How Wide Do You Need?

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I use to pack a couple of 35, Hasselblad and six to eight lenses, film and a tripod into the mountains -- along with tent, sleeping bag, food, etc. At times that was 60-80 lbs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>80 lbs of gear on your back? something tells me you weren't moving too quickly, nor too nimbly over varied, rugged terrain. with that much stuff, i'd be worried about tipping over. in today's era of mirrorless systems, the same set up--2 bodies, 6 lenses, tripod, flash, etc. -- can weigh substantially less, like 10-20 lbs at most, and that's if you lug all eight lenses, which is most assuredly overkill. remember that the most celebrated outdoor photographer of all time, Galen Rowell, was a minimalist who would often take just one or two lenses and one body. i seriously doubt your results were as good as his, or that you were able to climb and hike very far with that set up. okay, i'll get off your lawn now. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Have you folks heard stories that backpackers saw off the handle of tooth brushes to save a few grams? For serious hiking, weight is a big-time issue. By no means I am a strong hiker, and if someone else can hike with a lot more weight than I can, good for them.</p>

<p>For me, a 200-400mm/f4 with matching carbon-fiber tripod and head is pretty much the largest lens I want to hike with. I may add a short tele and that is exactly why I prefer the f4 version of the 70-200, instead of f2.8 and I may add one wide lens. To me, the 18-35mm AF-S is ideal. The chunky 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S merely adds a lot of unnecessary weight and its zoom range is too limited. That is an excellent lens for building interiors when you don't have a lot of room to move around, but at least for me, it is not a lens I want to hike with in the wilderness. Its front element and those huge filters merely adds vulnerability.</p>

<P>

That is also why the new 300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR, which almost cuts down half the weight from the old 300mm/f4 AF-S, is so interesting.

</P>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think the point is that for people used to carrying MF (my walk-about MF kit weighs 15-20 pounds) or LF kits (don't have to weigh that to know it is heavy), it is rather hard to see what the fuzz is about. How wide is wide enough should be decided on considerations concerning, well, how wide would be wide enough. They all weigh next to nothing. Weight can indeed be a big-time issue. But not when it comes to the difference between, say, a 16-35 or 14-24.

[johne37179]

<p>My hiking was about serious photography, not serious hiking. The longest trip I took in the Cascades was just over a week. Falling over could be a problem. All the gear was much heavier. I remember about ten years ago going into an REI store and no one had seen a member number that low (I have been a member since 1962). Remember, that you hauled everything on your back (except for the times we had pack horses -- but then we brought booze and beer, too). I did haul that gear around the entire Wonderland Trail on Rainier - but in chunks, of course, not one trip.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Shun said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Have you folks heard stories that backpackers saw off the handle of tooth brushes to save a few grams?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, we used to trim the food packaging when hiking when I was kid. I certainly am thinking lighter all-around this time for bodies <em>and</em> lenses (that's why the Tokina 11-16mm is out). I also wanted to mention that when I took my Nikon D800E/MB-D12/AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D on one trip, I recorded some video while hiking using the 14mm, and it looks fantastic. I held my camera, tensioned on its strap in front of me as we were hiking, and it gave a very nice GoPro-like perspective.</p>

<p>So, I think I may need to consider a wider DX zoom since I'm only taking DX bodies this year. Thom's early review of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM <a href="http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm">here</a>, is fairly positive, so I may get this "budget" DX ultra-wide in addition to the kit lens.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I am an ultrawide fanatic. Started on film with 24mm. Quickly switched to 17mm and then waited 15 years to get to the Nikon 14mm. Added the Nikon 8/2.8 AIS a few years ago and still enjoy using it on D3300 and Canon 5D II. Sold my 4x5 and 65 SA (about 16mm on FX) to get the Canon 17 TS-E which I often shift and stitch to get 12mm equivalent with medium format sized image files. Just starting to shift and stitch the Nikon 35/2.8 PC on the D3300.</p>

<p>I'll try to add some samples here later.</p>

<p>I would never not buy a lens because it had a bulbous front element. Just have to be thoughtful of it. Thank goodness the original owner of my 8/2.8 was not careful with it or I never could have justified buying it...a minor ding easily fixed by photoshop. </p>

[studio460]

<p>John said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I am an ultrawide fanatic. Started on film with 24mm. Quickly switched to 17mm and then waited 15 years to get to the Nikon 14mm.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too! (Except for the 17mm part). I bought my first Ais Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for my original Nikon FM way back when, then decades later bought my first FX ultra-wide, the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D in 2005.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Shun said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I liked how that UWA filter kit looked, and after I saw your post, I found out that it's a Fotodiox WonderPana 145mm Core kit. They make both a Nikkor 14-24mm kit, and one for the Nikkor 14mm prime (plus kits for other-branded UWAs). The kit for the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D is $269, and includes the 145mm CPL (the Fotodiox 145mm CPL is $119.95 for the filter alone). Another variation of the kit, the WonderPana Freearc Core, which adds an attachable, rotating, single-stage (I believe), filter-holder, able to accommodate 6.6" filters (e.g., ND grads) for about the same price, but doesn't include any filters.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A high-quality 77mm polarizer from B+W or Nikon is going to cost around $150, and the cost for filters goes up exponentially along with size/diameter. That is why I am skeptical about the quality of those 145mm polarizers, be it $60 or $140.<br>

<br />Whether it is a good idea to use a polarizer on such a wide lens is another topic.</p>

<p>On rough trips, I by far prefer not to carry such vulnerable optics: bulging front elements and huge oversized filters. It is very difficult to take good care of your gear in rough environment. A 400mm/f5.6 is much smaller and lighter than a 400mm/f4, but sometimes f4 has its major advantages. That is why I think a 400mm/f4 PF or 500mm/f4 PF could be wonderful. For wides, I am perfectly happy with the 18-35mm AF-S; it is compact and light.</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>Shun asked:</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>That is when my 10-24 Nikkor sees most use. Admittedly, I do not use it that much as an everyday lens, but its use for travel, landscape and architecture makes it a favourite to me.</p>

<p>Shun wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, the front element is too vulnerable for a rough trip like that, and 14mm is too wide for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I perfectly understand and respect the latter, I have Little understanding of the former (but then there are lots of things in Life I do not understand). If you would have been in the mosh pit of a Metallica concert or perhaps gone rock climbing, I would have understood. But what would you fear might ding its bulging, filterless front lens on a boat cruise? Stains from water spray could be carefully wiped every now and then and I, in my ignorance, do not see how you could not control the surroundings enough to dare use it without risking its protruding front lens.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Andreas, I haven't been to the Antarctic region like Shun but have been in many occasions in small to medium size boats. If you are on a small boat (a zodiac for example, or a motor boat of small or moderate size) and there is a bit of wind and weather, and you're jumping to/from shore, I there can be lots of circumstances where something hard could hit the front element if it is not protected from all sides with a hood. The same is true when on a sailing boat; the boat can turn quickly by a considerable angle when they're going against the wind and generally those caught off guard can find themselves flying to the other side of the boat. There is sometimes very little space and so the motivation for using a superwide angle is there to capture the circumstances and action but there is a rather high probability of uncontrolled events. You need to watch your bags and hold onto something and give quickly way to crew if they need to move in the boat to control the sails, for example, all the while trying to capture some images. Of course, there are more peaceful moments as well but then it could mean there is also less interesting action to photograph. In case the purpose is not the photography of the adventure itself, but to photograph wildlife and landscape then a calm moment may be just the ticket for good images but still I would choose a smallish and not an expensive lens to photograph when in a small boat or in a landing situation. Sometimes when there is wind it is necessary for some of the passengers or crew (often it is one and the same) to get into the water to secure the boat or take it in the water. I see the motivation for a camera like the Nikon 1 AW 1 when in such circumstances, though I haven't got one yet; I was hoping Nikon would make a couple more underwater/rugged lenses for it. If you're talking about a large cruise ship and you're not planning on landing anywhere but a harbour then that is another matter but it is a less intimate experience. Usually safety of the people on board is regarded as a much higher priority than someone's lenses so it is very much up to the photographer to make sure the gear is safe because it can be that whoever is controlling the boat may simply have other far more pressing priorities. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Those Antarctic trips are rough ones, not your Mediterranean or Caribbean cruises. Here is a video I captured in our 2009 trip as part of the Nikon D300S review: http://vimeo.com/8022055<br>

The problem is that you need to wear heavy clothing and perhaps gloves as well as heavy boots. That region is windy and rains a lot. You also need to deal with salt spray. Overall it is very bad for camera equipment. I have been on three of those trips now, and every time some camera or lens got damaged. Last time I talked to a professional photographer who leads such trips annually. He always brings an old Gitzo tripod instead of new ones so that any damage would be less costly.</p>

<p>I have also been to the Galapagos a couple of times. Everything else is similar, but since that is on the equator in a hot environment, you wear a lot of less clothing and are far more agile. That is a totally different game.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i get that in ye olden days, photographers lugged a lot of gear, but the older one gets, the more taxing that is. i have had back issues from carrying two pro lenses and a pro body in a messenger bag, shooting demonstrations which involved a lot of walking for several hours. now i take a backpack when i transport that much gear. i couldnt imagine carrying 80 lbs worth of stuff on my back and being very mobile at all. i found <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014217586_weightofwar14.html">this </a>article interesting, which explains how the military is trying to reduce the weight soldiers carry as it seriously impacts their ability to move. obviously, photography is not war, but if you can't get to where the shot is, you can't get the shot. that's why there's so much potential for lightweight mirrorless kits; hopefully Nikon will get the 1 series right and make it more capable for serious shooters.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Well, after some consideration, I finally decided on, and ordered the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM DX-format UWA for my little D3300 I also just ordered. For $399, it seems like a pretty good value. So here's my new, two-body vacation/hiking kit:</p>

<p>• Nikon D3300 + Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM<br />• Nikon D3200 + AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II</p>

<p>I'll probably also stash a 50mm f/1.4G for any low-light needs somewhere. This will also become my new daylight-exterior, walk-around kit. After trying a few mirrorless-ILCs, and other "portable" solutions, I think I've decided that twin, low-end, Nikon DSLRs are simply the easiest, best, and most functional solution for my "convenience" photography.</p>

<p>Each DX body also gets a HoodMan <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545626-REG/Hoodman_H_EYEN22S_HoodEYE_Eyecup_for_Nikon.html">HoodEYE 22mm eyecup</a> for effortless daylight shooting (the availability of this single accessory, by the way, is a big reason for going this route). I don't even think of shooting without a Hoodman eyecup on any of my bodies. Since the entire package (except the Sigma) is composed of refurbs, I won't be as worried about theft or damage, and can just take it everywhere.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Hey Ralph, have you used those HoodMan eyecups before? I have been interested to get one for my D300, but I am worried it will be prone to getting knocked off. Can you comment on how durable these guys are and whether they stay put? Thanks.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I've sworn by Hoodman eyecups for years. The Nikon DK-19 for FX bodies (if attached properly, which is a whole other thread) do stay put; however, the DK-19 eyecup constantly "flops down," requiring you to flip it "out" almost every time you bring the camera to your eye. The Hoodman eyecup doesn't flop down, and I actually find it comfortable to shoot with using either eye, even though its designed for right-eyed viewing.</p>

<p>The cheap slip-on eyecups for Nikon DX bodies constantly fall off and get lost. The Hoodman HoodEYE for DX bodies snaps on with so much force, you think you're about to break it--it's <em>very</em> secure, and it <em>never</em> falls off. Here's what I have on <em>every</em> body I own:</p>

<p>Nikon FX bodies:<br /> • Nikon <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+dk-17m&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps">DK-17M</a> magifying eyepiece<br /> • Hoodman <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545625-REG/Hoodman_H_EYEN22R_HoodEYE_Eyecup.html">HoodEYE H-EYEN22R [22mm round]<br /></a></p>

<p>Nikon DX bodies:<br /> • Hoodman <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545626-REG/Hoodman_H_EYEN22S_HoodEYE_Eyecup_for_Nikon.html">HoodEYE H-EYEN22S [22mm square]<br /></a></p>

<p>Eyecups make shooting (especially in daylight) far more pleasurable, and now I can't/won't shoot without one. This is actually the main reason I didn't buy a Sony A7s--it can't accept one, and no one makes one for it. I highly recommend a Hoodman for your D300--you won't regret it (and, you won't ever lose it!).</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Thanks, Ralph! I am going to give one of these a try.</p>

[studio460]

<p>You're welcome, Chip! I think you need the 22mm square version for your Nikon D300. Here's the Hoodman 22mm square HoodEYE eyecup that I just installed on my new Nikon D3300:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-1.png" alt="" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6D EX DC HSM for Nikon DX ($399 USD):</p>

<p>Today I received my new Nikon D3300, and yesterday, got my Sigma 10-20mm HSM. Prior to my Sigma purchase, I tried to Google images which showed the Sigma 10-20mm on a Nikon D3XXX-series body, but couldn't find any. I was interested in seeing how the lens scaled on a current Nikon consumer body. Thankfully, now that both are in my hands, the lens scales quite nicely with the small DX body. The combo feels easy to hold, balance, and shoot.</p>

<p>Build quality is typical of recent Sigma lenses--it feels sturdily built with pleasing overall aesthetics. According to manufacturer specs, the Sigma is nearly as heavy and almost large as my more bulky-feeling Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8; however, the Sigma is actually a bit more compact than the Tokina, and just feels nicer to handle. Here are some photos of a Nikon D3300 with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM mounted:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-2.png" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-3.png" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D33-4.png" alt="" /></p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Nice looking setup ^</p>

<p>My HoodEye arrives in about a week - look forward to trying it out!</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Hey Ralph, my HoodEye arrived and I love it! Very solid fit, feels nice and durable.</p>