Wide Angle lenses

[destrekor]

So, I'm really looking into breaking out my SLR for landscape/abstract photography, and realized exactly how much I am missing a wide angle lens. That and it'd be a nice bonus for the photography class I am in.. and on that note, sadly, it's a color intro course with prints done at labs. The next classes are b&w in darkrooms! That's what my intro photo course in high school did and loved it... so much that I've effectively stayed far away from the digital photo field and partly despise it, mostly because it can remove the artsy intuition. Now, for photography thats not trying to imitate art, that's fine. But I dislike photojournalism and portrait work, sticking to landscape/nature photography, and abstract work.

And mind you, I don't have any kind of pro-level body, just a entry-to-mid level consumer camera... my Nikon N65.
The two lenses I have right now came with the camera/kit when I bought it on ebay. Both Tamron lenses too... a 28-80mm (fastest at 28mm, at F3.5, but for some reason, at longer focal lengths it won't stay that open... mind you, this is an auto film body) and a 70-300mm with macro (fastest at F4.5, and maintains that throughout the focal lengths).

Getting back to the discussion. I want a good wide angle lens that won't break the bank.
Right now, at a local photo store, I can pick up a used Nikon 20mm f2.8 prime for $300. Pretty good deal for a Nikon lens like that, has some great construction. Then, just something I found online, is a Nikon 17-35 F2.8, but that is over $1000! Tamron makes one with the same specs (17-35, F2.8) and I can find it for under $300... but how much worse is it than the Nikon?
My high school photo teacher noted how sharp my photos were (noting my lens, although I stuck to my 28-80 lens for most of the assignments), so my Tamron lenses can't be that bad, and I've heard Tamron is one of the better third-party lens manufacturers. But the Nikon 17-35 is highly touted at by ken rockwell at his website (although, if he is a great reviewer or not, I don't know, seems to know his details though). So if I can get anything of that caliber from Tamron, is kind of the main question. Or if there is something else in the more affordable range.

+

 

[AndrewR]

You might want to do some digging over at Nikonians for some lens information. You could also try fredmiranda.com for some lens reviews. When I was seriously considering Nikon, the Nikonians site was very helpful. I used to peruse Fredmiranda quite a bit but haven't been there in awhile.

Given your choices and knowing very little about the lenses in particular, I'd be inclined to pick up the 20mm prime lens. My prime lenses (Minolta 28mm, 50mm, and 100mm) are all extremely sharp and produce wonderful images. Zooms are definitely nice, but the results from my primes are amazing.

I just did some minor digging, and there are three versions of the 20mm f/2.8 that you're likely looking at -- a MF version, the first AF version, and the AF-D version. All are comparable and well regarded from the two reviews I glanced at (Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan). Ken Rockwell referenced the Nikon 17-35 as being superior, but obviously the price is much higher. It doesn't sound like the 20mm would be a bad purchase at all but check the glass thoroughly as Thom Hogan mentioned that it is easily scratched (glass is not well protected by the body -- I have a Minolta lens like that).

Oh, one minor thing on your 28-80...The lens won't stay at f/3.5 throughout the zoom range because it's not a constant aperture lens, though the other one appears to be (surprising in a consumer grade telephoto even at 4.5). Anyway, there are two types of zooms, constant and variable. The constant ones list a single aperture, say f/4, and that is the maximum aperture at any focal length. The variable ones will typically say f/3.5-4.5 which gives the maximum aperture at wide angle and then the maximum aperture when zoomed somewhere along the focal length (they usually switch to the larger number fairly quickly in the zoom range). Constant aperture lenses are obviously preferable, but they are more expensive and typically much heavier especially with long focal lengths.

 

[soydios]

As long as it's not a DX lens, then it will work on your film body. I remember high school photo class and the black-and-white darkroom as well; good times.

 

[dug777]

The Tokina 12-24mm seems pretty cool...I'm tempted to pull the trigger.

 

[spikespiegal]

That's what my intro photo course in high school did and loved it... so much that I've effectively stayed far away from the digital photo field and partly despise it, mostly because it can remove the artsy intuition.

So, because you're too stubborn to convert to digital you're forcing yourself to resort to either trashy mini-lab film/print processing, or playing with stop bath and obsolete B&W films?

What happens when you want to shoot a quality landscape on color materials? I guess you have to buy a $1000 film scanner. Or, join the club that declares grainy, B&W film shots as legitimate 'fine art' simply because you'll never be able to figure out how to process/print in color. At least that's been their excuse for the past 30years.

Personally I'd rather get an entry level dSLR, do some pano sweeps, and make your film instructor look like a complete boob. Otherwise, none of the lenses you mention here are really that spectacular and won't transition to digital well in the future, unless you get a Nikon D3.

If you insist on sticking with film I'd ditch 35mm and get a used medium format TLR or rangefinder because wide angle works better on the larger format. Plus, the quality difference between 35mm B&W and 6x6 or 6x7 B&W is extreme. Buying 35mm SLR gear seems like a waste of money in my book.

 

[dug777]

Nothing to stop him buying some Velvia 50 and getting a decent processing lab to handle it

That'll knock the socks out of pretty much anything this side of a 1DS Mk111, iirc.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

That's what my intro photo course in high school did and loved it... so much that I've effectively stayed far away from the digital photo field and partly despise it, mostly because it can remove the artsy intuition.

So, because you're too stubborn to convert to digital you're forcing yourself to resort to either trashy mini-lab film/print processing, or playing with stop bath and obsolete B&W films?

What happens when you want to shoot a quality landscape on color materials? I guess you have to buy a $1000 film scanner. Or, join the club that declares grainy, B&W film shots as legitimate 'fine art' simply because you'll never be able to figure out how to process/print in color. At least that's been their excuse for the past 30years.

Personally I'd rather get an entry level dSLR, do some pano sweeps, and make your film instructor look like a complete boob. Otherwise, none of the lenses you mention here are really that spectacular and won't transition to digital well in the future, unless you get a Nikon D3.

If you insist on sticking with film I'd ditch 35mm and get a used medium format TLR or rangefinder because wide angle works better on the larger format. Plus, the quality difference between 35mm B&W and 6x6 or 6x7 B&W is extreme. Buying 35mm SLR gear seems like a waste of money in my book.

35mm B&W processed correctly is still better then Digital and by no means is obsolete, you wont see it in scans, its in the prints, even the most advanced printers cant emulate Silver Geletin perfectly yet nor can digitals pull in 10 stops of DR

Color is another story, getting the film processed at a lab, be it a pro lab or a quick lab is pretty much the same, i can and do print my own color images, i know how to color correct by hand and all that, the only issue with it is finding someplace that has a color printer/enlargers as the printer itself costs fuck ton of money, however digital is just so much easier and just as good, color film will die out before B&W does


many places still teach intro corses for color on film/slide because almost everyone has a film SLR or can get one for like 100$ used, the concepts are all the same on film as digital, comp/exposure/color.....ect, its easier then requireing people to buy a DSLR

same with darkroom courses for B&W

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

That's what my intro photo course in high school did and loved it... so much that I've effectively stayed far away from the digital photo field and partly despise it, mostly because it can remove the artsy intuition.

So, because you're too stubborn to convert to digital you're forcing yourself to resort to either trashy mini-lab film/print processing, or playing with stop bath and obsolete B&W films?

What happens when you want to shoot a quality landscape on color materials? I guess you have to buy a $1000 film scanner. Or, join the club that declares grainy, B&W film shots as legitimate 'fine art' simply because you'll never be able to figure out how to process/print in color. At least that's been their excuse for the past 30years.

Personally I'd rather get an entry level dSLR, do some pano sweeps, and make your film instructor look like a complete boob. Otherwise, none of the lenses you mention here are really that spectacular and won't transition to digital well in the future, unless you get a Nikon D3.

If you insist on sticking with film I'd ditch 35mm and get a used medium format TLR or rangefinder because wide angle works better on the larger format. Plus, the quality difference between 35mm B&W and 6x6 or 6x7 B&W is extreme. Buying 35mm SLR gear seems like a waste of money in my book.

don't act like such a snob. nothing pisses me off more in photography than snobs.

I personally prefer B&W over color anyhow. Color photography will very much end up going all digital, but as an art, I prefer getting hands on in the darkroom. Someone who is on the way to mastering the darkroom will put basically all digital prints to shame, especially if they happen to be damned fine with the camera too.
To me, the art is in the personal touch and creativity in the darkroom. Digital doesn't come anywhere near that, as the digital darkroom tools are a bitch and personally, I just don't like them nor feel they remotely come close to duplicating a real darkroom.

And no, I never said my lenses will be good for getting into selling my material, but this is all the learning. Plus, good lenses are never a waste of money because when you sell them, you can often sell them back years later for what you paid, maybe a little loss, or even profit. That's why I don't want to buy any more third party lenses if I can afford good lenses.

And you knock me down before knowing anything about my intentions.
I plan on getting a good medium format camera sometime down the line, but understand as a college student, I don't have the money to spend on this hobby, at least not in the way I'd like to.
But seeing as medium format is an expensive field, I'd rather make progress with my 35mm and then move up. Yes, I'd rather do landscapes with a medium format because of how much those shots blow away film.

I won't be doing much on my own as far as the hobby goes, until I get my own place and can construct a darkroom.

For me, who is looking into the more artistic nature of landscape photography, film is always going to be what I want. Notice I didn't say anything about shying from digital for everything. It has its purposes, and if I'm not shooting for the art, and just documenting or just want some nice color photos, then a higher end DSLR will do the trick. And I'll eventually pick up a Nikon DSLR so my lenses can be used with that too.

as far as the 'fine art' excuse.... I don't see where you find room to complain. Grainy B&W landscape photography, in my eyes, blows away a lot of color photography, but in general color is nicer. But the art, capturing the mood, contrast, and just general feel... B&W feels superior and as backward as it seems, offers a more dynamic punch of power. Correct filters need to be used to draw that out, but thats why its art... B&W photography, processed in your darkrooms... to be considered art, a LOT more effort goes into each photo than a comparable color photo. But some scenes demand color, and yes I agree.
That's why I'd prefer to have two SLRs, or maybe in that instance a DSLR for the color as having two film SLRs just seems pointless unless money was flowing out of my pockets. I'd want most photos of mine to be B&W, but sometimes the dynamic colors in some vista scenes is powerful too and requires color.
If I were shooting with film, I wouldn't mind finding a good custom lab where I could get personal with them and get great results. It's not difficult to work with a lab on individual prints if you can become acquainted with those that run the lab.


Photography is definitely split into two camps, and what your individual drive is as far as content kind of determines where you stand automatically. If you need the response of a digital camera, or want the digital manipulation offered, or just want the ease of knowing your shots turn out, then that's great. Either you strive to have an expensive printer of your own or still take it to labs to get developed. It seems you personally just don't agree with the artistic nature of B&W, so it's understandable that you essentially detest film. I, on the other hand, would prefer to sell art in the future... Ansel Adams is my hero. Man was a master in the darkroom and his photos all show it. To deny his material is art would just be speaking blasphemy in the photography industry...

+

 

[finbarqs]

Hey this thread is going to turn ugly... we both know that. I started my photography career in the darkroom. My first SLR was a Nikon FE (the electronic version of their full manual camera) What a great litttle camera. I had 3 lenses with it: 135mm, 28mm, and a 50mm. 135mm, and the 28 were fastest at 2.8 while the 50 was at 1.4 (mind you these lenses works on my D300 with full metering capabilitY)

I've done the whole Dektol, Stop bath, bla bla bla. (To be honest i forgot the process, but i can always pull up my notes since it has only been a year ago). I've used good ol' fashion ISO 125, 400, 3200, and Infrared film. In then i Have to use the stupid contrast filters if I wanted to increase my contrast. The problem is, to get one print out, takes me about maybe 10-15 minutes (okay so i underdevelop some prints). Test strips, what a PIA. But I loved it during my intro to photography class. I mean, My camera did not even have a manual focus! All prime lenses, aperture ring, and shutter dial. What a FUN time I had! All my shots were somewhat grainy in the final results. It could've been the way I developed my negatives, because No matter what I did during the enlargement process, it came out grainy. (doing a standard 8x10 print).

Next photoclass: old questions answered. This class was labeled "professional photography". And guess what? I started using the 4x5 cameras! Yes! Talk about film, this is one of the holy grail of all cameras. The mechanics back then have the same mechanics they have today. FULLY Mechanical, not electonic at all! no batteries or anything at all! Fucking with the bellows will get you, 'cause then you need to start calculating for light fall-off. And tilting the front pane and such to get proper focus can be a bitch. Oh yeah. F/64! holy cow that is amazing! BUT prints were finall SHARP. No grain, just perfect sharpness... To the naked eye, as sharp as digital prints! During the same class, I also shot with a Hasselblad medium format camera (which i processed the negatives in my own home-- you can too! just buy the solutions and watch your temps and time!) and a Asahi Pentax 6x7 medium format (125) ALL film.

Now in my FE camera, i have kodachrome 64, but I think digital is taking over... And the whole ordeal about being in the darkroom, getting a "feel" of your work... Well... I believe that's all preference. You just have to learn the digital darkroom. (photoshop or whatever you wanna use). You can put just as much personal touch and creativity in the digital darkroom as well as in a regular darkroom. Ansel Adams shot on a 8x10 camera. He had the priviledge to shoot at f/128. F/128! imagine that! I thought F/64 was sharp, but jeez. F/128... forget about it! But hey, I can't knock you down for liking the regular darkroom. My dad grew up developing prints for my grandfather for a living. It was the family business. In fact, he got to the point where he didn't need a test strip anymore. He just looked at the negative and gave it the proper exposure, contrast, and development time! But it's really immature to knock one down over the other without fully exploring both ends of a the stick and coming to a conclusion.. That would be prejudice and biased!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
Ansel Adams shot on a 8x10 camera. He had the priviledge to shoot at f/128. F/128! imagine that! I thought F/64 was sharp, but jeez. F/128... forget about it!

f/128?? :Q

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: finbarqs
Ansel Adams shot on a 8x10 camera. He had the priviledge to shoot at f/128. F/128! imagine that! I thought F/64 was sharp, but jeez. F/128... forget about it!

f/128?? :Q

I want to see what the lens looks like, and the aperture blades.

I didn't know 8x10 cameras had that kind of aperture. But I guess, with that size, it kind of makes sense. I now want both a medium format and an 8x10 large. Would be awesome! Expensive too. Going to be forever till I realize those dreams.

+

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: finbarqs
Ansel Adams shot on a 8x10 camera. He had the priviledge to shoot at f/128. F/128! imagine that! I thought F/64 was sharp, but jeez. F/128... forget about it!

f/128?? :Q

I want to see what the lens looks like, and the aperture blades.

I didn't know 8x10 cameras had that kind of aperture. But I guess, with that size, it kind of makes sense. I now want both a medium format and an 8x10 large. Would be awesome! Expensive too. Going to be forever till I realize those dreams.

+

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f9.htm

they look A LOT different then you would ever think

because of the distance from the lens to the image plane in a 4x5, 8x10... is so much longer then in a 35mm, it can be over a foot from lens to image plane, the lenses dont need anywhere near the glass to focus the image

i have a 4x5 camera i could sell you, less expensive then a new DSLR

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: finbarqs
Ansel Adams shot on a 8x10 camera. He had the priviledge to shoot at f/128. F/128! imagine that! I thought F/64 was sharp, but jeez. F/128... forget about it!

f/128?? :Q

I want to see what the lens looks like, and the aperture blades.

I didn't know 8x10 cameras had that kind of aperture. But I guess, with that size, it kind of makes sense. I now want both a medium format and an 8x10 large. Would be awesome! Expensive too. Going to be forever till I realize those dreams.

+

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f9.htm

they look A LOT different then you would ever think

because of the distance from the lens to the image plane in a 4x5, 8x10... is so much longer then in a 35mm, it can be over a foot from lens to image plane, the lenses dont need anywhere near the glass to focus the image

i have a 4x5 camera i could sell you, less expensive then a new DSLR

I'd say I'm interested, but right now it'd just be a waste of money as I'd never get around to using it. They require a lot of set up and aren't something you just tote around. It would be something where I'd take a shot somewhere with an SLR or medium format, and decide it would be amazing re-shot with a large format. But yeah, it's just not something I'm prepared to handle at this point as I don't have my own dark room and thus obviously no equipment... and I don't know if I'd want to take 4x5 film to be developed at an expensive pro lab.
Maybe later in my life.

Now, deals on a medium format camera, I may be more prone to jump on. Depends if I want to get a wide angle lens first for my SLR, or get a medium format. Still, the pro lab development isn't something I want to deal with... I'd feel like I had no control once it left my camera.

+