jv1664886090

It’s funny you should mention this-because this is EXACTLY what I was originally thinking at first, but I feel even though 35 is considered the very beginning of wide angle, it’s not enough for me. Maybe I should go out and purchase a full frame and the 24mm-JK!

O.k.-this makes sense. Thank you!

I was looking at the Tamron & Nikon-and actually reviews say the Tamron is better wider, where Nikon is better at 50. So Tamron may be better for me in that respect as well.

Thanks!

I find I often photograph families, couples etc in beautiful locations and am limited by my 50mm and 85mm-they’re great portrait lenses obviously, but I can’t get the beautiful scenery in as mush as I’d like... I find myself walking further and further back. I however, don’t want my main subjects to become distorted. I’m all for artsy looking photographers-but my current clients are not-ha!

I have since been told-if I want my subject sharp while including the environment, I shouldn’t go wider than 17mm? And that it makes more sense to get a 17-50??

Looking for a wide angle lens for my Nikon D7000 (crop sensor). I’m a portrait photographer-but want a lens that can really incorporate expansive environments in relation to subject. Thinking Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24??Thanks!