Road trip - Need wide angle?

[sleahy73]

Hello all,

 

I'll soon be embarking on a road trip that will take me from Indianapolis, where I

live, to Arches National Park and Napa Valley, CA, to name a couple of places

(and a few days visit with my Nikonian friend, Eric). I was reading up on Arches

in the Nature forum when I came across the statement the 28mm (35mm eq.)

would not be wide enough "by a long shot". I'm pretty well covered at the 28mm

(35mm eq.) mark, but noting wider. I've got the 18-55mm kit, the Tamron 18-200mm

superzoom, Tokina 28-80mm, and an old SMC M 28mm (I'm bringing my PZ-1p and

ME Super, along with my K10D and K100D if I don't need to sell it to fund a lens

purchase).

 

So I guess I have 2 questions:

 

Anybody have an oppinion on this; do I need a wider lens?

 

Which di you recommend - the DA* 16-50, DA 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm, DA 10-

17mm fisheye?

 

Budget is an issue now, it's been 10 years since the last time I drove out that

way. When will I have time to go again?

 

Here I was thinking I'd breeze through Hin Man's challenge (though I didn't officially

enter it), mostly because of budget...

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

[jgredline]

When I first bought my Sigma 10-20mm, I did not think I would use it much, but more and more I am not leaving home with out it. I have found so many uses for it. I was NEVER a fan of Portrait style images, but this lens makes that style of image very attractive. This will be especially useful in NAPA valley. It will allow you put some really nice foreground and Sky in your image and at the same time, you have the ultra wide landscape capabilities at your disposal. Great lens.

[mc2imaging]

Since you obviously still shoot film (as do I), I'd be sorely tempted into something that

would work on the PZ-1 too, like the FA 20-35 f/4, or even the FA-J 18-35 (no aperture

ring, sorry MS Super).

 

It doesn't give you anything wider on digital, but 18mm rectilinear on film is WAY wide. I

do see the J's go for less than $200 from time to time.

 

Anyone seen a good price on an A 15mm f/3.5 lately?

 

On the other hand, the ring-less 12-24mm should work on your PZ-1 too, so if you

don't mind cropping the vignette...

[User_276104]

A 12-24 serves as a decent crossover lens. I've used a Nikon 12-24 on film bodies; it works from 20-24mm, which is plenty wide on film. Since Nikon and Pentax share the same 1.5x sensor crop, I would think the Pentax 12-24 would give similar results.<div></div>

[andrewg_ny]

I wouldn't pay too much credence to a blanket statement that says that 28mm 'would not be wide enough "by a long shot"'. Nice to have the choice but wider isn't always better and has a tendency to start including stuff in your photo that detracts rather than adds. I am personally of the opinion that 16mm (24 equiv) is wide enough *most* of the time. I recommend you look around online at the kinds of shots that others took that you would like to emulate and see what they used.

 

<P>Not sure whether you meant to say that budget is or isn't an issue. By now you've probably already seen that the kit lens is quite a bargain, pretty much without peer in that regard, when it comes to wide angle.

 

<P>Note that the DA* 16-50 will add some to your wide-angle capability but not nearly as much as the other three. DA 16-45 f/4 is also a pretty good choice for wider standard zoom.

 

<P>The Sigma 10-20 and DA 12-24 are both well-regarded, though they offer slightly different ranges and the Pentax is constant f/4. Depends whether you want that extra wide angle or you'd rather have the longer reach for possibly reduced lens changes. Sigma is usually a bit cheaper too.

 

<P>10-17 FE is in my mind more of a special-effect lens, less of a general-purpose wide angle. You can defish the distortion via software but unless you know what you're getting into I would think you'd want to address the rectilinear ultra-wide first.

 

<P>The DA 12-24 appears to be workable from about 17-24mm on a film camera based on what I can see in the viewfinder. If you want to avoid most vignetting you may want to restrict yourself to >19mm perhaps.

 

<P>Also See:

<P><A HREF=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PJm8>wide angle lense by Toni Hendrickson (2008-04-29)</A>

[mountainvisions]

Sigma 10-20mm, CANNOT be beat for the price.

<P>

Sharp lens, very decent flare control (i note that because Pentax and Tokinas strong point was flare control over the sigma when shooting directly into the sun). It's compact, not drastically smaller than the DA 12-24 but just small enough to fit into a TLZ mini which the 12-24 couldn't do.

<P>

I have seen frame to frame test shots of the 12-24 on a film camera. And it was usable from 18-24 (perhaps 17 to 24).

<P>

I'd disagree that 28mm isn't wide enough. Personally I think 24mm (35mm equiv) is the ideal wide angle, anything wider becomes actually difficult to properly use in many situations. 24mm seems to be an idiots wide angle giving both good foreground and background perspective.

<P>

28mm is a very good FL. I used to hate it because it was my widest lens for about 5 years till I got a 24mm and eventually a 20mm. Anyway, 28 still gives good foreground background perspective. Lots of DOF, and is generally a good focal length.

<P>

the 10-20mm sigma (and equiv other brands) are very specialized lenses. I mean consider that 15mm on a film camera is EXTREMELY wide angle, so at 10mm that lens is difficult to use well.

<P>

You'll initially love you superwide shots because they look different, sort of like fisheye shots, and then eventually you realize you need to really figure out when and how to use a superwide.

<P>

That said, if you need it or want it, 16mm isn't that wide, it's merely 24mm. So I'd opt for either the Pentax DA 12-24 f/4 (great lens) or the Sigma 10-20mm F/4 (still a great lens, but less money and wider).

<P>

<BR>

Sigma 10-20mm, Pentax D <BR>

<a title="Mid-Hudson (FDR) Bridge" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1211/1059726068_acf072b60c_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

[mountainvisions]

Oh, BTW, I've been to arches. Shot most of it with a 28mm, 50mm, 135mm, and 80-200mm. Too poor in 1998 (you know a poor college student) to own a wider lens.

 

I shot quite a bit with the 50mm if I remember correctly. Will have to track down some shots.

[jgredline]

Justin,

You need to stop posting images, they are making me feel bad. ;-)

 

Nice bridge...

[jgredline]

Oh, going back to what Justin said a little bit.

One of my favorite lenses is the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8, Yet I went out and bought the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 for that 4mm...do not discount those 1-4mm, as they are huge...When I am out with my 24-70 as I have been most of this week, I find myself using is mostly at 24mm f/4 and at times find myself wishing it was a 22 or 23mm lens.

[michael_kuhne]

I agree with Justin that many scenic or landcsape shots are often not done at superwide angle, or not wide at all. The 18mm of your Tamron and kit lenses is already pretty wide. That said, as a DSLR is advantageous for the tele range, film is advantageous for extra wide angle. Less distortion and less vignetting.

 

For a very good optic at a cheap price, usable on film or DSLR, find yourself a Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which also has a good build quality as well. Be sure to have a circular polarizer. If you get the size for your largest lens, you can get step down rings to use it with other lenses. 19mm on a 35mm film body is very wide indeed! And 35mm is a very versatile FL. This is a fine and useful lens, even moreso if you also shoot film.

[miserere_mei]

If you're shooting film, I have nothing to say. But if you want to shoot digital really wide, here is a way to do it without failing Hin's challenge: Take 2-3 shots side-by-side and stitch 'em together later for a panorama. It's free, and it's easy.

 

As for "and a few days visit with my Nikonian friend, Eric", I would check the Pentax forum rules on that, just to make sure what they say. But if he buys you a round or two of Sierra Nevada, I think you'll be all right.

[mountainvisions]

@ Mis

<P>

Nice point...I do that at times.

<P>

Works better if you do them VERTICAL. This gives you more of a standard 2x3 FOV. Or at least a 4x3 FOV. Otherwise you get a more 16x9 panorama.

<P>

Also, guess what!!! It makes your 6MP a 10-15MP and your 10MP a 18-27MP (i'm liberally accounting for overlap). So you can also print WAY bigger with much more quality since you have more pixels.

<P>

In some ways what miserere posted is more ideal than going for a wider lens. You can say use a 35mm lens which is relatively free of distortions, super sharp (aka the FA35mm f/2) and get way better IQ then you can with the best wide angles.

<P>

Heres one I took that turned my Canon G3 (4MP) into a 12MP camera without any upsizing. I've posted this before but I think it was 4 8 second exposures taken in a vertical orientation.

<P>

<a title="Storm Clearing Over South Pond and Blue Mtn." href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1186/766882947_4fca605717_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

BTW, you can still do this with film, just make sure it's tripod mounted. Once it's scanned it's just like any other digital image.

<P>

Of course doing this trick with either digital or film involves more photoshop time, you don't have a finished image out of the camera, and it takes up more card space. So it's not perfect, but it's an option and it might at times be the better option.

[mountainvisions]

And another using the same technique...the 35mm wide end of the G3 couldn't get what I wanted. So I figured why not try this, I was suprised it worked well enough in a non static situation. It was tripod mounted and i used the remote control.

<P>

Nothing special about the shot, other than the technique to get the final product which is pretty close to what I had in mind.

<P>

<a title="Tree lighting and Fireworks at the Empire State Plaza" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/135/378684526_fb295ae78c_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

[sleahy73]

Ok, thanks for all of your input. I think I'll save the dough and try out some of the techniques you guys have suggested. Maybe I will make it till mid-July.

 

I took a look at some of the pictures I happen to like of Arches NP, it seems thay were all taken with either a 12-24mm or some sort of 16/17/18- 50/55mm I didn't get actual focal lengths, though. I also took a look at some of my own shots at 18mm, and it does seem pretty wide. I guess I was freaking out because I've spent a good chunk of money expanding my long glass, and nothing on the short end. I normally tend toward the wider focal lengths, but I have an opportunity to get some shots of my brother racing his dirt bike while I'm on this trip, too. I figured the longer glass would help me with this. But now my budget is blown and I still find reasons to "need" wider lenses. Oh well, I guess that will have to be my next purchase.

 

I'll stop rambling now. Thanks again for all of your advise.

 

Sean

[daniel_tong1]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Sean Leahy ,

Hello all,

I'll soon be embarking on a road trip that will take me from Indianapolis, where I live, to Arches National Park>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

In my trip last May to Israel and southern France, the lenses I used mainly were Zenitar 16mm (70%) & F50mmF1.7. Some were taken with FA28mmF2.8. That was about it.

 

 

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=571733&forum_id=80&jump_to=756056#p756056

 

 

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=571852&forum_id=80&jump_to=757426#p757426

 

When it comes to shooting in tight spot , WA is an necessity.

 

A lot of people are kind of uncomfortable with manual WA lens. Actually majority of the time I did not even have to do focusing as it DoF is huge

 

Daniel, Toronto

[daniel_tong1]

A typical WA shot from Zenitar 16mm in Holy City. Taken last May

 

 

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/79511343/original.jpg">

 

 

 

 

 

Daniel, Toronto