Wide angle for FF

[Destin]

Large groups of people is my main thing right now, ......

Ultrawides are very bad for getting large groups of people. The distortion would be terrible.

^what he said.

Plus, using a lens that wide to “get it all in” is a terrible plan because everyone will look very small. You’re much better off using something like a 24-70 and shooting a 2-3 image panorama, or ideally just back up farther and shoot it with the longest possible focal length.

Even my 20mm was far too wide for me to consider using it for group shots.

Edit: I also thought you were talking about posed group shots; like at a wedding.

 

[Derrel]

Knowing that you've recently started a photography business, I also thought you meant posed group shots, like at weddings or family reunions,etc..

I dunno...I still think that groups of people photographed with very short focal lengths tend to look awful...big,looming foreground people, and then the people just four feet farther away look half the size...just dull,and uninteresting,and not compelling to see people photographed with ultra-wide-angle focal lengths.

When I got started in photography, a 35mm was considered a wide-angle lens. A 28mm was _the_ standard wide-angle. A few people had the very wide 24mm lenses. A 20mm was rare. The 17mm focal length was called "ultra-wide".

Personally, I dislike the corner distortion of the 24mm focal length. I sold my 20mm because I so,so seldom wanted to ever use it. For anything.

I think Destin might have the right idea, on the Tamron 15-30mm. I do not think that relying on just one, single focal length ultra-wide makes much sense for landscapes; it's too restrictive, and forces your hand a lot. A zoom makes more sense, for framing and composing in better ways,more easily. With a prime, you virtually always have to move the camera position to get variety of composition. A 15-30mm has a LOT of focal length options, from ultra-wide to wide-angle, whereas an 11-16mm is just an ultra-wide, and has no semi-selective top focal length setting options.

If you look at zooms of the past 20 years or more, we've had 17-35mm f/2.8 models and Canon has has several 16-35mm f/2.8 models; Sigma and Tamron and Tokina have followed suit; there's a reason for this.

 

[Destin]

If you look at zooms of the past 20 years or more, we've had 17-35mm f/2.8 models and Canon has has several 16-35mm f/2.8 models; Sigma and Tamron and Tokina have followed suit; there's a reason for this.

To add to @Derrel's point: I follow a lot of prominent landscape photographers on youtube, and the vast majority of them shoot primarily with something like the Nikon 16-35 f/4 (or canon/third party equivalent) Several of them have put out videos on this topic, and they generally seem to name three reasons for choosing a lens in that class. The first reason is that it's lighter than 2.8 zooms, and they hike with their gear a lot. The second is that it is as wide as they realistically want to go for landscapes; any wider tends to cause the mid and background regions to appear to small in comparison with the foreground. The third is that, unlike the 14-24 or 15-35, they can accept standard screw on filters.

Just a few things to consider.

 

[Derrel]

[QUOTE="Destin] SNIP>>>Nikon 16-35 f/4 (or canon/third party equivalent) Several of them have put out videos on this topic, and they generally seem to name three reasons for choosing a lens in that class. The first reason is that it's lighter than 2.8 zooms, and they hike with their gear a lot. The second is that it is as wide as they realistically want to go for landscapes; any wider tends to cause the mid and background regions to appear to small in comparison with the foreground. The third is that, unlike the 14-24 or 15-35, they can accept standard screw on filters.

Just a few things to consider.[/QUOTE]

RE: my bolded comments from Destin's post: One is a critical artistic consideration, the second is important for easy use of filters without the need for specialty filter attaching gear. When a lens cannot accept a front-mounted circular polarizer, or a filter holder, then it becomes much more of a PITA for landscape work where you'll often want to use some type of filter. When a wide-angle zoom lens has no front filter threads, you've really gotten yourself into another kettle of fish.

 

[Nwcid]

Thanks for the input.

I will do a lot more reading and look at what is out there. It will be a little bit before I make this purchase as is it is a "nice to have" and I just purchased a new drone.

 

[shadowlands]

I once owned the Nikon 20mm 1.8G and it's awesome. Regret selling it. I just don't go that wide, that often, to justify.

 

[JBPhotog]

The Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G is the best one optically on your list. Buy once cry once.

 

[greybeard]

I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4 and like your 11-16 is for DX but will cover FX on my D750 at 16mm and higher. I am certain, from what I have read, that the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is about as good as you can get in this focal range for Nikon and will let you take advantage of that wonderful D850.

 

[Destin]

I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4 and like your 11-16 is for DX but will cover FX on my D750 at 16mm and higher. I am certain, from what I have read, that the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is about as good as you can get in this focal range for Nikon and will let you take advantage of that wonderful D850.

The 14-24 is astounding no doubt. I used one for a week once on loan from a friend and loved it.

I’ve never handled a Tamron 15-30 that I can remember, but most reviews say the build quality is phenomenal and that is sharper than the 14-24

 

[JBPhotog]

I haven’t used the Tamron but have owned the Nikkor 14-24 for a number of years. It is an indispensable lens and ranks even higher than many primes in the same focal length.

According to opticallimits.com, the 14-24 is sharper. For me, colour consistency and Nikkor quality is worth the money.

 

[JTPhotography]

I owned both the 14-24 and the Tamron 15-30. The Tamron was superior in all respects except for the 1mm extra width.

I no longer use the tamron because of the hassle of filters and I have been trying to simplify my load for travel purposes, so I tried the new tamron 17-35. I had high hopes because this one would fill ALL my requirements. It is being sent back. Just not sharp and the distortion was funky. Not impressed.

 

[Nwcid]

I owned both the 14-24 and the Tamron 15-30. The Tamron was superior in all respects except for the 1mm extra width.

I no longer use the tamron because of the hassle of filters and I have been trying to simplify my load for travel purposes, so I tried the new tamron 17-35. I had high hopes because this one would fill ALL my requirements. It is being sent back. Just not sharp and the distortion was funky. Not impressed.

Thank you for the reply. I am learning toward the Tamron as it seems like most of the lenses in this class will have trouble with filters. For the time being filters are a secondary consideration for me.