wide angle?

[michaelwalter]

<p>I have a D80 and a Nikon 50/1.8 and a Nikon 85/1.8. I find that these lenses are too "long" when taking pictures of people indoors. I am thinking of a wide angle lens. I have a budget of about $500. What I want to is be able to take pictures of people without having to be 20 paces from them (rooms aren't that big). I was thinking of something in the 14mm range. However, my father-in-law who has been shooting film for decades thinks that at that length I risk getting a fish eye effect and I should be thinking of the 24mm range. But, using digital that puts it at an effective range of 36mm. Maybe he is forgetting the crop factor.<br>

I had an 18-200 4.5/6.3 lens and dis not really like it indoors. The 18mm was not a bad length though. However, as you can tell, I prefer prime lenses.<br>

Anyway. you know my camera. You know my budget. You know what I am trying to do. Is 14mm too wide? Will the difference between 24mm and 50mm be good enough?</p>

[acbeddoe]

<p>I use the Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8D for wide indoor shots.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>if you were happy with 18mm, then you can spend little and get the ever reliable 18-55 kit lens for a dirt cheap price. i am full frame, and i wanted to try wide so i bought the 18-35 and love it, very sharp for the dirt cheap price that was. good luck mate!</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Nikkor 20/2.8 AF would be more expensive than 24mm but wider on DX. 24mm is not really that wide on DX.<br>

The 14-24/2.8 is just too big and heavy... and expensive.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

Tokina 11-16/2.8. It's not as wide as others, but indoors f2.8 is more important. The lens is excellent and you won't find a better prime in that

focal range. Well, you'll hardly find any at all :)

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>People indoors? The 11-16 is, imho, useless for this. Too wide. Your father-in-law is right. You CAN use those lengths for some interesting environmental portraits, but I think you're talking about candid people shots... You don't need THAT wide. You don't, imho, want it at all.</p>

<p>I'd get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for this. It's in your budget. A zoom is great for this kind of photography. If you HAVE to have primes, a 35mm f1.8 is good for individual shots inside, and maybe groups of 2 or 3, 20mm is pretty good on DX, but I'd rather be able to change my focal length without missing the moment. Zooms rule for this.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Michael - are you actually after a wide-angle look, or is the problem that you can't get far enough from your subjects? Bear in mind that the perspective distortion will make people look a bit strange if you're too close, and if you want "normal looking" shots, what most people would think of as "normal" is actually quite a distance away (considering the perspective from which most photos are viewed). The wider you go, the more extreme this is - I use the 14-24 on my D700 to get rooms of people quite often, but there's no doubt that the corners look very distorted, at least if there are people in them.<br />

<br />

I mention it just because if you sole reason for wanting a wide lens is to "fit people in", you need to know how it's going to make them look. (Applying a cylindrical projection in software can help - especially if you start with a fish-eye, but that's probably more extreme than you want.)<br />

<br />

Have you thought about shooting people reflected in a full-length mirror? (It means you can get twice as far away.) I'm going to get a reputation for daft ideas at this rate, but I thought it was worth considering, if you have control over the environment, and it's cheaper than a lens.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd say a 24mm and a 35mm would be excellent choices to fill the gap. 20mm might already be a bit wide, and 14mm will be really too wide. Next to that, the Nikor 14 and 18mm primes are very expensive, while the 24mm is very affordable.<br>

If you shop 2nd hand market for the 24mm f/2.8, there could well be some budget left for a new AF-S 35 f/1.8.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Since you prefer primes I suggest you look for something from 20mm to 35mm focal length range. It depends on how close you want to be and possible perspective distortion. The closer you are the wider you will need and the more distortion will affect the image. IMHO 14mm would be to wide for any person image I would want to make unless I was looking for some special effect.<br>

As Peter above mentions, I think the Tamron 17-50mm would be my go to lens.</p>

[John Di Leo]

<p>The Nikkor 20/2.8 Ais MF is a nice lens that will do what you want. It is well regarded and can be bought pretty cheaply.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'd agree with Peter. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the way to go. An ultra-wide isn't going to do your people photography any good. You'll probably find yourself in the 20-35mm range most of the time. For a more general-use prime in situations like this, I reach for Sigma's 30/1.4. That fast aperture helps with composing and AF in darker rooms, and the extra 5mm is definitely something you notice compared to Nikon's 35/1.8 DX. If I want wider, I like a zoom.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have both lenses, and have used the 24 much more than the 20 on both DX and film cameras. For practical reasons, I prefer zoom lenses unless size and flare are considerations.</p>

<p>A 24/2.8 AFD makes a good, general purpose wide-normal lens for a cropping DSLR, and is well within your budget. It is considered "very wide" on an FX or film camera, which is also handy, but less useful than a lens in the 28-35 range.</p>

<p>A 20mm would also be useful for landscapes and interiors. A new 20/2.8 AFD would cost a little more than you have budgeted. It is definitely a wide angle on a D80, and super-wide on an FX camera.</p>

[michaelwalter]

<p>As mentioned, my goal is to have a lens wide enough to get people pictures at family events, where a flash is impractical and the rooms are not that big. Even with the 50mm, I find myself left with a lot of head shots. The zooms would be nice, but to maintain a constant 2.8 (remember, no flash), don't they get a bit pricey?</p>

[mart_e]

<p>Put me down for a recommendation on the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as well. I use it for interior 'get-togethers' quite a bit both with and without flash.</p>

<p>It's now my main 'all purpose carry-round' lens. I was a bit hesitant when I bought it, mainly because it duplicates ranges I had elsewhere (12-24mm Nikon and 50mm 1.4) - but for what you want, I would say it is ideal.</p>

<p>It also has the added bonus of Tamrons VC (equiv to Nikons VR) for image stabalisation. It is not as good as Nikon's VR (IMO) and it is somewaht noisy, but for portraits inside that extra bit of stabalisation can really help if you are resisting using flash.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC on a D70s for people all the time. I find the zoom very useful to get single, 2 shots and small groups in limited spaces, but if you get too close, you will get distortion.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

I have Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I consider that it's a good option but for me on D300 f2.8 is not enough indoor.

If you like primes and you shoot people Sigma fast wide primes could be a solution. There is a 20mm f1.8,

also a 24mm f1.8. IMHO 20mm should be enough wide on DX. I have the 24mm f1.8 and I used it

extensively just for shooting people indoor and it performs very well. It may be sof in corners wide open but

who cares?

[alex_zepeda]

<p>A 50mm lens on a crop body functions as a short tele. With that in mind, do you want a wide lens or a normal lens? For a normal lens, Nikon makes two 35s: a 1.8 and 1.4 (about $200 and $1700 respectively). Sigma makes their 30/1.4 for about $500, and Tokina makes a 35/2.8 macro lens for about $300.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>The focal length of the human eye is around 22mm and an angle of view of about 90 degree. That translates to about a 20mm lens on 35mm format and a print size of 16x20 viewed about a foot away. That gives you What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get, using apertures from about 3 to 8. If you crop out an 8x10 from that 16x20 view, it would be similar to what you'd get using the same 20mm lens on a 2x crop sensor. For a slightly larger format (like APS), and the same print size of 8x10, use a slightly narrower field of view lens, like the 28mm. 24mm will also work if background separation is a problem, by placing the subject slightly closer to camera than optimal. All of the 3 lenses have close focus distance of about a foot so it shouldn't be a problem. In any case, you would really want to place the subject about a meter way for "up close and personal", and farther away for an unreachable/glamor look.</p>

<p>My most frequently used lenses on a 2x crop sensor are the 24mm, 50mm and 85mm, and on a APS sensor the 35mm. If the 35mm on the APS sensor gives me trouble, I usually skip the 28 and go straight down to 24mm.</p>

<p>HTH,<br>

Indraneel</p>

[michaelwalter]

<p>Thanks everyone for the input. I have some research (and thinking) to do now. Great responses all.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for people shots indoors on a crop body, i'd go with the tamron 17-50. i had one for about three years and always felt like it was far better optically than its price indicated. that should be your most-used range on DX anyway, so even if you find 2.8 isnt always fast enough--eventually, you may want to get the 35/1.8 or 30/1.4 if you're a prime fan--it will never become extraneous. the tamron is particularly good at 24mm and quite sharp wide open, whereas a 2.8 prime in that range will be soft unless you stop down. so there's no real advantage in getting a prime, unless you're talking about the 24/1.4, which may be cost-prohibitive.</p>

[szrimaging]

 

<p>Well, the 2.8 DX in the wide to standard is kind of pricey, but when you add up the prices of the other lenses, not so much.</p>

<p>You could get a 35mm 1.8 DX and a 20mm (or is it 24mm) AF-D in that price range. Do you mind focusing manually? If not, the 20mm Voigtlander is chipped and should work with metering on your D80 and I have been extremely happy with the results.</p>

<p>That said, a zoom would probably serve you better than a prime for practicality reasons. Changing lenses is time consuming and can stop you from getting a shot. I use lots of primes, and all my shorter lenses are primes, but I think zooms come in handy if you are going to do a lot of focal length changes (one reason my long lens is a zoom).</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>Do you mind focusing manually? If not, the 20mm Voigtlander is chipped and should work with metering on your D80 and I have been extremely happy with the results.</em></p>

<p>i dont think this would be a good choice at all for the OP's intended purpose. The VL 20/3.5 color-skopar is only f/3.5 max aperture and doesn't get really sharp until f/8, <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/274.4-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Color_Skopar_20_mm_f_3.5_SL_II_Aspherical_Image_resolution.html">according to LensTip.pl.</a> remember, we're talking indoor avail-light shots with a d80, which isnt that great above ISO 800. the 35/1.8, 30/1.4 and Tamron 17-50/2.8 will all be much better here. another thing to remember is that for people shots, you dont want to go too wide because of the inherent distortion at wide angles. that's why the 11-16 is a bad call (as Peter, who owns that lens, pointed out). the Tamron has noticeable distortion at 17mm on the edges at 2.8 but at 20-24mm its not really an issue, and even 17 is usable as long as you keep subjects away from the edges.</p>

<p> </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>What, I use the 20 on my D200 all the time. Of course, I also have no issue using flash(es), so yeah, good catch on the 3.5 f-stop.</p>

<p>And FYI, there are two different type of distortions at play, there is lens distortions such as pin cushoning and barrel distortions, then there are focal length issues, that can cause issues with perspective. It can be very unpleasant looking for portraits, which is why people tell you to shoot with longer than 50mm.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>generally, pincushion happens more toward the longer end of zoom lenses and barrel is at wider angles; the 17-50 is no diff. in this regard. i agree about 50mm being slightly awkward for portraits on DX--although for me, a bigger issue with the 1.8 is the ugly bokeh-- but i think the rules are different with candids, where a little background can add context. that's why for this type of shooting, i usually will use a 17-50 or a 30 or 35. for a dedicated portrait i prefer something a bit longer. OTOH with a normal lens you can get a full-body shot as opposed to head-and-shoulders.</p>

<p>but Zach, i did have a question about the 20/3.5: do your findings concur with LensTips? is it soft wide-open? i think the old conventional wisdom was that primes were optimized for landscape and thus didnt have to have good performance wide open. but we're seeing more and more fast primes optimized for open apertures, which is great for people photography, IMO.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>The perspective effect I was talking about is how wide angles render things closer to the lens as "larger" than objects farther in the distance. This plays in to effect for portraits the closer you get to a person. If you were to do a head/sholder shot with a 20mm, the lens would be fairly close to the person, and then their nose would be larger porportionally in the image than it really is. The further you back up, the less effect this has. To back up to a safe shooting distance and not get this effect, you need to run a longer lens, say 50mm or 85mm. Or say an even better example would be shooting a child from slightly above. The 20mm would cause the head to look much larger in proportion to the rest of the body, giving the overall image a distorted/foreshortened look. Sometimes this is useful, most of the time it is not.</p>

<p>As for the 20 wide open, it is a bit softer, but unless I was making an 11x17 print, I probably would never notice. And even then, it is only marginally softer, nothing unusable. Don't forget to take into account sample variation. The testers may have had a lesser quality sample than I got. I tend to think the problems with lenses are often secondary to the composition and content of the image. Of course commercial/wedding guys might yell at me for that comment.....</p>