Wide Angle Or Ultra Wide for Grand Canyon?

[480sparky]

Or, what about the 35mm prime?

On a DX format? You won't get too much of a FOV.

[TPF Sponsor]

[Garbz]

So do panorama shots

[480sparky]

So do panorama shots

Yeah, some bozo already suggested that.

[thundercatz888]

So thats the way to go, save the money and do pano's?

[480sparky]

So thats the way to go, save the money and do pano's?

Not by default. I WA lens will probably give you a better final image. But if the money's not there, you can stitch a pano instead. But there's a learning curve to it.... don't think you'll come back from Arizona and print out some 60" eye-poppers. Get some software, and learn how to integrate your workflow (i.e., taking the images in the field) first. If you just go out and shoot a bunch of images, you'll be struggling come May.

[Garbz]

Stitching has it's limitations so it's worth owning an ultrawide angle. For one, the software it is easily confused with moving objects. Typically when stitching landscapes the clouds become a major problem if there's nothing on the land for the pictures to reference to and if they are moving fast enough. Then there's parallax error which becomes a problem if you have objects close to the lens and far away as well (not a problem in the grand canyon but could be for other panorama shots). But when it works it works well. I'd much prefer a well stitched together photo than a 10mpxl maybe not sharp single shot, but then I'm also the type of person who prints 4' wide prints.

If you don't print huge prints, then it may not be worth screwing around with panoramas, and getting a ultra wide angle would be a far ... simpler option.

[480sparky]

Stitching has it's limitations so it's worth owning an ultrawide angle. For one, the software it is easily confused with moving objects. .........

Software sometimes gets confused with stationary objects as well. More than once I've had to deal with it trying to take a part of the scene on one side of the image and stitch it into another part. Makes for some interesting outputs, though.