• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Best Wide-Angle lens digital camera?/Lens?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
This thread is more than I asked for, thank you guys so much for your valuable input and it has helped me tremendously!!

My final question I guess(while I skip a mortgage payment to pay for the lens <(*_*<)) is what aperture and ISO/shutter is best for what time of the day?? From my college photography class way back when, I remember lower shutter for night shots, faster shutter if you're on the move and not stationary, and the less aperature the more DOF and the less shutter the more light and higher quality?

<----noob with a noob question I know but bear with me 🙂

Thanks a million zilllion!!!!
Click to expand...

The lower the F#, the wider the aperture on the lens, thus allowing more light.

Typically: Lower light = lower F# = wider aperture = faster shutter speeds = lower ISO/noise, so in other words a F2.8 lens will allow you to keep higher shutter speeds and lower ISO/noise than a F4 lens.

I would say the two most popular UWA zoom lenses for Canon full-frame cameras are the EF 17-40 F4L ($679.00) and EF 16-35 F2.8L MkII ($1450). There are many reviews comparing these two lenses, and typically, those wanting nice WA/landscape shots taken in decent light are just fine by saving $700 and getting the 17-40.

On Canon APSC cameras, I would say the most popular two are the Canon EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 ($690) and the Tokina 12-24 F4 ($500). From what I have read, they are similar in image quality, while the Canon is 2mm wider and has USM, the Tokina is much better built and has constant F4.

Plenty of good reviews here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html.
Click to expand...

Would http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF...&qid=1191184151&sr=1-1 and http://www.amazon.com/Canon-40...qid=1191183921&sr=1-11

Go together? I think this is what I need.

And regarding the 3.5-4.5 F# does that mean I can't go lower or higher? What are the implications?
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct

And regarding the 3.5-4.5 F# does that mean I can't go lower or higher? What are the implications?
Click to expand...

You can always take that number higher (= lower aperture = less light entering camera). It's the lower number that people pay $ more 😉

The F# you see on lens indicate the highest aperture (lowest number) that you can open your lens up to.

So with the lens you linked to, at 10mm, you can have up to F/3.5 But at 22mm, because of the physical constraints of the lens, you are automatically forced to a max of F/4.5
 
The lower the f#, the larger the aperture, and the more light gets in. But, when the aperture is really big or really small, image quality suffers. f/8 is about optimum for most lenses, or f/11.
The slower the shutter speed, the more susceptible you are to camera shake and subject motion blurring the image. The general rule is 1/focal_length to determine your shutter speed (i.e. you need at least 1/50 shutter for a 50mm lens handholding). Obviously, if your technique is good, you can use a slower shutter, like 1/30. If your technique isn't good, you need a faster one, like 1/125. Image stabilization (Canon's IS, Nikon's VR, Sony/Pentax/Olympus built-in) helps to reduce camera shake as well.
For subject motion, you really need to test it. 1/60 is fine for stationary people, but waving hands will blur. 1/125 or 1/250 are a good balance. I was just shooting a horse show, where a minimum of 1/800 was needed to freeze motion. Generally, 1/500 is necessary to stop most motion.
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
So if the maximum f# is 4.5 that means shots like these have too much light and wont work well with these lenses:

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...ruceLee/landscape3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...ruceLee/landscape2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...ruceLee/landscape1.jpg

I want to take horizon shots, so the lowest F# possible for those and day shots or dusk shots with the wide angled lens.

All in all, which body + lens combo am I looking for under 2 grand?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The "f number" is something that confuses a LOT of people because it is actually a fraction.

The f in f/4, f/8, etc stands for the focal length. So if you have a 50mm lens the "f number" actually means 50mm/4, 50mm/8, etc. If you do the actual division, you'll see that 50/4 is larger than 50/8, and this is the reason why f/4 is larger than f/8, and not the other way around. People tend to intuitively think f/8 is larger than f/4 because they don't realize it's a fraction.

"stopping down" means you are making the aperture opening smaller and smaller, meaning you're letting in less and less light (f/2.8 > f/4 > f/5.6 > f/8)

"wide open" is the widest that the lens aperture can open on any particular lens, the point where it lets in the most light it is physically capable of letting in.

If you see a lens like 10-20mm f/4-5.6, f/4-5.6 are your "wide open" apertures. The f/4 is your wide open aperture at 10mm and the f/5.6 is your wide open aperture at 20mm.

Seeing as these are wide open apertures, you can always "stop down" from here. So at 10mm your wide open aperture is f/4, but you can "stop down" to f/5.6, f/8, all the way to, say, f/22. Remember when we said stopping down lets in less and less light?

So if the maximum f# is 4.5 that means shots like these have too much light and wont work well with these lenses:
Click to expand...

If the maximum aperture is f/4.5, and the scene is very bright, you can always "stop down" the lens to let in less light.

The real problem is when the scene doesn't have enough light. Say you're in a very dimly lit room and you need more light to expose a subject. Say you're already shooting at your maximum aperture, f/4.5. Since this is already "wide open," the lens physically can't let in more light, meaning you're going to have to find some other way to let in more light or to make your sensor more sensitive to light (ie. slowing down your shutter speed and increasing your ISO, respectively.)

Body + Lens combo for $2K?
For Canon, 20D/30D/40D + Sigma 10-20mm or Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 12-24mm.
For Nikon, not sure.
For Pentax, not sure.
For all others, not sure.
 
another excellent description of photographic principles from fuzzybabybunny

points to add:
- opening up the aperture (using f/4 instead of f/11, for example) results in less "depth of field", which is the range of distances from the camera that are in focus. for examples, see the pictures in this article (you can stop when it gets to the math behind it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
- as fuzzybabybunny said, aperture is defined as focal length divided by a number. thus, a 50mm lens at f/2 has an aperture (diameter of the adjustable diaphragm opening inside the lens) of 25mm. but, at f/2.8 (one stop down), that same lens has an aperture of 50/2.8 mm, but the *area* of the diaphragm opening is half the size, letting in one less "stop" of light.

the more you do photography, especially if you learn the good old fashioned manual way, you will remember the following series of f/ numbers for aperture: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 (note that each number in the sequence is the previous number multiplied by 1.4, aka the square root of 2)
 
and we use the square root of 2 rather than 2 is because the formula for area of a circle is (pi*d^2)/4
 
Another point about f-stops:

f/4 on a 24mm lens has more depth of field than f/4 on a 50mm or an 85mm lens.

The shorter the lens (smaller mm number; 10mm, 17mm, etc), the more depth of field at any given aperture.

If you can find a lens with DOF marks, you will see a distance scale with the closest focusing range at one end and infinity at the other. Another ring will show f-stops on either side of the in focus indicator. This is mostly manual focus theory, but is still useful with landscape work. You can use this scale to prefocus and know exactly what will be in focus at what aperture. In the image you can see in the image that when shotting at f/22, anything from about 2.1 feet to infinity will be in focus. Just by looking at the DOF scale.

lookie!
 
If you're still unsure about f-stops and DoF and all that, do a Google search for apertures or f-stops. There's a wealth of information out there. Try perusing the tutorials on The Luminous Landscape. I had a great description of apertures, but I unfortunately deleted the link. 🙁

If you're still interested in a body/lens recommendation: Try the new Sony A700 plus the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm. Availability is short right now on the A700, but it's a fantastic camera. That Zeiss lens also has received rave reviews for its exceptional sharpness and colors. It's not ultrawide, but it is a superior lens and gives you wider options than simply an UW vista, which may or may not be the best choice for a landscape/nature shot.
 
Originally posted by: eos
Another point about f-stops:

f/4 on a 24mm lens has more depth of field than f/4 on a 50mm or an 85mm lens.

The shorter the lens (smaller mm number; 10mm, 17mm, etc), the more depth of field at any given aperture.

If you can find a lens with DOF marks, you will see a distance scale with the closest focusing range at one end and infinity at the other. Another ring will show f-stops on either side of the in focus indicator. This is mostly manual focus theory, but is still useful with landscape work. You can use this scale to prefocus and know exactly what will be in focus at what aperture. In the image you can see in the image that when shotting at f/22, anything from about 2.1 feet to infinity will be in focus. Just by looking at the DOF scale.

lookie!
Click to expand...

always wondered how that scale worked. thanks!


Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
What kind of Lens is this? And what settings do you guys think?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071009.html

Remarkable.
Click to expand...

it's a panorama stitched from a couple of photos.
 
screw digital, go with a Shen Hao and a 90mm lens that can stop down to at least F/45

a shorter lens would be ideal, but last i checked a 45mm lens that would stop down to say F/64 cost more then your total budget
 
Hey guys, small update:

I got the D80 with a nikkor 18-200VR.

I tried ordering the Tokina 12-24mm but amazon canceled cause the place they get it from didn't have it I guess.

Anywhere else I can buy this lens that's as credible as Amazon? Or do I need to go local?

Also, is there any 10mm other than Sigma, all the reviews I read lacks sharpness and focus. I want some nice landscapes 🙂 (I'll be shooting at dawn, sunset type things, like car shoots in vast plain fields, I want the horizon to be in the background as I light various sides of the car type thing)
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
Hey guys, small update:

I got the D80 with a nikkor 18-200VR.

I tried ordering the Tokina 12-24mm but amazon canceled cause the place they get it from didn't have it I guess.

Anywhere else I can buy this lens that's as credible as Amazon? Or do I need to go local?

Also, is there any 10mm other than Sigma, all the reviews I read lacks sharpness and focus. I want some nice landscapes 🙂 (I'll be shooting at dawn, sunset type things, like car shoots in vast plain fields, I want the horizon to be in the background as I light various sides of the car type thing)
Click to expand...

There are tons of credible places to buy lenses.

http://cameras.pricegrabber.co...n/sort_type=bottomline

Sigma 10-20mm:

http://cameras.pricegrabber.co...n/sort_type=bottomline

There's definitely a noticable difference in wideness between 10mm and 12mm.
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct

Also, is there any 10mm other than Sigma, all the reviews I read lacks sharpness and focus.
Click to expand...

what reviews were those? SLRgear and photozone seemed to like it plenty.
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
So if my budget was ramped up to $1500, which "body" paired with the most feasible wide-angled lens at my budget, should I choose?


Thank you so much for your help, it's really going to be helping me out a lot.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: corkyg
The best wide angle lens i HAVE USED IS THE Canon EF 16mm f/2.8 L lens mated to an EOS 5D. That is a true 16mm w/a - no multiplication factor.

If that is beyond budget - consider the EFS 10-22mm with the Rebel XTi.
Click to expand...

Thats my choice if any thing, you can get a 30d for the price of an XTI for less then $700

good luck!
 
They said the vignetting is pretty strong once going full 10mm.

By the way, the sigma isn't even available for Nikon cameras. The 10mm that is. The lowest for nikon is 12-24mm right now.

Which kinda sucks 🙁


I'll use my 18-200 for now I guess until they release a 10mm or lower.
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
They said the vignetting is pretty strong once going full 10mm.

By the way, the sigma isn't even available for Nikon cameras. The 10mm that is. The lowest for nikon is 12-24mm right now.

Which kinda sucks 🙁


I'll use my 18-200 for now I guess until they release a 10mm or lower.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... the 12-24mm on the Nikon would be ok. Nikon has a crop factor of 1.5x while Canons have a crop factor of 1.6x. Because the Nikon has a smaller crop factor, the 12-24mm on a Nikon will actually be a bit wider than the 12-24mm on the Canon. The 12-24mm on the Nikon will be equivalent to a 11.25-22.5mm on the Canon. I wouldn't worry about it. The Tokina 12-24mm is an awesome lens that's built like a tank, with a constant f/4 aperture to boot.
 
Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
They said the vignetting is pretty strong once going full 10mm.

By the way, the sigma isn't even available for Nikon cameras. The 10mm that is. The lowest for nikon is 12-24mm right now.

Which kinda sucks 🙁


I'll use my 18-200 for now I guess until they release a 10mm or lower.
Click to expand...

It's not? Then what 10-20 mm do I have in my closet? 😕
 
Ok, didn't want to start a new thread, but I have a similar question, but with a slightly higher budget. I plan to take alot of architecture photos, unfortunately a shift lens is probably too much $$ right now. My options so far:

nikon D300 (or future d80 replacement) + nikon 12-24

Used Canon 5d + EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II (this is probably still too much $$)

canon 40D + 10-22

others? input?
 
Dubb - Go with the 5D and a Sigma 12-24mm. It's got exceptionally low distortion considering how wide it is, and if you want to go with a T/S lens later on you'll already have a FF body. That said, as long as there is a profile for it, you can just use PTlens to correct lens distortion and the try to approximate T/S functions in PS.
 
I looked at the sigma, it doesn't get great reviews, other than being super wide.

well, I guess I'm set on canon since the Nikon wide and ultra wide options seem to be a poor value in comparison. It seems like the 5D is a real step up in price, not just in the body but in the lenses you need as well (FF shows all the flaws of even good lenses) it's looking more and more like 40D+10-22. I don't have the cash to do the 5D setup right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top