Do I need it?

gracenrichgracenrich Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
edited January 10, 2008 in Cameras
:thumb I have the Nikon d80 and Nikon 18-200 vr lens
Would a wide angle be a good fit to compliment the above lens?
Thank You

Comments

  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2007
    Depends, what are you shooting?
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • gracenrichgracenrich Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited December 30, 2007
    I Like landscapes
    [
    I like landscapes best
  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2007
    Then i'll say yes, i have this same lens, i don't find it to be wide enough for large landscape, especially pano shots.
    But may be someone has better experience then me with this stuff. I don't really do landscapes. :D

    I'll say go and shoot some, then see how they come out to your liking.
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • bkatzbkatz Registered Users Posts: 286 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2007
    Landscapes then yes
    I started with the same camera and have now added the D300. I highly recommend the a 12 - 24mm. The Nikon is excellent according to everyone and the Tokina, which is half the price, is excellent too. I have the Tokina and I am very happy with it. If you take a look in some of my nature galleries you will see a bunch of shots from it (this one specifically http://photos.katzclix.com/gallery/3732610 )

    I have heard decent things about the Sigma 10-20mm but have also heard that they may not stand up as well as the Nikon or Tokina. Your only limitation with any of these lenses is if you plan to go to the D3 which with these lenses you would need to use the crop factor since the D3 is a full frame camera.

    My basic kit is the Tokina 12-24mm, Nikon 18-200mm VR and the 70-300mm VR and I will be adding a 70-200 f2.8 VR and a 50mm 1.4 soon.

    I love the wide angle - and spent a lot of the last week using it while in Maine and NH.

    Feel free to ask if you have more questions....
    Cheers,
    Brian
    http://photos.katzclix.com
    blog - http://blog.katzclix.com
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2007
    18mm is pretty wide.
    I mean you could spend the extra money to get down to 12mm. But unless you have a direct need for that. I say 18mm is definitely wide enough.

    I take two 18mm shots and stitch them together in less than 2 minutes and have a shot that is wider than even a 10mm piece of glass will give you.
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2007
    If you like landscapes, I'd definitely recommend an ultrawide.
    Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 are nice alternatives to the Nikon 12-24.
    My Gallery
  • Van IsleVan Isle Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    I've tried and tried to use my 18-200 as a landscape glass. No good. Good enough if you want to just "show" you were there, but if you're putting it on a tripod, waiting for golden hour, I find it really disappointing. Not sharp enough at the wide angle when it's really stopped down, and a fair bit of distortion through to about 30mm. (although I have recently found it, under enough light, to be CRAZY sharp, way above expectations, at the long end wide open. Yeah, took my breath away. I'll post after I get home and process my 2000+ keepers so far from Antarctica...) I still need a wide-angle, so for now I often use my 50 1.8 just for sharpness.

    I'm on the hunt for wide angle now, and I'm following this thread!

    VI
    dgrin.com - making my best shots even better since 2006.
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Van Isle wrote:
    Not sharp enough at the wide angle when it's really stopped down
    Just curious, why would you stop down for a landscape shot?ne_nau.gif
  • larsbclarsbc Registered Users Posts: 7 Beginner grinner
    edited January 8, 2008
    SloYerRoll wrote:
    Just curious, why would you stop down for a landscape shot?ne_nau.gif
    Speaking for myself, a lot of my shots taken with my 12-24 Tokina involve lots of foreground interest. Wide angle landscapes that don't have much in the foreground tend to look quite boring (imo). So, because of this foreground/background thing, a small aperture is needed to keep everything in focus.

    larsbc
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    larsbc wrote:
    Speaking for myself, a lot of my shots taken with my 12-24 Tokina involve lots of foreground interest. Wide angle landscapes that don't have much in the foreground tend to look quite boring (imo). So, because of this foreground/background thing, a small aperture is needed to keep everything in focus.

    larsbc
    Welcome to dgrin lars wave.gif
    How I read that post was they stopped down aperture (increased f#) and decreased the DOF. Hence my question of asking why they would decrease DOF to shoot a landscape shot.ne_nau.gif

    Using objects in the foreground also help create a sense of scale. deal.gif
  • larsbclarsbc Registered Users Posts: 7 Beginner grinner
    edited January 8, 2008
    SloYerRoll wrote:
    Welcome to dgrin lars
    Thx for the words of welcome!
    How I read that post was they stopped down aperture (increased f#) and decreased the DOF. Hence my question of asking why they would decrease DOF to shoot a landscape shot.

    Stopping down the aperture typically means using a larger f-number (ie: a smaller aperture opening) which has the effect of increasing the depth-of-field. I think you're getting your DOF vs. f-number relationship backwards. ;-)
    Using objects in the foreground also help create a sense of scale.
    Very true!

    edit: SloYerRoll: I looked at your gallery, so you very clearly know your way around a camera. And that caused me to re-read the post we're referring to several times but I still don't get how using a larger f-number (smaller aperture opening) would decrease the DOF. I'm hoping you just mis-read what the person wrote...otherwise I'll have to get my head examined. ;-)


    larsbc
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    larsbc wrote:
    Stopping down the aperture typically means using a larger f-number (ie: a smaller aperture opening) which has the effect of increasing the depth-of-field. I think you're getting your DOF vs. f-number relationship backwards. ;-)
    Maybe I misunderstood the way I read "stopping down".
    Not getting DOF backwards though. :D
  • Shane422Shane422 Registered Users Posts: 460 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    SloYerRoll wrote:
    How I read that post was they stopped down aperture (increased f#) and decreased the DOF. Hence my question of asking why they would decrease DOF to shoot a landscape shot.ne_nau.gif

    You might want to be checking out www.DOFmaster.com.
    Larger f#(i.e.smaller aperture) = larger DOF.

    For a landscape shot Its not quite that big of a deal. At 18MM on a crop sensor camera, and lets just say distance to subject of 500ft, it really only affects the near focus limit. For f2.8 near focus is 19ft, F20 is 2.8ft. Far focus is Infinity for both apertures.

    At 35 ft, 100MM, the difference in DOF for f2.8 and f20 is more dramatic. At f2.8 it would be about 4ft, at f20 it will be about 33ft.
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Thanks Shane. While I have a strong grasp of DOF. It looks like I somehow reversed the terms and it's just revealing itslef nowdeal.gif

    Cheers,
    -Jon
  • larsbclarsbc Registered Users Posts: 7 Beginner grinner
    edited January 8, 2008
    SloYerRoll wrote:
    Thanks Shane. While I have a strong grasp of DOF. It looks like I somehow reversed the terms and it's just revealing itslef nowdeal.gif
    I'm glad, cuz that means I don't have to get my head examined. :D

    larsbc
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Never use my head for a benchmark. You'l be confused every timerolleyes1.gif
  • Van IsleVan Isle Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2008
    By stopped down I just meant small aperture, i.e. f20, f22, f24 etc and longer exposure times. For increased DOF. Mebbe my lingo is messed up, I'm from Canada, eh? ne_nau.gifclap.gif
    dgrin.com - making my best shots even better since 2006.
  • MooreDrivenMooreDriven Registered Users Posts: 260 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2008
    gracenrich wrote:
    thumb.gifI have the Nikon d80 and Nikon 18-200 vr lens
    Would a wide angle be a good fit to compliment the above lens?
    Thank You

    I think your thread got highjacked a bit headscratch.gif.

    I have the 18-200 and have used it on landscape shots with success. At least in my eyes. However, I was wanting more width in some of my shots. I recently purchased the Sigma 10-20. I'm still working with it, but overall it's a nice lens, and is VERY wide! The one beef I have with it is are the lens caps. They cheap, cheap cheap!!! I replaced the rear cap with a Nikon brand.

    I looked at the Tokina, but decided I wanted the extra 2 mm. Either one would be a nice addition to your stable of lenses.

    Good luck.

    Dale
Sign In or Register to comment.