FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?

Page  123 5>
Author
calpon View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 May 2006
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 455
Post Options Post Options   Quote calpon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?
    Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:24
Is 17mm wide enough? I am leaning "No" with my use of a kit lens

Zooms:compare
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 12-24
KM/Tamron 11-18 (I am leaning this way at the moment)
KM/Tamron 17-35 (not wide enough?)
Tamron 17-50 (not wide enough?)
Zeiss 16-80 (not wide enough?)

Prime: compare (I don't think I want a Fish)
Sigma 14 2.8 (Is this a fish Eye?)
Tamron 14 2.8 (Is this a fish Eye?)
20mm options (not wide enough?)

Other option?

Edited by brettania - 14 May 2007 at 10:54
http://tkunkel.zenfolio.com/

NEX7,Sel CZ 16-70,CZ E24 1.8,Touit 32, Sony E50 1.8,Contax 90 2.8
 



Back to Top
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6251
Post Options Post Options   Quote Turerkan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:27
those 14mm's are rectlinear, and expensive.
i think sigma once made a 14/3.5 that is cheap..
Back to Top
infrastellar View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 21 July 2006
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1536
Post Options Post Options   Quote infrastellar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:40
20mm is enough... 17mm and less are more difficult for composition options in landscapes.
Infrastellar travel photo

Slovakia, Czech republic, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Indonesia, England
Back to Top
Turerkan View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 February 2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 6251
Post Options Post Options   Quote Turerkan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:47
infrastellar: i thought the wider is the better in landscape photography.. and you are doing it great! now it seems that i was wrong with that prejudgement.

why do you think 20mm is better for landscapes?
and something more 'urgent' than the question above: here
Back to Top
binbald View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 December 2006
Country: Germany
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 493
Post Options Post Options   Quote binbald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:51
I used to have the 17-35G and it was in most of the cases enough. Sometimes I wished to have a wider angle - but just for getting a bit more on the picture, not for reasons of art.
It needs a very special way of photographing below 24mm film equivalent, and you can rarely find subjects that require (!) that. Composing a convincing and compelling image so wide is extremely difficult and the effect and the impact you achieve with that is soon becoming boring and you get used to that and won't take too many pictures anymore.

17-xx or 16-80 would be enough, also the Sigma 15-30. Everything below is nice and fun to have, but I'd rather invest in some better lens replacing the 18-70kit.

But it depends on your favourite subjects.

Edited by binbald - 12 May 2007 at 18:51
Regards, Michael

A77II with zooms, A7II with primes
Back to Top
NIKO View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 February 2007
Country: United States
Location: Chicago Area
Status: Offline
Posts: 1496
Post Options Post Options   Quote NIKO Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 19:11
Well, I don't know what is truely wide enough or not. However, I do have the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle zoom for my Maxxum 5D. I couldn't see myself without it. It's not too steep in price either($450-489). It is rectilinear and its barrel distortion is well controlled. In fact between 10-12mm distortion is at it's worst depending on the type of shot you're making, but nothing you can't fix rather easily with photoshop. From 12-20mm distortion of any kind isn't relevent. Again, depending on the type of shot you are taking. If it's landscape, not a problem. If it's architectural (buildings in its entirety), you'll always have something to fix regardless of what lens you use unless it is a landscape of buildings you are taking a picture of. In doors with close quarters, you'll not be able to fix everything, just mildly adjust angles of the room with photoshop.

You can't go wrong by having this lens. Though, I have the 18-70mm KM kit lens I barely ever use it. It isn't always wide enough for me nor does it always have enough reach. So, I use the Sigma 10-20mm when I need it and the Sigma 24-135mm as my walk around lens. These two lenses give me most of what I need. On the rarity that I need more reach (mainly with wildlife) I have my Sigma 135-400mm or my 70-200mm "Beer can." But, I tend to use the Sigma by far more because it has significantly less chromatic aberrations then the "Beer Can" and is practically as sharp through most of its range.

I hope some of what I've written helps you out.


Regards,
Niko
A77II+VG|2A700+VG|5D+VG|Maxxum7+VG|CZ2470|1635|1680|S50f1.4|28f2.8|24105|70200G|2XTC|2F60M|M50RS|2885|3570f4|70210f4|2875|1870|4F56AM|3600HSD-2|Σ10|1020|70|85|100300f4|1.4X&2XTC
 



Back to Top
micahtd View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 19 October 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 124
Post Options Post Options   Quote micahtd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 19:37
I also could not be without my sigma 10-20mm. For landscape pictures anything between 10-20mm is perfect in my opinion. For mos of my landscapes I do tend to shoot more towards the 10mm end than the 20mm. I suppose it is all a matter of preference, and shooting style. The distortion at the widest angles can give some interesting looks to different shots and can be easily fixed when needed in PS. I have read some reviews about the sigma 10-20mm vs. the KM 11-18 and the sigma was rated a little better. The only draw back I see with the 10-20mm is if you plan on buying a FF sensor camera when it comes out. If so you may want to look at the sigma 12-24mm, although it doesn't take traditional treaded filters because of the very large front element.

Rgds,

Micah
A900, A700, Zeiss 16-35, Zeiss 24-70, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4G, 70-200 f2.8, 5600| micahphoto.com | fineartsframin
Back to Top
Maffe View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 11 November 2005
Country: Sweden
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Posts: 11754
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maffe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 19:46
Some of my best lanscape shots is made with takumar 50mm...
So itīs up to you what is wide enough!

Edited by Maffe - 12 May 2007 at 19:48
Back to Top
krusty46 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 14 April 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 8
Post Options Post Options   Quote krusty46 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 20:16
By no means am I an authority, but the 18-70 kit lens is not wide enough for me on my Alpha.
I'm holding out for a 10-20 or an 11-18 when funds permit.
In the meantime though, the 18-70 will have to do. Kinda sorry I got this lens as I did so strictly as a wide lens. Thankfully it was only $50.

Edited by krusty46 - 12 May 2007 at 20:17
Back to Top
Sanjuro View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Administrator emeritus

Joined: 19 September 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Posts: 5848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sanjuro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 20:16
Defenetly the 10-28 range.
Sigma 10-20 is very nice <nd I have seen great panos with that lens.
A 20mm prime is also great, so I think is up to you, I even did a big pano with a beercan, so it all depends.


Rgds
Sanjuro

"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." --Pablo Picasso
Back to Top
jstartin View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 15 August 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Post Options Post Options   Quote jstartin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2007 at 23:44
When I first started with the 5D I thought that 24mm might be wide enough. I soon found it was not and made more use of the 18-70. Then 18mm was not enough and I bought the Tamron 11-18. Now I find that 11mm is wide enough, but certainly not too wide.

If it helps a little, compare the first shot I posted in the lens samples forum
11mm
with the same view at 18mm
18mm
Back to Top
NIKO View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 February 2007
Country: United States
Location: Chicago Area
Status: Offline
Posts: 1496
Post Options Post Options   Quote NIKO Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2007 at 04:08
Really nice shots JR! Excellent examples. They really show off what these lenses can do for an APS-C sized sensor DSLR.


Niko
A77II+VG|2A700+VG|5D+VG|Maxxum7+VG|CZ2470|1635|1680|S50f1.4|28f2.8|24105|70200G|2XTC|2F60M|M50RS|2885|3570f4|70210f4|2875|1870|4F56AM|3600HSD-2|Σ10|1020|70|85|100300f4|1.4X&2XTC
Back to Top
omerbey View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group
Moderator emeritus

Joined: 11 December 2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Posts: 2516
Post Options Post Options   Quote omerbey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2007 at 04:18
landscapes doesn't have to be wide, but.. you know, the landscape shots with exaggerated foreground interests... for those, you have to go wide. I'd say go for 10-20 or if you like 6 years warranty, go for tamron.
Back to Top
PhotoTraveler View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 6356
Post Options Post Options   Quote PhotoTraveler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2007 at 06:48
Well, in the end, what you need for a landscape varies.

The widest I have is 17mm, and it's not wide enough a lot of the time. I'm really wanting to see what the Sony wide zoom will be, and those zeiss primes. The wide end is the next place I need to fix with my stuff.

The Tamron 2.8/14 is an interesting lens. Not sure I want to give up front filter threads though. I think I'd be ok with a 4/14 to get them back.

I'm not very interested in the 11-18. If they came out with a good 4/12-24 like nikon has, that could be interesting. But I want to see something that works well with both FF and APS. So have to look at a lens that works on both, and fits well with a stuff up to 70mm. So that means either a super wide that goes to 24mm, or something like a 17-40 that can then be teamed up with something like a 1.2/55.   

Sony could really use a good rectilinear 14 and 18mm lens.

I have to think they have been thinking this through. they got a 2.8/24-70 coming. So it would make sense to build something that fits with that. And seeing they have APS and a FF body coming, they would be wise to be smart.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > Knowledge Base Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.099 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.