a tripod and vertical camera orientation to minimize the "bow-tie" effect of the stitch. With that in mind, the 18-55 VR is a bargain landscape lens.

Uh...if you really want to go through all that. In a moment I get a handheld photo at 10mm and continue on my way. If you want to go to the "stitch" route I'd just suggest using one of the pocket cameras that can do it.

Remember that not all "landscape" photos are of distant objects - one of the primary reasons I got mine is for close up wide angles. I take a lot of photos of plants in the understory, and of the forestscape or even just bits of groundcover, where you can't back away from it or other things will start to get in the way. The 10mm focal length is actually wider than my own eyes can see at once.

[Derry]

can second the vote on a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or 12 -24 f4,,

Derry

[RJM]

If you want to go to the "stitch" route I'd just suggest using one of the pocket cameras that can do it.

Remember that not all "landscape" photos are of distant objects - one of the primary reasons I got mine is for close up wide angles....

Unfortunately most pocket cams don't perform well enough in the ideal light conditions for a good landscape pic.

Proper landscapes are meant to be viewed as BIG prints, but not necessarily "wide". Ideally you would shoot medium format with lenses in the 40-100mm range at F16 to bring DoF focus, resolution and perspective to a landscape print.
With a cropped camera like the D90, if you want to keep ~1:1 magnification and perspective then best to shoot at ~35mm focal lengths or longer. Anything less, and the subject will appear further away in the pic and will probably have some distortions. So while you may get more of the scene in 1 frame with a 10mm lens, it will have smaller, less visible details perhaps with a "funny" look too.

The only way to get medium format resolution for BIG prints with a cropped camera is to put more pixels in the final pic and the only way to do this is to stitch a panorama with ~5-6 vertically oriented shots to end up with a ~35mp image.

The software and techniques for stitching have come a long way. There are plenty of panorama "cookbook" web sites to check that can help and show you what is possible.

cheers,
Rick

[bkrownd]

It's 2009 - who "prints" anymore?

[RJM]

So you blew $3000+ on a D300 + lens just to view 12mp pics on ~$100 15" sub-2mp LCD?

My point is a wider angle lens is not the best "landscape" solution since you trade magnification and distortions for a larger FoV. On the other hand, getting a larger sensor camera will give you a larger FoV without the loss of magnification. Since a larger sensor gets expensive real quick, the panorama stitch can be a fairly cost effective compromise.

cheers,
Rick

[CharleyBird]

I had a chance to use the Nikor AFS 14-24 f2.8 last weekend - a good friend just bought one mint/secondhand so we immediately went snapping buildings and the inside of an old market area. Though it's not within the stated budget and is a truly wide lens, it may be worth waiting and saving up cos it is an absolute beaut, and the results are outstanding.

He uses it on a full frame D700 so at 14mm the vista is quite something (and it takes amusing ultra close up portraits). I can't see him buying another wide angle for years, and I reckon he'll be trading in 3 of his prime wides for a fast telephoto.

There's a review here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm
which also compares it to the 17-35 AFS (may be more suitable if you don't already have a 28/35mm range of lenses)

Regards

[pduxon]

i'll throw in a vote for the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. not sure why you want f2.8 for landscapes, indoors i'd understand.

bear in mind though that wide angle lens are used as much for their exaggerated dof as for the width.

what lenses do you have?

some wide images can be deadly dull. remember near middle far. and sometimes you want a telephoto for a landscape. its horses for courses.

some pics. they should show how wide you can go

sigma 10-20 all with a d80.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RurIFkm26NI/AAAAAAAAFYc/0c4M3TzOGZM/s1600-h/DSC_0065.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RydlRE-XrUI/AAAAAAAAGbo/Q6E080_aUFk/s1600-h/dsc_0025.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/SQYB50Mx93I/AAAAAAAANpw/g0_1L-kxyoE/s1600-h/dsc_0010.jpg

[pduxon]

I had a chance to use the Nikor AFS 14-24 f2.8 last weekend - a good friend just bought one mint/secondhand so we immediately went snapping buildings and the inside of an old market area. Though it's not within the stated budget and is a truly wide lens, it may be worth waiting and saving up cos it is an absolute beaut, and the results are outstanding.

He uses it on a full frame D700 so at 14mm the vista is quite something (and it takes amusing ultra close up portraits). I can't see him buying another wide angle for years, and I reckon he'll be trading in 3 of his prime wides for a fast telephoto.

There's a review here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm
which also compares it to the 17-35 AFS (may be more suitable if you don't already have a 28/35mm range of lenses)

Regards

you're quoting KR? shudder!!!

[pduxon]

I have looked about but I am still a bit confused as to the x 1.5 effect of my DX body.


ok VERY simplistically if you stick the 14-24 lens on a d90 it has the same field of view of a 21-36 on a full frame camera like a d700 or a 35mm field camera.

[Andrew]

Pete, look at them two thinking if they crouch they are not in the pic on the last one.

I am also looking at the Sigma 10-20 for the Canon 40D so can I ask, when you are close to say a church or a nice building can you get the whole into the frame when going down to ground level for instance?

I am also thinking of the Sigma 18-50 EX which has macro but with a dedicated macro already on the list I wonder how useful the macro function would be?

[pduxon]

Pete, look at them two thinking if they crouch they are not in the pic on the last one.

I am also looking at the Sigma 10-20 for the Canon 40D so can I ask, when you are close to say a church or a nice building can you get the whole into the frame when going down to ground level for instance?

I am also thinking of the Sigma 18-50 EX which has macro but with a dedicated macro already on the list I wonder how useful the macro function would be?

yeah you can get a large building at the wide end 10mm is VERY wide. in but the 10-20 will have a fair amount of distortion converging verticals and all that. so you may need to do more post proocessing,

the 18-50 f2.8? decent lens, as is the tamron 17-50. if you shoot indoors especiallly dark places like churches f2.8 is darned useful. if you are shooting outside then f2.8 is less useful.

[postcardcv]

sigma 10-20 all with a d80.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RurIFkm26NI/AAAAAAAAFYc/0c4M3TzOGZM/s1600-h/DSC_0065.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RydlRE-XrUI/AAAAAAAAGbo/Q6E080_aUFk/s1600-h/dsc_0025.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/SQYB50Mx93I/AAAAAAAANpw/g0_1L-kxyoE/s1600-h/dsc_0010.jpg

Very nice shots (you're clearly spending too much time in Norfolk!) I completely agree that the ultra wides don't always work for landscapes.

[bkrownd]

So you blew $3000+ on a D300 + lens just to view 12mp pics on ~$100 15" sub-2mp LCD?

Is this directed at me? I "blew" $2400 on a D300 to have higher shutter speeds, lower noise high ISO, higher dynamic range, better autofocus, better color fidelity, larger viewscreen on the body, more manual controls, more bracketing options, etc, etc, etc. It isn't only me that views my pics on an "LCD" - the ENTIRE WORLD that can view them via the internet. (the power! ahahahahahah!)

[Fozzybear]

I used the Sigma 10-20 at St. Davids Cathedral in Pembrokeshire last summer and it worked really well. There are some shots in my flickr stream, err... here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/archives/date-taken/2008/05/06/

I took this one of the cathedral at 10mm, I think I just crouched down a bit to take it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2489569709

and this one at 10mm with the camera resting on the ground pointing up at the tower:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2482866970/

I don't use the Sigma very often but have been pretty pleased with it, the extra 2mm going down to 10mm has proved 'very' useful, it was certainly invaluable at St Davids. I wouldn't say that it's a perfect landscape lens if you have extremely exacting requirements for optical quality but it's certainly no slouch in that department, good detail and low colour fringing. Corner detail falls off but not to a major degree.

[Duke Leto]

A few with Nikon D70 s / D200 / D300 with a Tokina 12 - 24

My fav local place (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/2263608044/in/set-72157594265550496/) D200

Woodbridge Tide Mill (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/415889862/in/set-72157594265550496/) with a D70s and the River Deben
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/415845633/in/set-72157594265550496/)
And Modern art (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/2631754624/in/set-72157594265550496/) D300

Local property (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeleto/1185673932/in/set-72157594265550496/) D200

All taken with a polarising filter attached

[Andrew]

Yes, I was thinking of the 18-50 f/2.8 EX. I shall try to see if I can test one in the field. The 10-20mm produces some nice landscapes as evidenced here but I am impressed by the Tokina 12-24mm too. Looks like a visit to line them all up against each other to test their build quality and images. Thanks for the answers and pictures.

[Andrew]

yeah you can get a large building at the wide end 10mm is VERY wide. in but the 10-20 will have a fair amount of distortion converging verticals and all that. so you may need to do more post proocessing..........

How do you mean? I hope I have not asked too big a question but I thought converging verticals were a redeeming feature of wide angle shots especially architectural ones. Mind you I do see a lot of cool architectural images taken around 50mm and even cropped after.

Another point on the f/2.8, I presume this would help me greatly when taking night/dusk shots thus is a useful addition to have?

[postcardcv]

I am also looking at the Sigma 10-20 for the Canon 40D so can I ask, when you are close to say a church or a nice building can you get the whole into the frame when going down to ground level for instance?

I am also thinking of the Sigma 18-50 EX which has macro but with a dedicated macro already on the list I wonder how useful the macro function would be?

10mm is very wide, even from fairly close you can get the whole of a building in frame. If you want ultra wide then the 18-50 just won't cut it, the difference between 10mm and 18mm is huge! If I get the chance in the next day or so I'll do some test shots of my local church at 10mm and 18mm and post them on here.

[Andrew]

Thanks for that offer Peter, I certainly look forward to the comparative shots. Thanks for the answer too.

Wide appeals to me with the option of including clouds and slowing the lens right down with filters for dynamics.

I believe I may be able to position myself on regular flight paths of geese or waders and get nice atmospheric shots with a 10-20 type lens?

[pduxon]

How do you mean? I hope I have not asked too big a question but I thought converging verticals were a redeeming feature of wide angle shots especially architectural ones. Mind you I do see a lot of cool architectural images taken around 50mm and even cropped after.

Another point on the f/2.8, I presume this would help me greatly when taking night/dusk shots thus is a useful addition to have?

f2.8 is helpful for low light.

here is an example of converging verticals. Photo straight as it came out of the camera.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RuWQRU_RPRI/AAAAAAAAFJU/QGB_zANcaZ0/s1600-h/dsc_0085.jpg

obviously the Rotunda is straight!!

and another

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/RuWQRU_RPQI/AAAAAAAAFJM/yMPgzttlVYk/s1600-h/dsc_0084.jpg

now what I think is cool is the way the picture has a 3d type quality. You don't get that with 70-xxx zoom. Horses for courses

anyway here is a photo at approx 17mm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/R9rC5lmqPgI/AAAAAAAAIHw/SpaX5WcsESM/s1600-h/DSC_0035.JPG

here it is at 10mm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oG9pguvp-2c/R9rC5lmqPhI/AAAAAAAAIH4/VCCWkpnTiR8/s1600-h/DSC_0036.JPG

never mind the quality FEEL the width.

[CharleyBird]

Nice shots - I like the 10mm interior of the church, and it's always interesting to see how a camera's metering handles the light. I quite fancy an affordable ultra wide.
The lens is tempting me; browsed around a bit and wondered, in your opinion would it be worth getting the f3.5 constant version of the sigma?

P.S. Usually go here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX
for nikkor lens reviews:t:

[pduxon]

Nice shots - I like the 10mm interior of the church, and it's always interesting to see how a camera's metering handles the light. I quite fancy an affordable ultra wide.
The lens is tempting me; browsed around a bit and wondered, in your opinion would it be worth getting the f3.5 constant version of the sigma?

P.S. Usually go here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX
for nikkor lens reviews:t:

only review I've seen is http://www.photoreview.com.au/Sigma/reviews/cameraaccessories/sigma-1020mm-135-dx-usm-lens.aspx

the new sigma is £180 dearer. you have to WANT that constant f3.5.

depends what you think is affordable!!

there's plenty of choice two 10-20's from sigma, an 11-16 and 12-24 from Tokina. and a 10-24 (which is alot cheaper from Grays of westminster than w/express) and 12-24 from Nikon.

[Andrew]

Excellent reply Pete, thanks. Those two pics of the Rotunda clearly prove it is what I want. The perspectives scream for the control of your mind in all zones of the image, I love it.

Use of filters with this lens makes for an exciting playing field!

Looks like this is the one I will probably go for if a macro does not get my dosh shortly.

Going to check out what this 10-24mm is about now.

Thanks for the advice and pics.

[pduxon]

Excellent reply Pete, thanks. Those two pics of the Rotunda clearly prove it is what I want. The perspectives scream for the control of your mind in all zones of the image, I love it.

Use of filters with this lens makes for an exciting playing field!

Looks like this is the one I will probably go for if a macro does not get my dosh shortly.

Going to check out what this 10-24mm is about now.

Thanks for the advice and pics.

the 10-24 is a nikon. canon do a 10-22.

wide angles are fun. they are harder to use but the results when good are worth it.

[postcardcv]

Well I was beaten to it, but here are a couple of shots of my local church from this afternoon. First is taken at 10mm the second at 17mm (I tried for 18mm but couldn't quite get it right!) shots taken from about 10-12m. Not great photos but they do show just how much difference and extra 7mm can make.

[Andrew]

Ah, yes I see. The Canon 10-22 is a bit too much for me.

I see nothing wrong with a Sigma as long as you have the EX glass.

[nirofo]

Thanks for that offer Peter, I certainly look forward to the comparative shots. Thanks for the answer too.

Wide appeals to me with the option of including clouds and slowing the lens right down with filters for dynamics.

I believe I may be able to position myself on regular flight paths of geese or waders and get nice atmospheric shots with a 10-20 type lens?

Yeh, you'll be able to count the dots in the sky, just like dust on your sensor?

nirofo.

[Andrew]

Ha, ha. There is a golf course by the Exe where Brent Geese fly over a dividing road by mere feet so they should be part of the shot I hope! ;)

[yossi]

The Sigma 10-20 is a nice lens, but I have tested lately the new Nikon 10-24mm and it's better and sharper. It's more expensive though (Nikon, you know...)