and please use their services
What lenses
- Thread starter Floydsong
- Start date
D
Deleted member 34016
Guest
look at the Sigma 10-20mm ideal for landscapes
Les
Les
- Messages
- 11,272
- Name
- Jak
- Edit My Images
- No
good performer
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why?
35mm s the 'normal' angle of view for an APS-C sensor camera; 135mm is as tele-photo as 200mm on full-frame/35mm film. 18mm as 'wide' as 27mm on FF/35film. Ie, what you have, as far as field of view coverage in that lens, is as much wide and as much telephoto as most ever had from a camera, usually with to or three lenses or more!!! It's certainly covering the largest portion of the most used, most useful 'range'... WHAT are you struggling with that makes you think that you need 'more'?
Shorter than 18mm, and you are into the realms of Ultra-Wide-Angle lenses and 'Fish-Eyes', and they are damnably tricky lenses to get to grips with, and get pleasant results, and more so the wider you go.
More Land, seldom a better Landscape makes; ironically a mild tele, framing less real estate often captures more of the drama and impact you perceive 'on the spot'. Tele's very succinctly 'add impact' cropping out clutter and 'zooming in' on the subject of interest in a scene, focusing the viewer's attention on it, 'simplifying' the scene and making it easier to interpret. Risk with wide's is that they 'shrink' the subject of interest, give it less emphasis, and collect clutter to distract, often making for a lot more 'boring' in the picture and a lot more 'confusion'.
Tele's natural tighter framing and 'enlargement' of subject elements, almost automatically deliver 'better' photo's delivering in the picture that 'bit' of the scene that grabs your attention. They 'almost' do the job of getting the picture you imagine for you, without you having to work for it. Wides, and worse Ultra-Wides are the opposite. zooming out, shrinking everything, throwing it all further from the viewer, MAKE work for you, and a lot of it. You need to be an awful lot more diligent and considerate, assessing the whole scene, and there's that much more to consider, working out what is a significant subject, what is interesting detail, what is incidental detail and what is distracting detail, and be that much more critical with your framing to include what adds and exclude what distracts from your scene, AND find the view point and angle that emphases your subject, and deliver's the 'interest' you hope to capture. In this, wides start to become significantly 'un-helpful', more demanding and more challenging to use.
Oft said, but wides forte isn't cramming in big spaces, but expanding small ones. Working up close, and exploiting the 'Depth' they reveal in a scene, rather than the breadth.
Have a look at tutorial/into Ultra-Wide-Angle vs Kit & Stitch, Used with a little care and attention you can likely get a lot more better shots with that, than you will with an ultra-wide, and for 'occasional' opportunities you really want wider, and can make it work, a little considerate shooting to stitch can get you as wide, or wider than you would with a UWA. BUT if you cant, wont or don't put in that care and attention with the 18-135, you are likely on a hiding to no-where with a UWA that will demand even more care and attention to get anything from it. And you are likely to get more, and better results, working with what you have and learning to exploit the potential it has, than hoping something else, will serve it to you with the credit card receipt.
Which takes us back to the top, and before asking what wider lens, WHY do you want a wider lens? And what do you hope it will do for you?
35mm s the 'normal' angle of view for an APS-C sensor camera; 135mm is as tele-photo as 200mm on full-frame/35mm film. 18mm as 'wide' as 27mm on FF/35film. Ie, what you have, as far as field of view coverage in that lens, is as much wide and as much telephoto as most ever had from a camera, usually with to or three lenses or more!!! It's certainly covering the largest portion of the most used, most useful 'range'... WHAT are you struggling with that makes you think that you need 'more'?
Shorter than 18mm, and you are into the realms of Ultra-Wide-Angle lenses and 'Fish-Eyes', and they are damnably tricky lenses to get to grips with, and get pleasant results, and more so the wider you go.
More Land, seldom a better Landscape makes; ironically a mild tele, framing less real estate often captures more of the drama and impact you perceive 'on the spot'. Tele's very succinctly 'add impact' cropping out clutter and 'zooming in' on the subject of interest in a scene, focusing the viewer's attention on it, 'simplifying' the scene and making it easier to interpret. Risk with wide's is that they 'shrink' the subject of interest, give it less emphasis, and collect clutter to distract, often making for a lot more 'boring' in the picture and a lot more 'confusion'.
Tele's natural tighter framing and 'enlargement' of subject elements, almost automatically deliver 'better' photo's delivering in the picture that 'bit' of the scene that grabs your attention. They 'almost' do the job of getting the picture you imagine for you, without you having to work for it. Wides, and worse Ultra-Wides are the opposite. zooming out, shrinking everything, throwing it all further from the viewer, MAKE work for you, and a lot of it. You need to be an awful lot more diligent and considerate, assessing the whole scene, and there's that much more to consider, working out what is a significant subject, what is interesting detail, what is incidental detail and what is distracting detail, and be that much more critical with your framing to include what adds and exclude what distracts from your scene, AND find the view point and angle that emphases your subject, and deliver's the 'interest' you hope to capture. In this, wides start to become significantly 'un-helpful', more demanding and more challenging to use.
Oft said, but wides forte isn't cramming in big spaces, but expanding small ones. Working up close, and exploiting the 'Depth' they reveal in a scene, rather than the breadth.
Have a look at tutorial/into Ultra-Wide-Angle vs Kit & Stitch, Used with a little care and attention you can likely get a lot more better shots with that, than you will with an ultra-wide, and for 'occasional' opportunities you really want wider, and can make it work, a little considerate shooting to stitch can get you as wide, or wider than you would with a UWA. BUT if you cant, wont or don't put in that care and attention with the 18-135, you are likely on a hiding to no-where with a UWA that will demand even more care and attention to get anything from it. And you are likely to get more, and better results, working with what you have and learning to exploit the potential it has, than hoping something else, will serve it to you with the credit card receipt.
Which takes us back to the top, and before asking what wider lens, WHY do you want a wider lens? And what do you hope it will do for you?
- Messages
- 6,469
- Name
- Ned
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A lot of what uncle Ken says can be ignored but this is actually a good article:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
I would read it before deciding if you REALLY want in UWA lens.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
I would read it before deciding if you REALLY want in UWA lens.
- Messages
- 2,392
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Good article, really interesting, should be of interest to the OP, will be interesting to see what he wants to shoot.
- Messages
- 450
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the Canon EFS 10-18 and find it a great lens for the money, I've used it a fair bit and got some very good results with it. I also have a 760D which is the camera I have used it with, not tried it on my other bodies yet.
- Messages
- 308
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a Tamron 10-22mm lens and have used it a few times. Less than I thought I would though to be honest. I 'needed' it to take some photos in a bathroom showroom. The next smallest focal range I have is 24mm which was far too close for my crop sensor.
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
As mentioned above and in the link on UWA lenses, it depends what you want to spend as there are several lenses out there on the market place, But when I had the canon 10-22mm I barely used it, so there was a £600 lens sitting in the draw doing nothing, lucky enough managed to offload it for about what I paid for it. The UWA lenses are difficult to use and achieve decent results. Personally I'd stick with your 18-135mm lens, that lens will stay on your camera 95% of the time.
Thank you all for the help and information. As I said am still very new to dslr and still very much finding my way around f stops and shutter speed and believed I would need a WA lens in order to take better landscape. I do a lot of hillwalking and always carried a Panasonic compact in my pocket. A friend was trying to sell me a WA lens he had but I asked you guys for help first. Glad I did. Think I need to get out more and practice before doing anything.
- Messages
- 4,519
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
You've already got that zoom, so you can explore what different focal lengths do at your leisure, and that'll provide your answer, if you pay attention to the results. Don't rush to buy anything else. It's too soon. The lust after more possessions is a puerile fantasy. Meanwhile, look at the results of others and compare them to your own. There's no magic principle. It's a learning curve. Bend to it, & take your time. Engage.
I'll add to the praise for the Canon 10-18. A pretty unbeatable combination of decent image quality, wide angle of view and stabilisation.
Above all it's cheap and it sounds like you're at a stage in your photography where you're not yet sure what you need so spending as little as possible while you try out the focal lengths and see what works for you is the smart way forward.
The Sigma 8-16 is my favourite crop lens in that range of focal lengths but i wouldnt jump straight in with that lens until you're sure ultra-wide is for you.
Above all it's cheap and it sounds like you're at a stage in your photography where you're not yet sure what you need so spending as little as possible while you try out the focal lengths and see what works for you is the smart way forward.
The Sigma 8-16 is my favourite crop lens in that range of focal lengths but i wouldnt jump straight in with that lens until you're sure ultra-wide is for you.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But not much use to the OP who has a crop sensor camera, and already has a zoom that goes to 18mm.