How wide? 12-24 vs 18-xxx Is there much difference?

Did not find too much in previous posts on this; so here goes.

 

How much difference do you feel there is between 12mm and 18mm as a wide angle?

 

Hi, right now shooting Nikon D70 and have both the 18-200 VR and the 18-55 kit

lens as a backup. Considering a wider angle lens, specifically the Nikkor 12-24.

 

Opinions on how much more you feel you're getting with that 6mm difference? I

understand the crop factor and field of view numbers. Want to get peoples sense

of how much difference that makes visually? I like to shoot people and

landscapes when traveling, more documentary/photojournalistic style.

 

So does that 6mm make a difference in your opinion?

 

Thanks.

There is a world of difference...The 12mm is like an 18mm lens with film & the 18mm is equivalent to a 28mm with film. So its like comparing a normal wide angle to a super wide angle in terms of FOV...

 

Scott

I think there's a noticeable difference between 15mm and 17mm, and while 12mm is 50% wider than 18mm, I personally don't go there that often and gave my 12-24 zoom to him. However, my son uses 12mm all the time.

There is a significant difference- a 12mm lens on a Nikon DSLR yields a 99 degree field of view equal to an ultrawide 18mm lens on a 35mm camera. An 18mm lens on a Nikon DSLR yields a 76 degree field of view equal a 27mm wide angle lens on a 35mm camera.

 

 

Regardles of what people think, you really need to see for yourself. Go to a store that sells a 12-24mm lens, put one on your camera and take some test shots at 12mm and 18mm.

Never buy anything like 12-24!!! You will just be terribly dissapointed when You see those deformations!!! By the way - You will also get several really visible defects - like that the center of Your image will be considerably brighter... These lenses are only for special use in those cases when You have no time to take 3 pictures for sequencing them into one panoramic view using special software (try such a program - You'll say thanx to me). By the way - these 6 mm of difference practically will not give You the desired satisfaction in You case.

Evghenii, you are ignoring some very fundamental advantages to shooting with 12mm versus stitching images together. One is that you need special gear and software to properly stitch together panoramas, especially if you are trying to focus on a close subject. Another issue is trying to catch action shoots or anything that is in motion, it simply can't be done by stitching. There is also a question of perspective, because you can't get exaggerated magnification of your subject relative to the background using longer focal lengths without changing formats. If you try to stop a longer focal length down enough to get within hyperfocal distance, you will also end up with too much diffraction even with smaller enlargements.

It makes a BIG difference. For a walk-around lens, I truly love the 18-200. When I'm feeling more serious and more willing to carry hardware around, the 70-200 is on and... much to my surprise, I've been using the hell out of Sigma's 10-20 DX-format wide zoom. The quality on the Sigma is great, especially considering it's about half the price of its Nikon counterpart, and the extra 2mm is that much more noticeable. Even after you do some perspective distortion cleanup in post production, there is nothing like the appearance of your subject against the background that the ultra-wide provides you. The 18mm lenses are certainly useful, but going ultra-wide, especially for shots that put people in their environmental context (or which are in very close quarters) is a revelation once you start using it.

 

Of course, the best use of such a lens is the one that doesn't scream "Look! He used an ultra-wide zoom!" Which means choosing your angle well so that you don't keystone visually important things too much, that sort of thing. But I am truly pleased with the Sigma 10-20, and didn't miss spending the extra several hundred dollars. Oh, and DO get a quality filter for such a lens... they have stubby hoods, and strike me as particularly vulnerable to scuff damage because of the bulbous front element. Have fun going wide!<div></div>

I find this online tool very useful in answering those questions:

 

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

 

There is a significant difference - and contrary to what Evghenii says they are quite useful in creating a whole range of visual effects due to the enlarged perspective. These are difficult to replicate via stitching with a panorama tool. You just need to know when and how to use them.

The difference between 12 and 18 mm is dramatic. A 12 mm lens shows 2.25X as much area

as an 18 mm lens, due to the 1.5-fold wider field of view of the 12 mm.

It is the difference between 19mm and 27mm on a film camera. Hugh difference.

 

It makes things in the distance small as the width increases because the height increases also. To maintain the same size, make panoramas, but these are not practical with close in moving subjects.

I just bought the Tokina 12-24mm ($550 US) and I think it's great. I found the distortion

much less than I expected, and the field of view works for me beautifully. I don't know where

Evghenii Ciubara gets his thinking, but I think he is absolutely wrong.

 

Here are a few samples just walking around a car show:

http://www.kohanmike.com/vehicles_etc.htm

Maybe not the most useful. But just plain fun. I had the Tokina and now own the Sigma. Both great. Plain fun.

Will you crop to 8x10? Makes a big difference there.

Wide angles have their adherents, but personally I find that 17mm is wide enough. I shoot a good bit with the 17-35mm f/2.8 and thought maybe I might like to try wider, so I went with the 10.5mm for a while and didn't really get a "keeper" out of the 1,000 or more shots I used it for. I generally had to crop so much out that was distorted, it made me feel that I should have used the 17-35 from the get go. Yes, I know there are tools to correct the distortion and I used those, but the corrections are imperfect to say the least.

 

Sooner or later, I'm sure I'll try the Nikon 12-24mm, but so far the f/4 has put me off...

If you find yourself shooting at 18mm and feel you are still too close more often than you are happy with, you know you need wider.

Thanks for all the thoughtful answers - I think I'm going to Adorama and rent one 12-24 for a day and play around with it - just $30 for the 24 hours. That should give me some good idea how I like it.

 

Thanks again.

I didn't think I'd like the 12-24mm f/4.0 DX Nikkor. But with it being relatively compact and having the AF-S focussing, the lens has certainly grown on me.

Actually, Evghenii, I won't say thanks to you and am not in the least disappointed with my Nikkor 12-24 lens. In fact, far from it, it's my favorite DX lens (my first love is the 35mm f2 for the film world)

 

There's an extraordinary difference between 12 and 18mm both in the field of view and perspective. I know there's a lot of debate of Nikkor versus Tokina, Sigma etc. Regardless of your brand loyalty, it's a great range depending on your photo interests.

 

Jim

Yes, there is some difference. I use both Tokina 12-24 Pro Dx, for 2 years, and the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, fo about 8 months. At 17mm and close to subject Nikon produces some minor vertical distortion, albeit easily corrected in PS; the Tokina even less. The Tokina is my choice for panos; its about 1/2 the price of the Nikon 12-24; great images with little reprocessing. Here's one of my recent Tokina panos.

Woo that's a nice picture, I am just wondering how did you do that in such a short time, because the clouds are moving all the time...

The Nikkor 12-24 is one of my favorite lenses I use daily. It is the lens that I usually have on my camera. It is my work horse that I use in every condition on almost every assignment. I was surprised at how much I have come to use it from sports to news to portraits. It is a great lens.<div></div>

there's a difference. get the tokina.<div></div>

Thanks again to everyone for your considered responses. I rented one yesterday (the Nikon 12-24) and played around with it. I'm convinced! Love the lens. Will probably get the Tokina since I am saving up for the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and could use the $400 savings.

 

Michael

One thing to keep in mind about the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 is that it is not an AF-S type lens. Should you ever use a Nikon DSLR that has no in-body AF motor, such as the D40 family (and I would image that more and more low-end Nikon DSLR will have that limitation), it will be manual-focus only. However, manual focus is probably not that bad on a wide lens like the 12-24.

 

The Nikon 12-24mm/f4 is an AF-S lens.

Hi, I am new to this forum. I am considering a nikon 17 to 55 or a 12-24 for real estate photography. Does anyone have any experience with using either lens for this type of work? Thanks