How Wide Do You Need?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>On APS-C I had a 12-24, but more and more found that I wasn't able to make very good use of the ultra-wide end most of the time. Too many photos with everything in it, but too little focus on a real subject. So I figured my 24 f/2.8 would suffice on full frame, but in the end I did miss the extra bit of wideness. I settled on quite cheap AiS 20mm f/3.5 (52mm filters, and low priced - just what I wanted). I've grown to very much like this little lens; it has its limits, but some things it just does really very well, and that happen to be the things I mostly bought it for.</p>

<p>I never really feel a need to go much wider than this. I'd like to add the 20mm f/1.8 because of its wider aperture, but no rush since I wouldn't use it enough to really justify the cost. Same goes for the Samyang 14mm. And everything priced above that - good lenses as they might be, for me it's just way too much money for something I'd use only very occassional.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>When I travel and need to carry a light photographic load, a digital compact camera with a 28-140mm (35mm equivalent) f/1.8 to f/2.8 lens is usually all I need.</p>

<p>However, on a trip to Chicago, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens that I had with me was not wide enough. I had to resort to digitally stitching the image I wanted.<br>

<br /> </div>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I could probably get by with 28mm, but 24mm would do for the vast majority of situations. Although, every once and a while, the 18mm delivers, especially for interiors.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>The longer I <strong>do</strong> this, the wider my point of view (50 plus years now). My go to wide-angle lens for both interior and exterior shots in DX is the Nikon 10.5 full frame fisheye. The next choice is my Sigma 10-20. I do find myself making adjustments in Lightroom and Photoshop, but I'm very pleased with the results.</p>

[ian_white2]

<p>This is one of those impossible questions which depend upon each person’s compromises and their shooting subject matter.<br>

I shoot a D800 with the Holy Trinity. In an effort to reduce the weight of my camera bag I did a test with the four 24mm capable lenses I had. On a tripod shooting static subjects at about 100 feet distance using Live View etc, my results were:<br>

Best 14-24<br>

Zuiko 24mm converted for Nikon<br>

24-70<br>

24mm AFD a long way behind.<br>

This was true at f2.8 and F5.6 for my lenses and this specific test. YMMV.<br>

OK, so I could have sold my 14-24 and used the Zuiko, BUT, I also did an analysis of every shot I had ever taken with the D800 to see which focal lengths I actually used, and I encourage everyone to do this with the free software available on the web.<br>

Only 5% of my shots were taken at 14mm, but essentially they were all keepers, which cannot be said of the rest.<br>

So for now, despite its weight, I am keeping it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just in case some members are not familiar with the wide lenses discussed on this thread, here is an image of the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S and the 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye, which is the only Nikon DX lens that is not AF-S; it uses the old screwdriver AF instead. Both lenses have bulging front elements.</p>

<p>The fisheye is merely slightly bulging and it is fairly small lens, so I don't mind carrying it around even for occasional use. However, the 14-24mm has a large front element that is vulnerable and is quite heavy. I do carry heavy lenses on wildlife trips, but I save that capacity to long teles.</p>

<p>Both lenses have no filter thread and Nikon doesn't intend to use filters on them. You can see earlier that the filter for the 14-24 is almost as wide as the D750 body itself. That is a huge filter and is vulnerable itself. A B+W or Nikon 77mm polarizer is about $150, so I would imagine that a good polarizer that big is going to cost at least a few hundred dollars.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As Dieter points out, a fisheye can be fun to use occasionally, but the effect gets old pretty quickly. Another issue is that Nikon's 10.5mm DX is an AF-D lens, so there is no AF with all D3000 and D5000 series DSLRs.</p><div></div>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I think shooting wide-angle is very difficult. Most of my favorite WA shots involve getting very close to the subject. Composition, especially the foreground and corners can be pretty tough to get right. I use the Tokina 12-24 on DX, but I usually need a reason to reach for it. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>In general, I always take the both the fish-eye and super-wide (10-24mm) as well because they don't take up that much space anyway. And I seemed to always have the opportunity to use them, be it inside a historic church or even out in the open.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>For years with 35mm I was very happy with 24-28mm for wide angle. Now, with DX I have been pleased with 18mm wide with the kit lenses. Sometimes I will do a pano if I want wider, which is so easy to do with digital.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>If I travel someplace where architecture will be a major portion of my photography (both indoors and outdoors - like most places in Europe), then ALL I take might be the 16-35/4 VR on an FX body. Maybe add an 85/1.8G to the bag. Other places might require nothing but the 24-85 VR (on FX) or the 16-85 VR (on DX). The widest lens I have for my A7 is a 21mm - quite often, that is indeed wide enough - but it might require some compromises or a bit more work to get something I'd be happy with.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I keep a Tamron 14mm f/2.8 in my bag most of the time. I will use it inside buildings or for shots with interesting perspective outdoor. I use it on DX and on FX.<br>

This shot is with the 14mm on my D4<br>

 

[rconey]

<p>Outdoors in canyons, and recently Arches National Park I use the 17-35 f2.8D a lot. As has been pointed out by many, wide is for closeups with a lot of back ground more than just for wide. Used close to the front subject it gives great depth of field.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>when i shoot concerts, i bring an FX kit with 24-70/70-200/50. sometimes i will bring the 15mm fisheye for a wide lens as its much smaller than the 15-30 and also a stop faster at 15mm. when i've shot events with two bodies, sometimes i omit the midrange altogether or just bring the 50 to cover it along with a wide zoom and a tele zoom. agree that a wide-angle and an 85 are sometimes all you need when traveling, if you really get comfortable with those perspectives. i shot the tokina 12-24 in Havana Cuba and the Fuji 14mm (21mm equiv.) in Los Cabos, BCS. for me wide angle really starts at 24mm (on FX). 21mm is a good compromise because you can do people shots as environmental portraits. any wider than that isn't great for people because of perspective distortion. unless that's what you want, in which case, a fisheye is great.</p>

[5711]

<p>to awnser this question, it does not take much, really.<br>

you need a lens as wide as you gotta need it.<br>

period.</p>

<p>you do not want to carry heavy zooms because you can't, won't or are a cry-baby?<br>

get a 20mm so you will not miss out on anything.<br>

yeah, it is not a zoom, and you might fall 2mm of focal lenght short, but atleast you got the shot and that is all that matters :)</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>The comment about being too heavy made me smile. 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. I never thought much of it. I was not all that unusual -- my fellow photographers would do the same thing -- except for the Canadian who would pack in a 11 x 14 view camera! Have we all become wimps?</p>

[5711]

<p>exactly :)</p>

[studio460]

<p>How wide do I need? It seems a never-ending question . . .</p>

<p>The most successful wide-angle images I've taken were with the very first ultra-wide I bought: AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D. I chose it over the Nikkor 14-24mm zoom, primarily for its lesser weight and bulk. Still, it's a fairly weighty chunk of glass. At first, I was disappointed with its performance, but when DxO finally came out with a correction module for the Nikkor 14mm prime, it was a different story. DxO makes this lens shine.</p>

<p>But, since the 14mm Nikkor doesn't readily take filters, I later bought the AF-S 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, primarily as a vacation lens. Although I really like the focal range, after lugging a D800E/MB-D12/16-35mm around on a bunch of hiking trips in Hawaii for 10 days, I think I've had it with bringing heavy, bulky wide-angles and full-frame bodies on vacation.</p>

<p>So, I'm now thinking of my next trip to Hawaii, and (as usual), I've completely re-vamped my approach. Since the hikes are over rough terrain, I don't want to worry too much about damaging a $3,000 body anymore, so I've decided to downsize. Just a few minutes before typing this post, I ordered a refurbished Nikon D3300 with the new 18-55mm VR II kit lens for $399. The new 18-55mm is lighter and more compact that the original lens, and I really like its new retracting feature.</p>

<p>So here's what I'm taking on my next vacation:</p>

<p>• Nikon D3300 + AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II<br>

• Nikon D3200 + AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II</p>

<p>All of the above was purchased as refurbs, so there's not the huge burden of worrying about theft or damage, which will be a welcome relief. Also, I really disliked having to change lenses on my D800E in the environments I was in (the 16-35mm to the 70-300mm and back), so I decided on going with two DX bodies instead, and zero lens changes (my D800E's sensor got really dirty last trip). The D3200/70-300mm will be holstered in a belt-worn lens pouch on my hip. I'll sling the D3300/18-55mm onto my Cabela's binocular strap (an excellent way to work, but only works with very light bodies/lenses).</p>

<p>Will the 18-55mm (27mm-equivalent) be wide enough? Probably not as wide as I'd like. But for most uses (especially vacation photos), it should do just fine. I would, of course, love to have a new DX ultra-wide zoom, but I just can't justify the expense for a vacation kit. Here are the usual suspects:</p>

<p>• AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED ($1,099).<br>

• AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED ($759)<br>

• Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM ($699)<br>

• Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ($649)<br>

• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM ($399)<br>

<br>

Of course, with the D3XXX-series bodies, I'm limited to AF-S lenses. I've excluded the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 since I already own the screw-drive version, which I think is just too big and heavy (but if I already owned the silent-drive version, I'd probably just take that and be done with it). The Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6's price is right ($399), and I still may consider buying that. But having the two Nikon VR-enabled lenses will also allow me to make up for their slow variable-apertures somewhat (I'm also taking my Nikon SB-400, so I'll be able to pull off some slow-sync shots with VR as well). But, mainly, my shooting will consist of 99% daylight exteriors, so having a fast-aperture lens, though nice to have, isn't as important.</p>

[5711]

<p>if its to heavy<br>

shape up<br>

or <br>

shape out</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>However good your shape is, it is unlikely to help you get past airline restrictions on baggage weight.</p>

[5711]

<p>i use a lowepro trekker 600aw<br /> in it are<br /> d3<br /> d3<br /> 14-24<br /> 24-70<br /> 70-200<br /> 3 flashes<br /> batteries and stuff<br /> and sometimes a mc500 + 40 cf<br /> i am under 8 kilogram<br /> and i get it in as hand lagguage.<br /> just make sure you flirt with the lady at the counter a little bit</p>

<p>so..whats the deal then?<br>

some airlines have different rules.<br>

make it work for you.<br>

srsly guys..what are we discussing here.<br>

it seems to me as if there is a punch of ppl looking for excuses.<br>

if there's a will, there will be a way :) :) :)</p>

<p> </p>

[matters410]

<p>For me on FX 20mm is the widest I need and 24 works well most of the time. When I shot DX I had the Tokina 11-16 and 24-70. The gap was pretty annoying and I never wanted to bring both the Tokina and "the beast.". Now 24 is perfect for 90% of my wide angle needs and I picked up the new 20mm for when I want to travel light with my 1.8 prime combo (20,50,85). The 20 is unlike any other lens I've used. While a similar perspective as the long end of the Tokina on DX it is better in every way and much more fun to shoot with. Not much distortion or flare, better bokeh, takes same filter as 24-70, is very light, focuses close and is obviously very fast and sharp as hell. I'm having a lot of fun with it and it's helping me think in more of a wide angle way, which has never been my favorite area. Yes it was a bit pricey but so far I feel it was worth it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>so..whats the deal then?</em></p>

<p>The deal is that you forgot the 200-400/4 and/or 600/4 from your kit. </p>

[5711]

<p>once i own them, should i give you travel advice, ikka?`<br>

i gladly will, if you want to.<br>

kisses</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>No thanks. I was trying to explain a part of the context of the original question, though I'm not sure if I succeeded correctly. The weight of a superwide angle lens in isolation is not the problem.</p>