Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Wide Angle for DSLR?

profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

I know there's tons of threads on wide angles and fisheyes cause I searched but they were mostly for camcorders.

I was wondering if it's worth getting a wide angle for a nikon d1h if I'm gonna be shooting some skiing/snowboarding urban, surfing(more like landscape not action), and maybe some mountain biking.  I know it would prob be fun to play around with but is it necessary for what I wanna do, or is investing in a fisheye a better option.  Right now I just have a 50mm and I'm gonna have to look into some tele lenses if I wanna do surfing, so I wasnt sure if it's worth spending the money on a wide angle.  Thanks in advance.

Feb 1 2009 12:21PM
0 0
profile picture
ParkE
Posts: 1388 - Karma: 190
i justbought one that isnt fish eye but pretty wide. its a 19-35mm and i love it. its awesome for skiing and landscapes. i think its worth it.
Feb 1 2009 1:01PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
sigma 17-35 hsm--- sick lense and yes it is worth it, you can get everything you want in the shot instead of having just the subject and a little bit of background. and there is almost not distortion which is really nice because you can bring it around and take pictures in towns instead of taking a semi-fisheye or a fisheye and having everything in waves and curves which gets really boring after a while so dont go with a fisheye.
Feb 1 2009 1:14PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
 cool thanks for the help.  what about wide angle zooms though like 18-200 or stuff like that.  could that eliminate the need for a dedicated mid-range tele lens?
Feb 1 2009 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
well it can but the the quality goes down when you have just a single lense for everything like wide angle, semi tele, and tele. having a specific lense for each of those will make it easier to get what you want but some people just think its a hassle to switch lenses all the time. 18-200 is what is known as a walk around which they basically use when they dont know what they will be shooting and dont feel like bringing all there gear.

and the 18 range on the 18-200 is a lot different then the 18 range on like the 17-35mm. the angle of view is prob like 22 degrees on the 18-200 and on the 17-35mm its about 102 degrees so it is def good to have specified lenses.
Feb 1 2009 8:10PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

aright that makes sense.  i'm thinking right now for me it might be better to go with a sigma 18-200 for $140 just to kinda play around with and get used to the camera along with the 50mm, and then i could always upgrade once my birthday comes around if i want to.  does that sound reasonable or is it just a waste to go through this sort of "experimentation" phase?  also with the d1h you get the 1.5 focal length multiplier, so does this kind of ruin any chance of wide angle, bumping 18mm to like 27mm, or is that still enough?  thanks again for the help

Feb 1 2009 8:55PM
0 0
profile picture
freezed
Posts: 12973 - Karma: 500
^it's kinda a waste to buy gear you know you're gonna upgrade...save the 200 bucks, wait a bit, and buy a nice lens.
Feb 1 2009 9:09PM
0 0
profile picture
ChronicLines
Posts: 951 - Karma: 61
Yup, Zeiss glass fucking sucks.
Feb 1 2009 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
ahha dude i was so sketched out on buying a non nikkor lense  but sigma is one exception i make now, but i dont trust like fregen tokina or tamron.
Feb 1 2009 10:07PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

i understand where you're coming from but for now while i'm i'm starting out with dslr's and just doing photography as a hobby and nothing serious, i don't mind sacrificing some quality if it allows me to play around more and figure out if i wanna go further.

Feb 1 2009 10:13PM
0 0
profile picture
EvanMeyer
Posts: 3822 - Karma: 3,447
Tokina 10-17mm
Sigma 15mm

I used to have a sigma 15mm and I loved it great quality and construction put into pretty pricey but worth it, and my friend owns a tokina 10-17 and I used it a few times and it was great although it felt sort of cheap to me if you know what I mean.
Feb 1 2009 11:41PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

thanks for all the help. 

how noticible is the difference between a 17-35 and say a 18 or 19-35?  i see lenses that are like 28mm and it still says wide angle, but with the 1.5x focal length that's like 42mm so is that still relatively wide?  and should i still get the 50mm f1.8 i was looking at as a standard, or go lower/higher?  thanks again it's really helpful

Feb 2 2009 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

sorry to keep up with the questions but it's easier to just come here than search around all day on other forums.  if u wanna point me in another direction to another site or something feel free though.

so i think i decided to go for the 50mm f1.4 and then either a 24-40mm f2.8 or a 19-35mm f3.5-4.5.  which makes more sense for what i'm going to be shooting/general usability, a slower/wider lens or a faster less wide lens?  and for a tele what's the advantage of a 70-200 over something like 20-200? obviously there would be overlap if i went with the lenses mentioned above, but would it make sense to get the largest range if it's the same speed?

Feb 2 2009 3:53PM
0 0
profile picture
ChronicLines
Posts: 951 - Karma: 61
80-200 f/2.8 is one of the greatest lenses I've ever used.
Feb 2 2009 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
from what i've read you're definately not alone haha.  if i had that kinda money though i wouldnt need to be asking these questions
Feb 2 2009 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
stay away from 'digital only' lenses, (canon ef-s for example) because the next generation of digi is the full frame sensor.  When you upgrade to a new body you want to be able to keep your glass.

on a side note, and i don't mean to bum you out, shooting surfing is an expensive hobby, 600mm expensive... if you're using a longer zoom lens (70-200/300) you'll find that at it's extremes its performance falls off (chromatic abrasion, vignetting, lack of sharpness) and that even at 300mm you're going to be itching for more
Feb 2 2009 4:57PM
0 0
profile picture
ChronicLines
Posts: 951 - Karma: 61
300 f/2.8 plus a 2x tele and have fun.
Feb 2 2009 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
glad you came up with a $3000-$5000 solution that takes away 2 stops and sacrifices quality

 surf photos are not cheep
Feb 2 2009 5:38PM
0 0
profile picture
ChronicLines
Posts: 951 - Karma: 61
The Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 AF is 2g's tops.

You should begin charging for your infinite wisdom after you create a website of your banging photos.
Feb 2 2009 5:47PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

well i knew that coming in, but fortunatley my local breaks are all sandbar/shore break so it's like 20-100 yards max off shore.  what do u think about the lenses I was thinknig about in my previous post?

Feb 2 2009 6:07PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
few points, i'm a canon boy -- therefore i don't really follow the difference between nikor and sigma lenses. As i've heard your choice of body is only the subscription to a companies lenses. That said, i'm not going to support finding a cheep sigma in lieu of a nikkor, higher quality over time is worth it.

I'd say the 50mm is the best to learn your camera, figure out your style for photos, makes you think about how you want to frame your photo and you've got to move your feet to do so.

the 70-200 will prove its self with the action photos you want. It'll rock you for skiing, and probably do some damage at the beach.

the wide angle covers an important range of photos, but for now if you've got to make decisions i'd go with the 50 and the telephoto; you're going to be fighing your camera's design with the wide angle. Yes you'll want to have the 14 - 50 range covered, i'd chose the faster lens, but always keep in mind quality trumps price -- buy them right the first time.
Feb 2 2009 7:30PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

aright thanks that's awesome.  i had a feeling the wide angle wasn't completely neccessary until i get some time with the camera and just progress with a "standard" lens, and the 70-200 will let me cover some extra stuff. 

ok final two questions for now. 1) in the manual for the camera it says that Non-AI lenses are not compatible with the body, but I thought the D1 series could take pretty much any previous nikon lens. 2) since i don't have the skrill to drop on a 70-200 2.8, what would be the next best in that range. 

Feb 2 2009 7:39PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
80-200 f2.8   someone back me up on that but i think its second in line
Feb 2 2009 7:42PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
i'm pretty sure i already know the answer to this (yes), but is the 80-200 f2.8 really that much more than a lens with a f3.5-4.5
Feb 2 2009 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
LBJJ
Posts: 683 - Karma: 1,730
sometimes it makes all the difference in getting the shot with f2.8 you can shoot at faster shutter speeds and will help with lower light shooting on overcast days without any blurring of moving objects, so yeah it does change a lot if you can get the f2.8  you def should
Feb 2 2009 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
Yes is the right answer.


For wide angle, I have a 12-24 f/4 I use a lot. I like wide angle, but I don't like having the fisheye look all the time. Plus, the massive amount of light it takes in makes up for the f/4. They have a 2.8 version out but I don't think its worth it for me. (Nikon)


Feb 2 2009 8:28PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
when you say you can't afford it, are you talking about the nikkor lens or the sigma lens?
 
Feb 2 2009 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
either i think haha.  i see a tokina 80-200 2.8 for $160 but is that like shitty?
Feb 2 2009 8:45PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
well i see a tokina 2.8 for $160 and then a tokina 3.5-4.5 for like $17 or something.  im thinknig neither of these are great lenses but is the 2.8 really worth the extra?
Feb 2 2009 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
ok well i just copped the 50mm 1.8 for $26 shipped but i'm still up in the air for the next lens.  the sigma 18-200 looks sweet for $140, but i don't think it's fast enough at like 200 to get action (surfing).  the other option is the 80-200 2.8 for $160 but i think i like the wide angle ability and versatility of the 18-200. any final suggestions/advice?
Feb 4 2009 4:21PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
be patient, you want to get 3 lenses and a new camera all at once. I think be content with the kit, and the 50 for now and by the time summer rolls around you'll be in a better position to make a judgment about what you really want
Feb 4 2009 4:32PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287

it was just the body, no kit lens.  that's why i kinda just want something now besides the 50mm.  i know what you're saying though

Feb 4 2009 4:37PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
fair enough.

my last word of advice is a reiteration of previous posts; be patient, go with the more expensive quality investments rather than buying cheap and now.  Equipment is expensive but it's built to last; might as well treat yourself to the best if you're capable of treating it as such. TO BE FAIR there's no reason not to buy a good deal if it's to be had. If photography is supposed to be a past time have fun with it -- for a hobbyist a camera is a toy.

Just make sure you recognize the difference between something you're buying to last you a long time and something you're buying for the sake of buying

That said, get out there and enjoy shooting, photography's fun!


Some other things to think about wasting money on: polarizing and split density filters

(don't waste your time with uv protectors-- you just spent a butt load on nice high quality glass, why would you put something else in front of it?)
Feb 4 2009 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
foodisfun
Posts: 5427 - Karma: 287
chyea chyea thanks again, real good stuff in here.  it feels so good to start getting back into photography, idk why i stopped after i took the classes
Feb 4 2009 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Me.
Posts: 1429 - Karma: 10
Rant time. These photography threads are all bullshit. Too many gearheads and a lot of shitty websites and photoblogs. Stop caring so much about gear and focus on the artistic side (which does not include sunsets, long exposures of waterfalls, etc).

Guys like Allan saying they'd never buy anything but Nikon or Canon glass... LOL it's glass. It's a lens, a very simple mechanism.

Maybe learn something about photo history, or art history for that matter beyond Ansel Adams and the rule of thirds.
Feb 4 2009 9:45PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)