1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Alright Photo Geeks - What about Ultra-Wide Zooms? (Nikon Mount)

Discussion in 'Photography' started by JohnRice, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    19,961
    Likes Received:
    1,582
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
    Yeah, the 14-24 is both $$$ and heavy and (tho not important to me really) a bitch to put filters on. But those aren't the reason's I don't use it. It just isn't very -personal-. I like to shoot things where the subject is the important thing and not the environment itself. Sure making a foreground item is important, but even then it's about that object as part of a bigger space, and that really doesn't mesh with my particular sensibility when I'm shooting tho I can appreciate it when others have done it well. i bought it on a whim back when one of the online resellers (it might have even been dell) had some kind of crazy rebate program via Bing, I think I got a $400 rebate on it at the time. No way would I have bought it if not for that.
     
  2. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    38,551
    Likes Received:
    377
    I'm so used to shooting people portraits with my 85mm, that when I shoot with my 50mm, I feel a bit uneasy getting into their personal space for such portraits with the 50mm. Heh.
     
  3. Cameron Yee

    Cameron Yee Well-Known Member
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,285
    Likes Received:
    502
    Location:
    Since 2006
    Real Name:
    Cameron Yee
    I quite like the reach of the 85mm on my 7D, but that would be a 135mm in FF terms. My 50mm (which gives me the 85mm equiv) is another lens I haven't used in some time. I don't like it so much for head and shoulder portraits, prefer it for full body shots if I'm going to use it.

    After some thought, I do think I'm going to try selling my 10-22mm. The price I could get for it is too alluring to just sit on it like I have been. If I want to play with an ultrawide, I think I can always rent one.
     
  4. ManW_TheUncool

    ManW_TheUncool Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    30
    Real Name:
    ManW
    I think most complaints about it being so-so above 200mm are talking about pixel-level detail/sharpness, which cannot be seen w/ those posted pics. I'm pretty sure my 70-300VR would produce similar shots above 200mm, if the pics are resized accordingly and not scrutinized as some do.

    Basically, the pics are fine as long as one doesn't need to blow them up big and demand detail/sharpness at same level as at 70-200mm -- and the diff (at least in my case) is definitely noticeable, if one cares to scrutinize.

    _Man_
     
  5. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    38,551
    Likes Received:
    377
    I'm 50/50 on keeping/selling my Canon 17-40mm F/4 (fun wide on my FF), as my 24-70mm is my workhorse, and the 17-40 is a lens that has a purpose, but it just doesn't get used a lot from me unless I force myself to shoot with it. Decisions, decisions....
     
  6. Scott Merryfield

    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 1998
    Messages:
    11,454
    Likes Received:
    654
    Location:
    Michigan
    This thread inspired me to look at the photos I've taken on our last few trips. Some of them, such as regular trips to northern Michigan and Myrtle Beach, were easy, since the 10-22mm stays at home then. However, on our last two summer trips to Yellowstone last year and Niagara Falls / upstate New York the year before, I only had a couple of "keepers" that were taken with this lens. One of the American and Canadian Falls from the top of the Skylon Tower in Niagara ended up getting enlarged as a sudo-panorama shot, but the only one from Yellowstone was nothing special.
    My original plan was to keep the 10-22 for my upcoming two-camera system, but I may instead just sell it to help fund that second, full frame body. I seem to be using the lens less and less as the years go by. This summer's trip is to the Smoky Mountains and Blue Ridge Parkway. I never used the 10-22mm on our previous visit there when I had a dSLR.
    BTW, here is the shot of the Falls I turned into a panorama. An ultra-wide lens was the only option, as I needed to lean forward and stick the lens out through an angled chain link fence from the top of the Skylon Tower. There was no way to setup a tripod and try to make a multiple exposure stitched panorama, even if I wanted to.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    19,961
    Likes Received:
    1,582
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
    When I moved back to Nikon from my 20D adventure (early digital nikons couldn't hold a candle to Canon IMO) the 17-40 was the only lens I kept other than the Tmron 28-75 which I leant to a friend. It is that good.
     
  8. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    19,961
    Likes Received:
    1,582
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
  9. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    38,551
    Likes Received:
    377
    With a max F4 aperture, that 17-40 lens is almost foolproof in getting in-focus shots in terms of DOF not being too thin (as I get myself in trouble using sub-F2 aperture lenses with shots involving more than 1 person in the frame), it's a fun lens to shoot with, but sometimes I feel like its output could be gained by using one of today's good P&S cameras too. Anyhow, I'm in no hurry to ditch it, but I'm just aware that I don't use it as much nowadays.
     
  10. JohnRice

    JohnRice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2000
    Messages:
    8,714
    Likes Received:
    139
    Real Name:
    John
    I thought I'd revisit my thread. Regarding ultra wide photography, I always thought it was kind of a state of mind. Before I learned to hate photography I used to enjoy challenging myself to find good ultra wide shots. I still remember how excited I was to finally buy a 20mm f/2.8 back around 1982.
    I've also been considering these lens options again, and in the end, I think the Tokina 12-24 probably is a better choice than a 10-20. I realize 12mm isn't absurdly wide on a D200, but I'm concerned about incorporating it into a lens collection and the 24mm high end makes that work better. I have always liked to have a decent bit of overlap between zooms. I just don't know if the DX II version is worth the extra bucks.
     

Share This Page