Wide angle lens help

[photo1x1.com]

I took a look at the exif data. That image was shot with the 14-24mm f2.8 lens at 14mm.
BUT: it doesn´t look nearly that wide to my eye. I think the photographer cropped the image pretty much, so the perceived focal length is somewhere near 24mm I´d say. I´m curious to what others would suggest.

BTW: did you know that you can create a sun-star, stopping down the aperture to about f16-22? That will create a cool effect, I particularely love that for skiing shots. But it comes with a drawback: you loose light and therefore shutter speed, plus a little sharpness from diffraction (if you are interested in diffraction, here is a short comparison of different f-stops - I´ve created that years ago to showcase diffraction).

Awesome! Didn't know you could pull that info out of that photo. Can you recommend a 14-24 f2.8 lense? Is auto focus an option?

You can do that with a lot of photos in the net, but not all. Save the image, open it in photoshop (that´s what I do, there sure are other programs) and look at the file info/camera Data. You can learn a lot from that.
What you can´t always be sure is the focal length, because the photographer may have cropped more or less.

I don´t know that lens, I´m sorry. But it doesn´t have a filter thread, so for my type of shooting (loving polarizer filters), I wouldn´t buy it.
For wideangle shots autofocus usually works pretty well, because everything from around 2m to infinity has the same focus setting (infinity). That said, you can usually set the focus to manual (infinity) and that will be fine.

 

[Frank F.]

The 14-24/2.8 is an awesome lens that costs about 1900 US$ new. I mentioned it earlier in the Bugatti comparsion.

You can of course read the article and find, that prefocussing is a good option for slower cameras.

My intuition tells me that a used 18/3.5 Ai and a used D3 would be the best way to the results you want.

The 14-24 has no filter option not in the front not in the back and the Lee filters are exceptionally expensive

 

[dennybeall]

I have a Nikon D5300 and my goto, always on the camera when it's in the bag, is the 18-140. The low end (18mm) is wide enough for most times and the far end (140) is good enough for most times. Not perfect and not a top of the line lens but good. For wide angle I picked up a Sigma 10-20mm for a good price. Once again not a top of the line lens but good.
You can spend a lot more money and get better equipment but if cost is a factor these are some good choices.
One IMPORTANT fact though is that this combination is not something you can stick in your pocket. It's a full size DSLR with a pretty significant lens (18-140) attached.

 

[emt123]

I've seen that lens but I'm hoping to spend less than $1000...

 

[petrochemist]

Regarding distortion: true, Distortion starts to become visible at 16mm (24mm full frame). But that doesn't mean you automatically get that fisheye effect. That is made by dedicated lenses. There is a huge difference between a 15mm fisheye, and a 16mm wideangle lens (both speaking full frame).

Another thing to consider: you mention landscapes. In my opinion, you absolutely have to get a polarizer filter. Not every really wide wideangle lens has a thread that enables you to attach one. Make sure to check before you buy.

I do like the idea of buying a used top sports camera like the D3. However, you are able to get decent wideangle lenses for DX bodies nowadays, so wideangle would not be the reason why I'd go fullframe. There are other great reasons though, like shallow depth.

There are huge differences between a 10mm rectilinear & a 10mm fish-eye. But even the 10mm fish eye doesn't have to give the highly distorted fish-eye look. Careful framing can minimize it so it's barely noticeable & software can apparently be used to de-fish the image in post processing (I've never tried that).

Polarisers are great but they ca give very noticeable artifacts in the sky when used with wide angle lenses.

In most cases I'd expect an 18mm lens to be as wide as you'd want. To make the most of that you'll have to really get close, which makes framing a real challenge with moving subjects.

Although it's tempting to get the full kit right at the start, you are better of getting familiar with the basics, and finding out where you want a bit more. That could turn out to be longer or shorter focal lengths, faster focusing, faster lenses, a speedlight, or higher ISO ability.... So much depends on the situation but your initial kit looks like a reasonable starting set-up.

 

[Frank F.]

true words spoken by petrochemist.

the better you know your equipment the better the results you can get

yet it is very important for me that the equipment behaves as expected. reproducibly.

that is the reason why I recommend the used Mercedes instead of the new Fiat. I needed 1 year to get used to the D70, the D7000, the D600 but it took 5 minutes to get used to the D3 and 15 minutes to get used to the D500. Professional equipment does what it is supposed to do and nothing else.

 

[emt123]

What are your collective thoughts on this lens? I know it's not the best but for myself, being a beginner, the price point is where I want to be at.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007...kina+11-16&dpPl=1&dpID=511SUb0o8FL&ref=plSrch

 

[Frank F.]

I had a Tokina 12.24/4 for Nikon in the past and it was superb. Tank-like built and very good optically. The only brand apart from Zeiss and Nikon I trust. There are several tests online. Look: Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX II Canon and Nikon mount lens reviews: popular high-speed zoom revised | DxOMark

 

[table1349]

Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art | Sigma Corporation of America

Review: Sigma Hits a Home Run with the New 12-24mm f/4 ART Lens

The New Sigma 12-24mm f/4 ART Full Frame Lens - No Distortion? | cinema5D

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM Lens Review

 

[beagle100]

↑
↑
↑
I'm hel DSLR.

Yea, I'm pretty new. I've used an older 35mm slr off and on for a few years, without ever changing lenses or modifying it in any way. I can barely shoot in manual mode. That's why I'm getting the DSLR. I can run through different shutter, aperture, and ISO settings and get instant feedback so hopefully I'll learn faster. And for the things I want to do like: snowboard photography, night sky, landscape... it seems like everyone is rocking a wide angle lens. There's just so many options, I really just need someone to say hey, here's a few wide angle lens options for under $1000.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


OK, I'll say it. hey, there's a wide angle lens option for under $1,000. it's only $199
(Canon 10-18 refurbished)

 

[table1349]

The Canon 10-18 works well on the Nikon D5300 does it?

 

[beagle100]

The Canon 10-18 works well on the Nikon D5300 does it?

people paying $1,000 for a $199 wide angle lens ............ crazy



(Red Skelton would laugh (or cry)

 

[table1349]

The Canon 10-18 works well on the Nikon D5300 does it?

people paying $1,000 for a $199 wide angle lens ............ crazy

Not near as crazy as being judgmental about what others do for their passions.

 

[photo1x1.com]

I own the Tokina 11-16 2.8 DXII - I have been on a lookout once for a very decent wideangle on a crop sensor video camera (my first 4K Videocamera from blackmagic). This lens was the best value for money back then. It had amazing reviews, that´s why I bought it. I was very satisfied with the results I´ve got. However, that video camera was manual focus only, so I can´t tell you much in regard to focus speed. Its build is very solid and it feels like a great lens.
In general one can say that third party manufacturers like Tokina and Sigma, but also others have (almost) closed the gap to Canon and Nikon in regard to image and build quality. Especially when you compare lenses in the same price range.

 

[Ihatemymoney]

The crop factor
I have never owns a Nikon camera , strictly canon .
One is a cropped body the canon t3I the other is a full frame a canon 5D II

I guess that the Nikon D5300 is a cropped body .
A cropped body camera doesn't change the mm of the lens .. If I put a 24 mm lens on my T3I
its still a 24 mm lens ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you can put on a 1.4 extender and that changes the lenses MM.
But a cropped camera it changes the field of view of the lens , because the cameras censor is smaller then a full framed cameras censor ..
If I put my 17mm lens on ,my canon t3I then its around 24mm field of view ........
What ever you are photographing it might give the illusion that its closer , but its not , its just the field of view is narrower .
My t3i is a 1.6 crop take the mm of the lens times it by 1.6 and that is what the field off view is .
Allot of people don't understand how to equate the crop factor in and it gets debated or argued .