Best Wide Lens for "Fine Art" Photography

Hi,

 

I've been searching through the Board for hours, but thought I'd post a

question...I'm a fine art photographer showing in galleries and museums and

make 40x50 digital c prints.

 

I plan on getting a D80 with a slightly wide fixed lens, such as 24, 28 or 30.

The requirements are:

--Small

--Fast

--Affordable (up to $1000)

--Excellent "quality"

--Rich color

 

My lighting will always be natural (no flash), and will be splilt between

people/self portraits in doors, landscapes, and landscapes at night.

 

I've read some less than stellar reviews about the 28/2.8 AF-D. My questions:

--What would you recommend and why, please?

--I love the idea of the Sigma 30/1.4, but wonder about the quality?

--Is there a lens that offers more color richness--not necessarily saturation--

that you can recommend?

--Are older manual focus lenses worth looking into?

--Are there some other funky solution I've not thought about, such as using

some other older lens via a conversion kit (I've just briefly read about

this...)?

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

 

Regards, Steve

On Nikon DSLR's, the Sigma you mention is not wide-- 45mm equivalent FOV. If this is acceptable to you, I can recommend the lens wholeheartedly. Optical and build quality are superb, in my experience. There may be some sample variation, as you'll find others who harbor a different opinion.

here are some Wides for you,

 

Nikon 10.5 Fish-Eye

 

Sigma 10-20mm EX HSM DC ( I own this one and love it)

 

Nikon 18-70mm DX (Want to exchange mine 18-55mm Dx for it)

 

Nikon 24mm D AF 2.8

.

.

.

 

Lots of choices but it all depends on your usage and the amount you are willing to spend

 

Z

40x50 prints from digital? or 35mm? hanging in galleries and museums?

 

why are you asking here then? you should know what you need.

 

no 35mm lens will get you a museum quality 40x50 print (are you talking metric?), unless it's the grain that you are emphasizing. and that would not coincide with your question.

 

if this isn't a hoax, then get the 18mm, or 20mm. both are 2.8. that's as far as nikon goes before getting into fisheye.

 

i'd love to see one of these huge prints. where are they exhibited?

Nikon 12-24!

Nikon's 17-55 2.8 is, in my opinion, an excellent choice. It is reasonalby fast, the zoom range will give you the flexibily you want and it will give you the sharpness, contrast and detail you need.

 

Post processing will be critical with any lens you use to get the 'richness' you are looking for.

I've made very nice 20x30 inch prints from my 6.4 MP DSLR. I'd go bigger but it gets so

much more expensive.

 

Try it yourself. It even beats medium format for grainlessness in continuous tone areas.

I know you said fixed focal length, but other than that, the 17-35/2.8 fits nicely into the rest of your requirements. This has everything you ask for plus very low to no distortion between roughly 20-35mm's. Good for doorways. It produces fantastically sharp saturated images, has extreme resistance to flare, and is probably as good or better than the best primes in its range. A mint copy can be purchased for roughly 1000.00 or less used.

Rereading the type of photography you are doing, I think you should give the Sigma 30mm a try. It will handle the low lighting conditions best of all the lenses you listed and can be stopped down as needed when there is plenty of light for increased depth of field and sharpness. Buy it from a store that accepts returns just in case.

 

As I mentioned, post processing is a very important part of getting the rich look you want. I suggest a program like Bibble or DXO. Both offer free trials programs.

It would be helpful to know what your current equipment is, to make a proper recommendation.

 

 

I'm definitely on the "funky" side using the best available Nikon and Zeiss manual focus glass on Canon EOS film and digital SLRs. The affordable Nikon DSLRs will not meter with their own manual lenses but ALL Canon EOS bodies will. Reviews suggest that many of the manual Nikon lenses are better or at least as good as the current AF versions.

 

 

Don't forget to research all the varios crop factors for DSLR bodies and how they affect the view of different focal length lenses.

nikon or tokina 12-24mm

For those that are recommending the Nikon (or other brand) 12-24mm, check the OP's requirements, which include "fast".

Make no mistake: 6x6 or larger format especially since you are after wide angle perspective. Might not fit into the budget. A special wide angle Hasselblad or a Mamiya 7 would be an excellent choice. The format is a bit small (4x5 would be better but you might get away with MF since "fine arts" is whatever you define it to be. Also mainly elderly people with poor eyesight go to galleries :-P

I bought the Nikon 28/2.8 AF-D, inspired by photographs by "stpiduko" on flickr. Here are

two examples. See the rest of his 'set' for 200+ others, shot with the 28 and film.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=455009084&size=o&context=set-

72157594464030073

 

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=461953509&size=o&context=set-

72157594464030073

 

But, Steve, i still firmly believe there is widespread prejudice against "fine art" photography

created with digital cameras. I sometimes shoot digital, but even still acknowledge my

own bias against digital "art" photography. At this point, i probably would try to avoid

buying digital photographs. I wonder how prevalent that attitude is with curators and

exhibitors.

Stephen Johnson (http://www.sjphoto.com/) has been doing "fine art" digital photography for

years, with prints up to 40 x 50 inches. Of course, he uses a 4x5 view camera with a digital

back...

What are you using now?

 

To leave off the zooms, since you did talk about primes, in the current line-up of "slightly wide" Nikon AF lenses, there are 20, 24, and 28mm f2.8 primes and a 35mm f2 (the last more a "normal" in the format, but maybe not out of the question if you are comparing the 28 and the 30mm Sigma "wide normals"). So, depending on your definition of "fast" and of "wide" there may or may not be anything there that quite meets your needs.

 

*BUT* there is a wider range of older Nikon offerings in this range. (Mostly manual focus but Nikon did previously make a (rare, exotic, terribly expensive) AF 28mm f1.4, which was apparently great.) I would think that for your purposes, manual focus (and metering with the histogram) on the D80 might be just fine. KEH currently has several 24mm f2, 28mm f2, and 35mm f1.4 lenses in AI or AIS (which will safely mount on the D80).

 

Lots of info. on Nikkors here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

...as for your "color richness," there are differences between lenses -- I have an AI 50mm f1.4 that seems warmer than my AF and AF-D primes -- but it may not matter because of the ability to alter the white-balance settings in digital.

I'd strongly recommend the www.photozone.de site for easily digested info about Nikon lenses and third party lenses as they performed on Nikon dSLRs. The latter is important because the behavior of a particular lens model on one camera brand may differ considerably on another due to differences in sensors.

 

This URL will take you directly to the lens reviews:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

However most webmasters prefer that incoming traffic go to the home page first, then navigate to the desired section. Dunno how the photozone webmaster feels about the issue but it's such a useful site, might as well be as considerate as possible.

 

Most folks who've used film for years know to look for indications of distortion, vignetting and factors that affect perceived sharpness (resolution, contrast, flare resistance, etc.). But with digital cameras in particular it's important to note any problems with chromatic aberrations. CA tends to be more visible in digital cameras and if not prevented by use of a lens with low CA it'll be necessary to fix the problem later with software. In the worst cases chromatic aberration will resemble a rainbow glow around high contrast areas, such as a white fence against a dark background in bright sunlight.

 

Some of my better lenses that show little CA on film do show some problems on my D2H (notably the 28/3.5 PC Nikkor). That's a major PITA because I seldom have the luxury of using that lens in moderate contrast situations. I typically use it in daylight and with architecture, naturally, there are lots of bright, hard edges to flaunt CA. Fortunately it's easily fixed with software, but I wish it wasn't there to begin with.

Hi,

 

Thanks so much for your responses!

 

Perhaps I'm driving my self crazy, but after looking at some sites, such as photozone.de, the Sigma 30 and Nikon 24mm D AF 2.8 seem to receive underwhelming reviews but I like the small size--and price. I also like idea of using a old Nikon or Zeiss...

 

My question: do you think the different lenses would manifest notisiably different results in a large print taken in low light and wide open?

 

By the way, for those who are curious...I've just had a show of my work at Jim Kempner Fine Art in New York. This show will be reviewed in Art in America. I might sell a piece to the Museum of Fine Art, Houston. Other show solo shows have included the California Museum of Photography, the Butler Museum (Ohio), Fotogalleri Wien, and other group shows--all digital and all 30x40 or 40x50. The prints look mostly photographic but still retain a beauty and spontinanity which has been my main concern.

 

Thanks for your help and recommendations!

 

Steve

I guess my question is, how wide is WIDE ?

 

For portrait work, I would assume most use the FoV from a 85mm to 125mm ( or as high as 200mm ? ) as they would achieve on film or a full sized sensor. So, is it really a wide angle you need or wide when compared to the normal portrait FoV ?

Check out 16-9.net in particular http://16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html for some more demanding lens tests of very high quality wide angle lenses.

 

I would say your best bet would be a Canon 5D, and an older Zeiss/Contax/Nikon/Canon/Leica/Olympus via an adapter. The reviews at 16-9 are pretty demanding and you'll be able to see just how much better some of the lenses are.

I am still not sure how you have been so successful with your work and still seem to know so little about cameras/lenses in general. However, there is a HUGE difference in how each lens performs wide open in lowlight which will affect the appearance of a very large print. The toughest problem in lens design is controlling image quality with the lens wide open, that is why you will find that generally f1.0 to f1.4 lenses employ exotic glass making the lenses so expensive compared to their f1.8 to f4 counterparts. Still, even within each of these two realms of design each lens will perform completely differently. Also be aware that each DSLR will perform differently at high ISO settings. You may have to look at every brand of DSLR possible to determine which one creates the effect you are looking for. For instance, if grain happens to be what you are looking for you may desire a low megapixel DSLR from a few years ago with poorer high ISO performance than today's models. If, however, you are looking for sharp then the highest megapixel camera in the largest format you can afford is what you will be looking for.

 

 

For sharp digital images on a tight budget, which seems to be what you want and is what I want, I'd be focusing most of my resources on a Canon DSLR since they can accept the widest range of manual focus lenses using particular adapters. As long as you are comfortable with lowlight manual focusing with todays poor viewfinders. The XTi or 30D come to mind or if you can stretch your budget then a 5D, used 1Ds, or used Kodak SLR/c. Choosing a manual focus lens will allow you to reduce the lens budget considerably. A very good f2 to f4 wideangle/normal lens from Nikon or Zeiss could be found for well under $500, or exotic glass from either in the f1.4 to f2 range could be had for under $1000.

Here I have used a Canon 5D and my 1960's 35mm F2 Nikkor to get decent results.

Zeiss 25 mm, Nikkor 28/2 or 28/1.4. Zeiss ir probably the best bet for high quality, but those two Nikkors have excellent reputation. 40x50" is IMAO too much from small format, 40x50 cm is doable. If you want to enlarge that much and do from shots taken handheld and wide-open, you really need the best lenses.

 

The 24/2.8 is a good lens but not excellent. The center is not the problem, the edges are.

i still say he's talking metric. no way 40x50 inches with 35mm stuff. it would look like a mosaic.