Wideangle needed with 17-55?

Val

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
161
Reaction score
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I'll also throw in that you might want to look at the Sigma 10-20.
 
Save it up and put it as a downpayment of a house. You claim yourself you don't really need it.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Thanks! - that makes perfect sense now that I think about it.
 
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.
 
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.

How do you mean?
 
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.

I second that.

shooting really wide requires also myself to think more about composition and the angle i point my camera towards the scene.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top