Wideangle needed with 17-55?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Val, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. Val

    Val TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Right now im using 18-200, but will be switching to 17-55 and 70-200. Im also contemplating the need for 12-24.


    The thing is that now i tend to think that i dont. For really wide creative shots ive got 10.5mm fisheye. 18mm is mostly wide enough for normal use. Usually i find i need wider view for landscapes/cityscapes. But you can always take a few pics and stitch them into panorama. You can even do it for moving subjects! Just take central pic of the subject, wait till it goes away and take other pics for pano.



    There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, but 12-24 aint cheap and it bugs me to change lenses.



    What do you think?
     
  2. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,817
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The 12-24mm is rectilinear...not fish-eye. So if you want really wide, but not with the fish-eye distortion, then the 12-24mm might be a good choice.
     
  3. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    have you looked into the Sigma?

    I haven't tried it, but people seem to like it for the price. Also 10mm is quite a bit more than 12mm when you're getting that wide.

    The Sigma is probably the one I will be getting when I can rationalize it.
     
  4. Antithesis

    Antithesis No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Caribbean
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If you were contemplating the sigma 10-20, I'd say it'd be worth it, but going from 17 to 12 doesn't really justify the expense as you wouldn't be missing many shots because of it. Keep in mind that the sigma will run you about half the price of the Nikon, and will be nearly as sharp.

    If your just looking at the Nikon 12-24, I'd say it's not really worth it.
     
  5. Fate

    Fate TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,685
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    England - Worcestershire
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    check out the tonkia 12-24 F/4

    looks like a nice lens to me, in fact im currently saving for one :)
     
  6. S2K1

    S2K1 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    I'll also throw in that you might want to look at the Sigma 10-20.
     
  7. Antithesis

    Antithesis No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Caribbean
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    It's 'Tokina', and I currently own one. I couldn't be happier with it :)
     
  8. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Save it up and put it as a downpayment of a house. You claim yourself you don't really need it.
     
  9. TheOtherBob

    TheOtherBob TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UWS, NY, NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I think I'd say that if you don't have a wide angle, you'll never miss it -- but if you ever do have a wide angle, you'll never know what you did without one. I love mine - and use it constantly (sometimes even as a walkaround lens).

    10 and 17 don't sound that far apart - but I see a real difference between the Canon 10-22 and a 17-85 lens. Maybe one of the more tech-savy people here can answer -- is the difference between 10 and 17 greater somehow than the difference between, say, 70 and 77? It seems like it to me, but that could just be my imagination.
     
  10. dipstick

    dipstick TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the difference between 10 and 17 is quite big! I have both the 17-55 and the 12-24, and the 5mm extra at the wide end is very often what I need to get the shot I want when working indoors or in other places where space is limited.

    The difference between 10 and 17 is greater than the difference than 70 and 77. The difference between 10 and 17 is 1.7x, while he difference between 70 and 77 is only 1.1x. If you multiply 70 with 1.7 you will get 119.

    So the difference between a 10mm and a 17mm would be as big as the difference between a 70mm and a 119mm.
     
  11. TheOtherBob

    TheOtherBob TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UWS, NY, NY
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks! - that makes perfect sense now that I think about it.
     
  12. sabbath999

    sabbath999 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    BTW most people who have 10mm wide lenses don't know how to use them. Not saying that about people posting on this thread, I just see a lot of really bad pictures taken with ultrawide lenses... more so than most other kinds of lenses.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

wide andle attachment for 17-55

,

wide angle adapter for 17-55