Nikon wide angle lens for a beginner?

[aschwinghammer]

<p>I'm a DSLR beginner! All this technical stuff has me frustrated since i'm switching from a manual SLR. I just got the Nikon D5000 and am frustrated that my pictures aren't looking as "artistic" as I'd like. I am looking into a wide angle lens, and am wondering if anyone can recommend a good beginner Nikon lens that is going to get me greater pictures with more depth of field. I've found a few forums on this subject but they're mostly about Canon lenses. I take mostly landscape photos, but I'm trying to get into portraits as well. Thanks soooo much, any advice will help! </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Amanda, I need to first ask you which lens/lenses you already have with your D5000? If you already have a 18-55 or 18-105, I think those are wide enough to get started. If you still want something wider, there are various 12-24mm/f4 or 10-24mm type lenses.</p>

<p>In that case what kind of budget do you have in mind? The Nikon versions are in the $800 range, but Tokina makes some nice wides and are cheaper. However, not all of them can auto focus with the D5000.</p>

<p>If you also have a small portfolio on line, perhaps we can make some suggestion on what other stuff you can try. More lenses is not always the solution.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Read some photography books, take some photography courses, visit photography sites on the web and take lots of pictures. </p>

<p>I also suggest you do a Google search with "How To use Ultra-Wide Lenses". You will get a long list of interesting articles. If you click on IMAGES, you will see many wonderful wide angle shots that may inspire you. This may give you an idea of whether you really want wider than 18mm and how to use such a lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p>The Tokina 12-24 f4 AFS is an excellent lens for the D5000. I am not sure of the budget but this one saves you some money over the Nikon brand lens. I do not know if this will help you achieve your artistic photos but it will be an excellent quality lens. The lens used at f11 should give you a depth of field that will please you.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/594649-REG/Tokina_ATX124DXIIN_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/594649-REG/Tokina_ATX124DXIIN_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124.html</a></p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>As said, if you have an 18-55 or 18-105 kit lens then you already have a wideangle lens. 18 to about 25mm is wideangle on an APS-C sensor camera like the D5000. Wider than about 14mm is considered ultrawide. Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make very good ultrawide zooms that will autofocus on your D5000.</p>

<p>I second the suggestion that you get a good basic photography book. I like any of several by John Hedgecoe or Bryan Peterson. The Digital Field Guide to the Nikon D5000 is another good choice.</p>

[shineofleo]

<p>Tokina 12-24 f4 was my first wide angle for my D50 and D200. I think at a DX size, this lens is very good, good price also. Tokina 11-16/f2.8 is good as well allegedly.<br>

As Shun said, the only problem is whether the lens can auto focus on your D5000.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Until you can learn to take a good photo at 18mm wider will give you WORSE photos, not better. If you have a kit lens, stick with it for now.</p>

<p>A great wide angle lens takes bad photos in the hands of a bad photographer.</p>

<p>A not-so-great lens takes great photos in the hands of a great photographer.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Amanda, to repeat what others have said: you almost certainly got an 18-55 with the D5000 and set at 18 that's the equivalent on your old slr of a 27mm (28 mm in practice) lens. That's as wide as lenses got basically until the late 1960s and is plenty wide.<br>

(OK a lot of people armed with pesky facts are going to argue that 60s thing but no matter...)<br>

I totally agree with all the advice in terms of studying the art and craft of photography. But while you do that here's something really dumb-sounding that you should try. When you see something you want to take a picture of and you frame it in your viewfinder, stop and turn the camera to the vertical position. You'll be surprised at the energy this often brings, especially if you're set at a wide angle on your zoom.<br>

Also I love Nikon as much as anybody but all the below-pro level dslrs overexpose at their auto settings so notch your EV button down by half to a full stop; and all the less than pro level dslrs have terrible auto white balance except outside in good daylight. Take control of your white balance. You'll see a big difference.</p>

 

[CoryAmmerman]

<blockquote>

<p>...lens that is going to get me greater pictures with more depth of field.... I take mostly landscape photos, but I'm trying to get into portraits as well...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a little confused. Any 18-XX kit lens will have oodles of depth of field when used at wider focal lengths. That is inherent in any wide angle lens. Sure you don't mean less depth of field? Or maybe a wider field of view? Also, if you're looking to get into portraits, a wide angle lens is not what you want. You'd want something in the 50mm-150mm range on a crop-sensor DSLR.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>I've owned the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20. I sold them both. But if I still shot DX (such as the D5000), I'd get the Sigma. It's an amazing lens.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Amanda,<br>

God to see your perseverence in getting better pictures. Apart of the good advice regarding taking a course or reading a good book, I'd like to give you a few suggestions:<br>

1. Start use good filters. For landscapes a good CPL and a good ND filter could make the difference. You need to play a little bit to see what these filters are doing and you'll be an expert. Believe me.<br>

2. Start use a good tripod. No good lanscapes without a good tripod.<br>

3. Use a remote (IR or cable) to command your shutter. Eventually try use mirror look-up. These techniques are reducing any shake when shutting, letting you get very crisp images.<br>

4. If you are not happy with the lens you have, buy a new lens. You must know that even the kit lens is very capable for landscapes. If you want a wider lens, I'm using sometimes on D5000 Nikon 10-24 and I'm very pleased with it. Vivid and nice color rendition for landscapes. And is really wide.<br>

5. For landscapes try to take pictures early in the morning or late when the sun goes down. Search Google for 'golden hour in photography'... Avoid the hours with a very harsh light... and when is not possible, use ND filters.<br>

6. For landscapes you can use any lens, not only UWA. Be careful at composition, light, camera settings, etc. D5000 is a very powerful camera for landscapes. Did I said to use a tripod? :-)<br>

Good luck!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I also suggest you do a Google search with "How To use Ultra-Wide Lenses". You will get a long list of interesting articles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should point out that Elliot is trying to steer people to KR's web site. KR has an article with that exact title; if you search as he suggests, that article will appear first. For newcomers who are not familiar with that site, to say the least, that is a highly controversial photo web site that is regularly trashed all over photography forums due to its poor advices. We most recently discussed that a couple of weeks ago: <a href="00WuA3">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WuA3</a><br>

I am sure a lot of us are very tired of discussing that topic.</p>

<p>I think any beginner should learn photography from better sources. For example, here on photo.net, we have an entire learning section: <a href="../learn/">http://www.photo.net/learn/</a><br>

If one wants books, John Shaw has written several that are widely praised, especially on landscape photography: <a href="http://johnshawphoto.com/">http://johnshawphoto.com/</a></p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I take mostly landscape photos, but I'm trying to get into portraits as well.</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what exactly is the problem you're having currently; not "artistic" enough could mean a lot of things. For portraits, lighting is incredibly important - and this is coming from someone who loves to shoot in available light. For landscape, I think the time of day and vantage points are critical, as well as having the right lens with you - and a tripod!</p>

<p>It's a good idea to go to a bookstore with a comprehensive photography section, including both books containing photographs as well as more technical "how-to" books. I think the actual photography art books are more important than the technical ones, as today you can find all about the "how-to" aspect on online forums and blogs at photographers' web sites whereas the photographs themselves can look much better in printed books, as you can see the details at the same time you see the whole, which you can't online. And the impression of the photo on the viewer will be different.</p>

<p>I think to get to learn how to do portraits you should look into various books and online web sites on portrait lighting. You'd be surprised how much the image changes with lighting. Even if you plan to work mostly in available light, it still helps a lot to be familiar with how different types of studio lighting affects the images. Photo.net also has a very helpful lighting forum.</p>

<p>As for the specific question about wide angle (presumably for landscapes), it depends on which lens(es) you already have. If you have one of the 18-xx(x) zooms you should be able to get quite nice results when using a tripod in the right kind of light. While an ultrawide angle lens i.e. <16mm on DX would certainly enable certain kinds of "drama" into the photographs, I personally do not favour these kinds of images, instead I prefer to photograph my landscapes from 24mm to 100mm for the most part (this would correspond approximately from 16mm to 70mm on a DX camera). To get good depth of field, the tripod and stopping down (i.e. to something like f/8-f/11) allow you to do that without resorting to a very short focal length lens. The 12-24/4 DX Nikkor is a fine ultrawide angle lens and it's well built, with no filter thread wobble (this is something to pay attention to if you plan to use filters often).</p>

<p>If you want to reduce lighting contrast between the sky and the earth you could start by bracketing the shots on tripod and then blending them in post-processing rather than getting an expensive filter system. Later on you may want the filters also (if you work on this type of subject matter) but I think the post-processing techniques will get you started with less money and equipment. But first familiarize yourself with approaches to local adjustments to brightness etc. in the raw converter or photoshop and then perhaps HDR techniques and filters if those local adjustments are insufficient to balance the exposure. I should say that I only occasionally use any of these techniques, instead trying to photograph landscapes in such light where these special techniques are not needed.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>What lenses where you using with your manual SLR? The basic properties are the same and you should be able to setup your D5000 very closely to the manual SLR if it would make the transition easier. I don't think manual focus will work as well as AF on the D5000 because of the viewfinder though. Thom Hogan writes manuals for Nikon bodies, I use one and like it. Lots of details but you don't have to read it all at ounce. I suggest you use what you have and maybe take a class or two.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I agree completely with Peter's comments <em>"Until you can learn to take a good photo at 18mm wider will give you WORSE photos, not better.</em>" Well put!</p>

<p>KR's article on the usage of ultra-wide lenses is IMO an excellent one, perhaps one of the best articles he may have on his site. And perhaps one with the least controversial comments (or not - I report, you decide). I read it a few years ago many months after purchasing my first ultra-wide and experiencing a lot of crappy looking pictures were not artistic. KR's articles game me a great starting point to getting better results. And after searching out additional sources as well, I am now enjoying my current ultra wide and no longer experience the frustration I went through previously. Had I wanted to steer anyone to KR's site, I would have simply said so. I have done it before. It is not my fault that KR's link comes up first. My goal was to give the OP MANY options to choose from for her research on the topic. And I said so specifically. </p>

<p>If you do a Goggle search for "how To Use A Wide Angle Lens", you will have a small list of about 5,440,000 articles. And yes, KR has the #1 spot. (KR is a lucky guy to have his link 1st! out of over 5 million links.) If you click on IMAGES, you will get 3,260,000 to review. So many articles and images to review, so little time!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Could the site just delete all discussion that mentions KR directly or indirectly?</p>

<p>Sometimes it scares me to see how people that appear intelligent / in their right minds mention Rockwell as a serious source of opinion/information. How can this can happen to someone that they don't notice that he writes to intentionally misinform/provoke. Is there any hope for mankind, if guys like Rockwell can get away with this?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ilkka,</p>

<p>Ken's comparison of ultra-wides and his explanation on how to properly use them are both excellent.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sorry Peter, I am afraid that I need to disagree with you, but that is besides the point.</p>

<p>This is Amanda's first post to photo.net. Initially she merely wants recommendations about wide lenses, and she is not happy with her images because they are not "artistic." I am not sure exactly what that means. That is why I asked whether she could proivde a small portfolio so that we can get an idea about her photography. She describes herself as a DSLR beginner, but we have no idea about her level.</p>

<p>May I suggest people treat newcomers nicely and do not use this kind of threads as opportunities to promote your own agenda?</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>I like Shun's suggestion of posting some samples. Amanda?</p>

<p> </p>

[aschwinghammer]

<p>Goodness, Thank you for all the advice everyone! Sorry I took so long to get back on here, I never received an email telling me that people have responded. Apparently I need to change that setting:) Thank you Shun for personally emailing so I'm aware of all these wonderful suggestions. <br>

Yes I am a BEGINNER, so all this jibber jabber (haha) about lenses is foreign to me, but i'm doing my research. I took college level photography classes back in 2001 in the manual era and I also co-taught a photography class for 2 years in high school so I am used to artistry of shooting, developing, and projecting in the dark room. I have also refreshed my memory of F-stops and ISO settings by reading a book and taking a digital SLR class. I'm getting frustrated with the fact that my pictures aren't as colorful/bright as I'd like, they are turning out almost "dull" looking - maybe Vince's suggestion of changing the white balance with help that. I also would like more depth in my photos and I've be told by friend photographer that I need a "wide-angle" (too bad they all use Canon and can't recommend a specific one.) Here are a few of my photos i've taken as you all requested:<br>

http://picasaweb.google.com/a.schwinghammer/Portfolio#<br>

The first 8 pics (boat thru moss) are pictures that i'm happy with AFTER I photoshop/edit. The last few are semi duplicates of a few of the photos before I edited them. The spoon and cherry is the greatest example of what i mean about the pictures turning out "dull." But you can see by the difference of the raw files compared to the ones I have edited. <br>

I really appreciate all your time! I'm getting there! <br>

Amanda</p>

 

[vince-p]

<p>Amanda,<br>

First of all, to put the most trivial first: avoid all debates about Ken Rockwell's site. He's kind of like when you have a friend who's a right-wing dufus, and none of your other friends understand how you can be friends with him. Just don't talk about it.He is a right wing dufus but still...<br>

Second, your pictures are good. I don't think white balance is an issue in any of them -- all the indoor stuff has been nicely converted to black and white. However: I suspect first of all you want to fool with some of the internal settings. Color intensity and all that. Brightness, contrast etc. That, and actual lens quality, were my first thoughts looking at the (oldenburg?) cherry/spoon. You can definitely add to the vibrance and saturation of that in ps. On the other hand, the boats shot which you fooled with you overdid the green of the grass -- probably just pushed saturation too high. in the black and white of the bride and groom from behind heading toward the arch is a good picture but at least a stop overexposed, I'd guess, and composed with too much negative space on the bottom. As I said before it's really necessary if you use Nikon settings A or S or P (which are the three you should use and no others) that you adjust the EV down by half a stop to a full stop. Fool around with it and see. Also you can set your image review on your screen to flash blown highlights at you: very informative at times. I still haven't full grasped the histogram in relation to the image i'm seeing -- i'm partway there -- but I'd start learning how to use that too. All these are tools you once would have had to learn for darkroom work - now it's on the camera or in the true darkroom equivalent, photoshop or lightroom or camera raw. <br>

finally, do you have any Nikon MF lenses from the old days? Some of them give much richer, deeper colors than the (rather mediocre, in my opinion -- others like it) 18-55 kit lens. If you get the 18-70 used it's far better. 16-85 overpriced perhaps but even better than that. But the old Nikon MF lenses can be great on digital. You have to go all manual, and just eyeball and test for exposure because nothing short of the D300 can meter those lenses, but one learns to do this rather quickly and the results can be stunning. I particularly suggest the Ai-S 28/2.8, the 35/1.8. the 50/1.8 or even better sometimes the 50/2.0 and most of all the incomparable 105/2.5 (!!!), the 180/2.8 and the 200mm lenses -- f4 beautiful and cheap, the faster versions far more expensive and stunning each and every one. They're all great. Nikon made the best teles in the universe. Don't forget when turning from auto exposure (A, S, P) to M (manual) to go back in and take the EV back to "0".<br>

In terms of mastering your camera's complex list of settings, the Thom Hogan guide and the (sigh) Ken Rockwell guides are very helpful. Rockwell's is free; not sure about Hogan's. <br>

I started in earnest only 18 months ago and have read and read and read online and elsewhere and learned much much much. When you're finally ready for the full high priest experience, there is always Ansel Adams.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Amanda, your outdoor images are "dull" due to the lighting. That is not something you can fix in PhotoShop. Landscape photographers know that the best time to photograph is early in the morning and late in the afternoon; it varies due to the time of year and the latitude of your location, but roughly we are talking about 7, 8am and 5, 6pm or perhaps a bit later in the summer. During those times the angle of the sun is low, thus leading to a lot of little shadows on the surface of your subject to generate the sense of depth. If you shoot at high noon when the sun is right overhead, your images will look flat with harsh shadows.</p>

<p>Concerning your cherry-and-spoon image: <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/a.schwinghammer/Portfolio#5502354088833947154">http://picasaweb.google.com/a.schwinghammer/Portfolio#5502354088833947154</a><br>

Besides lighting, I assume the subject is a sculpture. It may look big and dramatic when you are there in person. However, its size becomes unclear in this image. In such cases it may help to include another item with known size in the image for scale. For example, if there is a person in the image admiring the sculpture or there is a car there (in this case you probably cannot drive a car up close), that will put things into perspective.</p>

<p>I did a search on Google and came across this image: <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2297578370_3f3e9ab1b8.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2297578370_3f3e9ab1b8.jpg</a><br>

I assume that may be the same sculpture. The handle of the spoon is now overhead, which clearly indicates its huge size. The lines of the spoon handle lead the viewer's focus to the cherry, which is bright red in major contrast to the white handle. Pay attention to the shadows on the ground; it is very obvious that the angle of the sun is low. That is also why the trees in the background are well lit.</p>

<p>So it boils down to lighting and composition. It takes time to develop such vision as a photographer. All of us have been beginners at some time. I hope you can keep working on improving your photography.</p>

<p>In closing, I'll repost an image I posted to our Wednesday image thread last month. I captured it at 7:30pm in early July. It was the evening low sun that created this effect on the sand dune. Had I captured it at 1pm, it would have been a very dull image.<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00W/00Woi7-257723584.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[marypar4]

<p>I also own the 10-20 sigma..it is a very sharp lens. As an earlier person suggested..google ultra wide angle lenses and read up on how to shoot wide. It is a whole new world..which you should enjoy with landscapes.</p>