How Wide Do You Need?

[ShunCheung]

<p>Recently I went on a cruise to the sub-Antarctic islands in New Zealand and Australia. To me, it was mainly a wildlife photography trip. In particular, there are three species of penguins (out of a total of 18, or 17, depending on how you count them) that are only found in that region. On the cruise there are a few other serious photographers. A father and son team had a few D810, D800, and D750 plus 300mm/f2.8, 80-400mm AF-S VR, etc. with them. They were carrying this set up with them all over the place. It turns out to include a 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S with an oversized polarizer on it, attached to a D750.</p>

<p>While I have the same lens, I mainly use it indoors for tight corners. To me, the front element is too vulnerable for a rough trip like that, and 14mm is too wide for me. I also didn't bring my 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye in this case. For wide, all I had with me was the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S, and I was mainly using its long end during the trip.</p>

<p>How wide do you need when you travel, for landscape and architecture?</p>

<p>P.S. I asked that photographer about the "expensive" polarizer on his 14-24mm super wide, and he told me that it is only a $60 filter. I never saw his images and have no idea about the quality of that polarizer.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>For the longest time, I was "limited" to 18mm, then got down to 16.5 and now am at 16mm. Aside from the fisheye, of course - but grew tired of the 10.5 fisheye and sold it last year. Use the wider end mostly for architecture (indoors and outdoors), not so much for landscape.</p>

<p>With my experience of trying to keep the front element of the 10.5 fisheye clean, I am not going to get any lens with a bulbous front element like the Nikon 14-24, Tokina 16-28 or the newly announced Tamron 15-30 - so it seems that 16mm will be my UWA limit. Even though there certainly will be times I wish I could go wider ;-)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I was delighted with my 11-16 when I shot DX, but when I realized I hadn't used it in 1 or 2 YEARS for anything substantial, I realized that when I changed formats I wasn't probably going to need an ultrawide.</p>

<p>A lot of us chase down having a "complete" set of lenses, whatever that means... many of us probably don't need half of what we have.</p>

<p>I now know that if I have a basic "standard and tele zoom" set, and a "normal" low light lens and a macro, I probably have everything I need.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>For my style, 18mm is the widest that I need, although 20mm seems about perfect. <br>

<img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s1/v47/p873843555-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>sorry, double post when image went wrong.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I just got back from Antarctica myself, and found an 18 at DX (about 28 in FX) most of the time wide enough. These days it's so easy to make a good image stitch with digital, that those rare times you wish for a more panoramic view can often be satisfied in software. I took along an old pre-AI 28 with a polarizer, and found that I used that a lot for scenery, and used the 55-300 most of the time for penguins. I found it challenging in Antarctica to go wide because while the skyline is often very interesting, the sky itself is often rather dull, and the water as well. If you want a wide shot that is not so high, you'll get more density from a stitched pan than from a crop. There are always a few times when you'd like to go as wide as you can, but it's an expensive thing to carry around.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm the rankest of rank amateurs, and my photographs will win no prizes, so my opinion is worth about what you pay for it. </p><div></div>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I have a 20mm for my FX camera and that is wide enough for me. Actually most of the times the 28mm is sufficient.</p>

[SCL]

<p>In 2004 I took a hiking trip thru the Vikos Gorge in northern Greece, the world's deepest gorge, and used a Sigma 15-30mm ASPH on my Nikon D100. I would have have loved to have had something a little wider to encompass the extreme depths and soaring heights when we were in the gorge. Outside of that, although I have used a 15m on full frame...it was generally too wide, 20 is about as wide as I generally go.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>wide angle is kind of an acquired taste. in addition to some photojournalism applications and landscapes, i occasionally shoot wide shots for a non-profit i work with who do murals, sometimes of entire buildings. in this scenario, i can never have enough wide angle. my go-to lens for this kind of work is the sigma 15-30, which is almost as good as the 14-24 and can be found used for much less -- i got mine for $160.</p>

<p>another group i work with does urban forestry, and i am often called upon to document their tree-plantings. for this scenario, i generally use my 12-24 tokina on a DX body, which gives me an 18-36 range--'wide enough' for most shots but not so bulky and weighty that the size/heft becomes a problem during this kind of field work (which requires a lot of walking and sometimes riding on moving trucks with photographic gear). i have considered the sigma 8-16 for s u p e r w i d e shots, but the percentage of time i actually need 8-11mm (on DX) probably wouldnt justify the cost. in practice, i find the long end of the tokina sees as much use as the wide end.</p>

<p>for travel or general landscape use, a moderately wide lens around 20-21mm will accomodate most typical situations. i use a 14mm fuji lens which is much slimmer than any of my FX or DX wide lenses (except for my tokina 17/3.5 pancake) and has fantastic IQ. in those situation, i usually dont want to take too much gear, so it works well.</p>

<p>for my live concert shooting in low-light situations, the 15-30 isn't fast enough, so i'm considering the nikon 20/1.8. that would round out my FX fast prime arsenal (35/50/85) and could theoretically also be useful on DX.</p>

<p>in general, shooting an ultrawide requires a lot of care in framing, not just to make an interesting composition, but you also have to be conscious of keeping yourself or your shadow out of the frame. so a 17-35 or 18-35 on FX would be wide enough for most shooters. as noted, the problem with most 15-xx/16-xx zooms, as well as the 14-24, is no filters. when traveling, it's not always possible to shoot at magic hour or in good light, so an ND filter becomes a must. so the non-filter-compatible UWAs arent the best travel lenses for that reason. also most of those lenses are physically huge. it would be interesting to see how the $60 filter worked with the 14-24, but the 16-35 or tokina 17-35 are probably more practical choices for landscape/travel use on FX.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>I rarely use anything wider than 24mm outdoors (if so, mostly for people photos very close)... I also have a 14-24, as well as 18 and 20mm primes.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I was finding last summer on my trip to Vancouver & Victoria that a 28mm on my Leica IIIc was generally wide enough. I also used a Tokina 11-16mm inside the cab of a train, but that's more of a specialty thing. On the D800E my widest at the moment is the 24mm PC-E. I would REALLY love to also have an 18mm PC-E, but doubt Nikon will do that. By default I may end up with a 14-24mm or the rumored 17-35mm f2.8G. I guess my answer is the 24mm would do fine for me as widest on the D800E (although I may not take that camera on an extensive trip.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[paul_droluk]

<p>Normally I keep a 35mm prime mounted, but when you need wide, you need wide. I used the Nikon 14mm prime to get this shot taken in Hong Kong a few years ago. <em>Cropped a wee bit on both sides</em>. I replaced the 14mm with the 14/24, which still gets primarily used for interiors.</p><div></div>

[Palouse]

<p>I used a 20 2.8 back in my film days. Loved it, but sold it when I switched to digital. It was eventually replaced by a 12-24 on a DX body that served me well (mostly landscape and a few wedding receptions). Now that I'm shooting FX I sold the 12-24 and am still pondering what to replace it with (My 24-120 will have to work in the meantime.)</p>

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'm content with 20/21mm on FF and didn't warm up with even wider. - I doubt I'll miss the wide end of my 12-24mm zoom if I leave DX at home.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I only use DX and I have a few zooms that start at 18mm, that's it. I also really like the 20mm 1.8 on the DX.

If I carry along. the. hasselblad and some film I might use the 50 fle.

[Gup]

<p>I still use my very trusted old AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 to get what I need. I think it is an under rated performer, sometimes. Here it's used on a D800e, handheld.<br>

This shot is just converted from NEF to .jpg and resized for our purposes here, no corrections. Also, it was shot through a filthy double pane of glass into the early morning sun from a hotel window. </p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>20mm or 24mm are wide enough for me for just about everything. Most of my landscape photos are made in the 24mm to 85mm range. The 14-24 is useful for interiors and, e.g., the Milky Way, but the effect of the 114 degree angle of view is often so stomach turning that I rarely use it.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I've used the 24mm (2.8) since mid 70's and still like it, but when I needed something wider for the Aurora Borealis last year....well, I didn't have it. Eventually, got the 20/2.8 (manual), but with the 1.8 version out, I'm sort of edging in that direction - no need to go any wider.</p>

<p>Les</p><div></div>

[lornesunley]

<p>When I was in Europe last year, I took a 24-70 and my old 18-35 AF-D to use on my D800.<br>

Many times I found the 24mm was just not wide enough, would switch over to the 18-35 and was still frustrated about getting everything I wanted in the shot. The keystone effect would drive me around the bend. This would happen with both indoor and landscape shots - mostly indoors in cathedrals etc.<br>

I did try to straighten out the keystoning with software, and I did do a number of of image stitches to get the shot I wanted ... this takes so much time :-(<br>

So I have acquired a 14-24mm f/2.8 and a Rokinon 24mm TS lens and will be taking those along this year.</p>

[Gup]

<p>Just for the sake of comparison, here is a second shot at 24mm with the same lens.<br>

For those here not familiar with Niagara Falls, these were taken on the Canadian side and that is the Rainbow Bridge to the USA far left and the Niagara River stretching off toward Lake Erie.</p><div></div>

[lornesunley]

<p>Where 18mm on FX is not enough (caption is incorrect - 18-35mm at 18mm)</p><div></div>

[donbright]

<p>Just today I was invited to a Wedding reception indoors in a Restaurant to add to the pool of pics, and had to run to the car to get a wider lens, a 24mm F2, and even then I could have used a 20mm which I have but left at home, so this point is well taken. How wide is wide? Well apparently never enough. Lesson learned again, I should have know this, but I'm rusty shooting indoor groups of people. </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I got my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 when I had to shoot a concert in a very shallow venue where I couldn't get back far enough with my 17mm.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>It was not wide enough for the overhead shot from a walkway above a rehearsal.</p><div></div>

[greg_alton]

<p>I suppose there are always situations where wider could be useful or necessary. But personally, the biggest issue for travelling would be the size/weight - money aside, I don't think I'd ever be willing to travel with the 14-24 for the use I'd get out of it. If I really needed wider than the 18-35 on FX, I'd be looking for something much smaller, but 18 is about as much as I've ever wanted/needed. I could imagine wanting a faster lens but for size/weight reasons I would not choose a zoom for that.<br>

But as they say, to each his own.</p>