Wide Angle Lens

Old May 2, 2011, 5:24 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: FL
Programs: AA
Posts: 207
Yes, I'm using a f4-5.6 and here's some samples:

Just to give you an idea as to how wide 10mm is, I was pointing the camera towards the area near the lamp post.






And I also have some more sample shots here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16147315-post20.html
arvin charles is offline  
Old May 3, 2011, 12:04 pm
  #17  
jtn
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: PVG
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by CPRich

The characteristics of an ultra-wide actually make is less beneficial for everyday use, you need to want to use it in the specialized situations that it's suited for, typically landscape/architecture/cityscape/etc, rarely people, sports, events, etc. Below is a recent shot with a 10mm lens, typical of an ultra-wide shot, something very close as an anchor and a wide, sweeping background. (Death Valley, sliding rocks on the Racetrack Playa)
Thank you for posting this. Last year, I bought the Tokina 11-16mm because I wanted to try out wide angle photography. After using it for a couple of weeks though, I put it away because the photos, composition wise, were just blahs....too many things in the picture. (The lens is great though)

But your post inspires me to try it out again and using different techniques to compose a better picture.
jtn is offline  
Old May 3, 2011, 12:38 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 30,959
A good example is the photo of folks at the shoreline above - I bet the 3 folks mid-frame aren't more than 15 feet from the camera (if at 10mm) but are tiny in the image.

It definitely calls for a different mind-view when composing an image and thinking about how to use the lens.
CPRich is offline  
Old May 3, 2011, 1:35 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: FL
Programs: AA
Posts: 207
Originally Posted by CPRich
A good example is the photo of folks at the shoreline above - I bet the 3 folks mid-frame aren't more than 15 feet from the camera (if at 10mm) but are tiny in the image.

It definitely calls for a different mind-view when composing an image and thinking about how to use the lens.
You don't think I knew that when I took the photo? I've been agreeing with you this whole thread in terms of UWAs making everything look farther away and ending up with empty foregrounds.

Some things are done on purpose...You can break the rules if you want to. You can say it's a bad example if my subjects were the 3 people on the shoreline...But they weren't.

IMO, my edges are clean and the fort coming from the bottom left leads your eyes towards the horizon. The rule of thirds was utilized and not only that it captures the scene as I was experiencing it.

Last edited by arvin charles; May 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm
arvin charles is offline  
Old May 4, 2011, 8:17 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 1,033
It is certainly true that UVW lenses require practise and some compositional thought but they give a lot of options that are just not available with other lenses. Some situations where they are very good:

* Showing depth
* Emphasizing perspective and difference in size
* Emphasizing motion
* Working in cramped spaces

Below are some examples from a recent trip to Hanoi. I am not saying that the shots are necessarily very good but they work in the sense that they would not have been possible with other lenses and they also show what I intended to show (all shot with a Nikon D300 and Nikon 12-24 mm at 12 mm; making the effective focal length 18 mm):


One Night in Hanoi by monojussi, on Flickr


Dinner Time by monojussi, on Flickr


Say Hi to Uncle Ho by monojussi, on Flickr


The House on the Corner by monojussi, on Flickr

I have made it a habit to walk around with just one lens with me. A full day in Hanoi with the 12-24 mm lens (at 12 mm most of the time) forced me to think about the composition and story telling in the images and IMHO helped me take better photos.

Cheers,
T.
Thalassa is offline  
Old May 8, 2011, 5:41 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: WN A+ CP, UA 1MM/*A Gold, Mar LT Tit, IHG Plat, HH Dia
Posts: 6,282
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies
Currently using a Nikon D3100 (great camera, btw), and have been thinking about purchasing a wide-angle lens. Can anybody recommend something that would work well for landscape, city scenes, etc? I've seen a few lenses on B&H, but would like to see what my fellow FTers are using..
I use Nikon's 16-85mm as the main lens on my D60. I find that 16mm is wide enough for many of the landscape and cityscape pictures I want to capture. It's a useful range and a fairly sharp lens.

For when 16mm is not wide enough I also carry the Sigma 10-20mm. It's not as sharp as the Nikon 12-24 or 10-24 lenses but it's good enough and less than half the price.

The 10-20 was the first lens I bought after the 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera. I used to swap between those two lenses frequently. When I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 16-85 I found that I needed the 10-20 a lot less frequently. Simply put, the difference between 16mm and 18mm is huge for me. I shoot a large number of shots in that range.
darthbimmer is offline  
Old May 9, 2011, 9:08 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 30,959
Originally Posted by arvin charles
You don't think I knew that when I took the photo? I've been agreeing with you this whole thread in terms of UWAs making everything look farther away and ending up with empty foregrounds.
Apologies if you somehow were offended by this. I was simply pointing out to the OP, who I assume does not understand the unique characteristics of a UWA, the effect that this type of lens has. Unless you have experience with it, it's unlikely you would guess the dimensions being shown.

If you prefer, I can use my Death Valley shot above - the middle of the frame (looking top to bottom) is probably about 3 feet away and the black hills at the top left are probably 50 feet way.

I save my photo critiques/commentary for Photosig.
CPRich is offline  
Old May 11, 2011, 7:55 pm
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,558
Thanks to everybody for their suggestions! I decided to go with the Sigma 10-20mm, and it seems like it will be a great lens. Very excited to use it in Hawaii, next Friday ^
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Jul 14, 2011, 10:15 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: FL
Programs: AA
Posts: 207
Originally Posted by CPRich
Apologies if you somehow were offended by this. I was simply pointing out to the OP, who I assume does not understand the unique characteristics of a UWA, the effect that this type of lens has. Unless you have experience with it, it's unlikely you would guess the dimensions being shown.
No worries and no offense taken. And you're absolutely right that it takes a different frame of mind when shooting with a UWA.

Originally Posted by FriendlySkies
Thanks to everybody for their suggestions! I decided to go with the Sigma 10-20mm, and it seems like it will be a great lens. Very excited to use it in Hawaii, next Friday ^
Did you go with the f2.8 or the f4-5.6 version? I personally have the latter and am very happy with it.

Here's some examples I shot last weekend.

13mm, 5 sec exposure, f5.6



11.5mm, f4.2



10mm, f4.0



14mm, f4.8



13mm, f4.5




Just to compare with a normal lens, here's one taken at 25mm:

arvin charles is offline  
Old Jul 17, 2011, 7:36 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,558
Originally Posted by arvin charles
Did you go with the f2.8 or the f4-5.6 version? I personally have the latter and am very happy with it.
I went with the f4-5.6 model, and I love it! While I used to use my standard 18-55 for almost everything, unless using 55-300, I've been using the sigma exclusively. If only it could go 10-55

I'll post some pictures from it when I get a free moment to dig through the drives. My overall impression is 8/10. Only downside is that there is no manual focus switch..
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Jul 17, 2011, 10:38 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 211
I've owned the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 model for about 2 years now with my D80, and I definitely use it a lot while traveling. I really really like the distorted, expansive skies in shots. On the other hand, the distortion of lines and people can sometimes be annoying. I'll maybe post some shots later and some online guides.
future elite is offline  
Old Jul 21, 2011, 3:14 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DCA/IAD
Posts: 135
Duplicate
sfernando is offline  
Old Jul 21, 2011, 3:39 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Shanghai
Programs: BAEC (Gold), PC (Plat), HH (Gold), MR (Gold)
Posts: 2,729
I enjoyed using a Sigma 10-20 for over two years before selling it on eBay for only $30 less than I paid for it initially, upgrading to the Nikon 10-24.
User Name is offline  
Old Jul 22, 2011, 11:51 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ATL/SLC
Posts: 3,540
While definitely not a everyday walk-around lens, an ultra-wide is incredibly fun. My Canon 10-22mm was worth every penny.

MastaHanky is offline  
Old Jul 24, 2011, 8:37 pm
  #30  
Moderator: American AAdvantage
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Wide angles rock - and I really like your approach on the Ubehebe Racetrack!

Originally Posted by CPRich
Assuming you have the standard 18mm lens, I'd suggest that's wide enough for typical use. If you already have something like an 18-55 and a 55-250, covering wide to fairly long, then an ultra-wide would be a candidate for a 3rd lens (along with a >300mm tele or a fast (f/1.8) prime lens.), but it's really optional...
JDiver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.