Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

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


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 of 30 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Moderator



  • 17,094 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted April 20 2012 - 02:57 AM

Still, yeah, if $$$ (and maybe luggability) is no object, I'd surely own an ultra-wide by now...

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.

I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt


#22 of 30 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,895 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted April 20 2012 - 09:19 AM

I tend to shoot a lot of people pictures, so the short answer is I don't really use the ultra wides for those kinds of shots anymore. As an inherently shy person, telephotos were always an easy way out for me, a way for me to stay at a safe distance from my subject. When I started shooting with wider lenses, it forced me to get get out of my comfort zone. But then I started seeing that I was starting to rely too much on the exaggerated angles at the most extreme end (and that also didn't make for the most flattering images of people). So basically I'm on an extended break from the ultra wide angles for most of what I shoot, though when I do shoot landscapes that will be the first lens I put on my camera.

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.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#23 of 30 OFFLINE   Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer



  • 10,655 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted April 20 2012 - 10:55 AM

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.


One thing leads to another at cameronyee.com

#24 of 30 OFFLINE   ManW_TheUncool

ManW_TheUncool

    Producer



  • 5,874 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 18 2001
  • Real Name:ManW

Posted April 20 2012 - 12:41 PM


Originally Posted by Sam Posten 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool 

I'm guessing the Nikon 70-300VR has some (unusual for Nikon) variance in PQ above 200mm from copy to copy.  Mine is so-so above 200mm, but is still quite useable if stopped down to f/8 or smaller.  OTOH, Sam seems to swear by it (at least his copy of it) all the way to 300mm w/out stopping down much, if at all.


I shoot mine at 250-300 90%+ of the time. In stadium seats with bad lighting through sideline shooting in the best you could hope for lighting and am rarely disappointed even wide open. I'm -not- a good spoorts shooter, but this lens has never failed to impress me and any failures in my photos are my fault and not the fault of this lens.

http://www.flickr.co...57627775401565/
http://www.flickr.co...157622656347804
http://www.flickr.co...157625211518771
http://www.flickr.co...57624783808104/
http://www.flickr.co...57622827314509/
http://www.flickr.co...157622827314509
http://www.flickr.co...157622292554329
http://www.flickr.co...157622439183463
http://www.flickr.co...157622439183463
http://www.flickr.co...57622439183463/
http://www.flickr.co...157622439183463
http://www.flickr.co...157622439183463

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_



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things..." (St. Paul)

#25 of 30 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,895 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted April 20 2012 - 02:06 PM

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.

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....
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#26 of 30 OFFLINE   Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer



  • 10,662 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 21 2012 - 01:09 AM

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.

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. Posted Image

#27 of 30 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Moderator



  • 17,094 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted April 22 2012 - 06:56 AM

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....

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.

I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt


#28 of 30 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Moderator



  • 17,094 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted April 22 2012 - 07:02 AM

There was no way to setup a tripod and try to make a multiple exposure stitched panorama, even if I wanted to.

I have been consistently impressed with the ability of the NEX system to do a stand and pivot panorama. I hope Nikon adopts this soon. http://www.flickr.co...157628060515979 http://www.flickr.co...157628060515979

I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt


#29 of 30 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,895 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted April 23 2012 - 02:03 AM

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.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#30 of 30 OFFLINE   JohnRice

JohnRice

    Lead Actor



  • 8,578 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2000
  • Real Name:John

Posted April 27 2012 - 02:54 PM

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.

The Hybrid System

The Music Part: Emotiva XSP-1, Thiel CS 3.6, Emotiva XPA-2, Marantz SA8004, Emotiva ERC-3, SVS PB-12 Plus 2

The Surround Part: Sherbourn PT-7030, Thiel SCS3, Emotiva XPA-5, Polk & Emotiva Surrounds.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow