A Confused Newbie

[Marvigal]

I second the Tokina 11-16 2.8. I never owned it...but I did have the Tokina 12-24 f/4 and I loved that lens..very sharp and affordable.

Like @weepete said, you can do a pano stitch and sometimes those can look better than using ultra wide angles.

Hi, Nerwin! It would probably be a good architectural lens??? My first love is architecture. Texas has some really interesting old courthouses that would be a blast to photograph. I love buildings -- inside and out.

 

[Marvigal]

Watch out. If your nose grows too long, it'll be hard to see through the viewfinder.

Before buying a new lens, I'd probably rather try stitching together a pano. It'll help your post-processing skills.

Ha, ha, Waday! I suppose he can't complain too much. He's been after me to get a better camera for a long time, and the D7100 was his idea -- sort of. A Nikon flyer fell out of the paper one day and I was looking at it and thought, "Hmmmm, if I were to get one, which one would I get." So, just playing around I decided on the D7100. I swear I didn't say a thing to DH because I didn't want to spend the money on such an expensive hobby. He was out of town for work, got the paper delivered to his room, a Nikon flyer fell out of the paper. He called me and said that he still wanted me to get a new camera for Christmas and the one he wanted me to get was the D7100. So, I figured it was a "sign".

 

[Marvigal]

If your 18mm focal length will not get it, I would hesitate in buying a shorter lens unless you have full confidence in the wider focal length. See if you can rent or borrow one to get that shot.

Good idea. Thank you, Designer.

 

[Marvigal]

I just had a random thought. Are you positive you are not in 1.3x crop mode?

Yes, it was definitely in DX mode.

 

[sm4him]

I am new to the DSLR world

These are the lenses I have (all Nikon DX): 18-140mm kit lens, 55-300mm, 35mm, 40mm macro.

I've set myself the project of photographing my community in order to practice composition, lighting, getting to know my equipment, etc., etc.

The parts I've quoted above lead me to this opinion:
You do not NEED another lens right now. You need to slow down the gear acquisition, and really learn how to USE what you have. It's great that you've set this project of photographing your community--but don't get so fixated on this shot of the playground that you lose sight of WHY you're taking photos of the community--to LEARN. If you don't seem to be able to get THE shot right now, set it aside. Work on other shots, keep working on composition and lighting, and understanding the equipment you already have.

You have a LOT of lenses for a beginner. More lenses won't solve your issues. More understanding of how to use what you have will.

My suggestion? Instead of buying a new lens, post up a few photos on TPF, get some feedback on what you need to work on, and start focusing on that.

At some point, you'll realize that you have become comfortable with the equipment you have, and at that point, you'll likely KNOW what sort of lens you might need (if any) to go back and get that playground shot.

...in my humble opinion.

 

[Marvigal]

MY FIRST QUESTION would be, "Did you have the camera oriented to vertical capture mode?" i.e. was the camera in "tall" capture mode? And second, if you were at a playground, why not just back up a bit?

I got the impression that it was on the ground pointed up toward the structure.

Yes, you are right.

 

[Derrel]

You have full permission from me to buy any new lens you want!!! What hubbs says is a different matter! lol. (I am totally fine with spending your money!)

The thing I see with the 11-16mm is a limited range, and the f/2.8 aperture. For some reason, many people seem to think that if a lens says "f/2.8" on the barrel, it's the lens to get...I do not agree with that. 10-20 sounds okay, I have read that the Tamron is not all that super-sharp...I dunno...I'm not much of a wide-angle lens fan, but one thing I do not like is a lens that has a narrow zoom range, which to me is annoying. I'd go to Ken Rockwell.com and read his reviews, which will tell you a lot of what you'd really want to know about these third-party UW zoom lenses.

 

[Marvigal]

Maybe OP can post a photo of what she took ...

Good idea, astroNikon. Someday I will be uploading pictures to be critiqued because I have wondered about some of them.

 

[Marvigal]

OK, lots of things go over my head as well. In this case I say just find another shot.

Of the lenses mentioned the Tokina 11-16 is nice and I've used one a couple times (plus their 12-28mm which covers a good range), but have not bought one. But even then we don't know if 10 or 11mm would have included everything.

At this point there's a LOT over my head! I'm thinking that I may just hold off for a while, but I am surprised about how many have suggested the Tokina.

 

[astroNikon]

Maybe OP can post a photo of what she took ...

Good idea, astroNikon. Someday I will be uploading pictures to be critiqued because I have wondered about some of them.

we just want to figure out what you are taking a photo of and what's missing. Not for critique.

But the aforementioned UltraWideAngle lenses are good. But if you are so close, you could also move back. I have a 18-105 lens and it's pretty wide for a crop. I also have a 18 on a FullFrame too which is even wider.

 

[weepete]

Save on the lens, buy lightroom and photoshop cc for £10 a month and you can make some excellent retouches, panoramas and as far as your imagination will fly.

 

[Marvigal]

I am new to the DSLR world

These are the lenses I have (all Nikon DX): 18-140mm kit lens, 55-300mm, 35mm, 40mm macro.

I've set myself the project of photographing my community in order to practice composition, lighting, getting to know my equipment, etc., etc.

The parts I've quoted above lead me to this opinion:
You do not NEED another lens right now. You need to slow down the gear acquisition, and really learn how to USE what you have. It's great that you've set this project of photographing your community--but don't get so fixated on this shot of the playground that you lose sight of WHY you're taking photos of the community--to LEARN. If you don't seem to be able to get THE shot right now, set it aside. Work on other shots, keep working on composition and lighting, and understanding the equipment you already have.

You have a LOT of lenses for a beginner. More lenses won't solve your issues. More understanding of how to use what you have will.

My suggestion? Instead of buying a new lens, post up a few photos on TPF, get some feedback on what you need to work on, and start focusing on that.

At some point, you'll realize that you have become comfortable with the equipment you have, and at that point, you'll likely KNOW what sort of lens you might need (if any) to go back and get that playground shot.

...in my humble opinion.

Hi, sm4him! Your "humble opinion" has a load of wisdom, and you are very correct in what you state here. I think I did lose track of the bigger picture for me at this time and I intend to follow your advice to the letter -- but I still "want" the lens! (But I'd be willing to wait a little.) Thanks a bunch!

 

[PaulWog]

I did a lot of research about this when I was shopping for an uwa lens for my d5200. I mean, a lot. You'll hear different t things from different people, but this is the advice I have based on a lot of unbiased research:

In order of what I would buy, if the product is available in store in person to test (if Money is not really the big concern for dx):
1. Nikon 10-24mm
2. Tokina 11-16
3. Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6

Ultimately I got the sigma 10-20. It was 240 cheaper than the Nikon, which is what sold me. If the Tokina was available to try I would've leaned toward it depending on the copy. The performance is very good, and Ken Rockwell does a piss poor review of it and some other uwa lenses. Some of his info on the Sigma 10-20 is absolutely false, although he reviewed it many years ago, so manufacturing might have changed a little since his copy was looked at.

I say get the Nikon if you want an easy resale if you ever plan to do that, AND if money isn't a huge issue. Otherwise, compare the sigma and Tokina... Both are excellent, there's about as many reasons to get either. There obviously is a selection outside of the three I've talked on... I wouldn't look outside what I've mentioned, personally.

The best way you can tell if you want an uwa lens is to try one for a day. The second best way is to go on something like Flickr and look at uwa shots to see if that's what you want to do. I haven't used my uwa much, but when you want to use one there's little else you can do. Panoramas can be better sometimes, but usually there's a best answer... If a shot calls for a panorama at 50mm or 35mm, you probably shouldn't be using an uwa anyways for that shot, and vice versa if you need an uwa a panorama might not do. It just depends.

 

[Marvigal]

You have full permission from me to buy any new lens you want!!! What hubbs says is a different matter! lol. (I am totally fine with spending your money!)

The thing I see with the 11-16mm is a limited range, and the f/2.8 aperture. For some reason, many people seem to think that if a lens says "f/2.8" on the barrel, it's the lens to get...I do not agree with that. 10-20 sounds okay, I have read that the Tamron is not all that super-sharp...I dunno...I'm not much of a wide-angle lens fan, but one thing I do not like is a lens that has a narrow zoom range, which to me is annoying. I'd go to Ken Rockwell.com and read his reviews, which will tell you a lot of what you'd really want to know about these third-party UW zoom lenses.

Ha, ha, ha! Thanks, Derrel!

 

[Marvigal]

I did a lot of research about this when I was shopping for an uwa lens for my d5200. I mean, a lot. You'll hear different t things from different people, but this is the advice I have based on a lot of unbiased research:

In order of what I would buy, if the product is available in store in person to test (if Money is not really the big concern for dx):
1. Nikon 10-24mm
2. Tokina 11-16
3. Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6

Ultimately I got the sigma 10-20. It was 240 cheaper than the Nikon, which is what sold me. If the Tokina was available to try I would've leaned toward it depending on the copy. The performance is very good, and Ken Rockwell does a piss poor review of it and some other uwa lenses. Some of his info on the Sigma 10-20 is absolutely false, although he reviewed it many years ago, so manufacturing might have changed a little since his copy was looked at.

I say get the Nikon if you want an easy resale if you ever plan to do that, AND if money isn't a huge issue. Otherwise, compare the sigma and Tokina... Both are excellent, there's about as many reasons to get either. There obviously is a selection outside of the three I've talked on... I wouldn't look outside what I've mentioned, personally.

The best way you can tell if you want an uwa lens is to try one for a day. The second best way is to go on something like Flickr and look at uwa shots to see if that's what you want to do. I haven't used my uwa much, but when you want to use one there's little else you can do. Panoramas can be better sometimes, but usually there's a best answer... If a shot calls for a panorama at 50mm or 35mm, you probably shouldn't be using an uwa anyways for that shot, and vice versa if you need an uwa a panorama might not do. It just depends.

Thanks, PaulWog, for a place to at least start a narrowing down of options. If money was absolutely no object I would probably go with the Nikon, of course, but money is an issue and I am saving up for one of these lenses, so I still have time to take into consideration everyone's very helpful comments. Besides, I still have LOTS to learn about a bunch of stuff!