1. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hello Peeps,
    After studying and reading a lot about DSLR's and lenses, I've finally come to conclusion to buy
    Sigma 10-20mm 1:4-5.6 EX DC HSM for my Nikon D3200. I'm planning a trip to Europe and have a Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm kit lens. I know its great for landscapes but I do not want to be constrained by lens once I reach there since then there would be no option then.
    Just wanted to know if its the right decision. Also, read somewhere that there is no autofocus and it has to be done from the Camera itself. Need help on this too.
     
  2. GTG

    GTG Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    1,795
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The d3200 has no in-built autofocus motor so will only work with lenses that don't require a body with in-built autofocus motor.

    I cant remember now but I think Nikon call the lenses you need AF-S but different brands call it other names.

    I always have bodies with in-built motors so that is why I'm not 100% sure, but I would study the codes carefully to make sure you get one that will work on the 3200
     
  3. Nawty

    Nawty

    Messages:
    6,215
    Name:
    Ned
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The Sigma equivalent to AF-S is HSM (hyper sonic motor) so if the lens has that in the name it will autofocus fine on your camera. Nowadays it is only really old legacy lenses that won't AF on your camera.

    The only thing I would say with regards to your choice of lens is whether you are sure UWA is really what you want. Applications are limited and they are difficult to get good shots with, I've lost count of the number of crap or formulaic images (especially landscapes) I've seen where people have tried to get a UWA image just because they have a UWA lens and it hasn't worked well.

    Personally I would get a telephoto lens (the Nikon 55-200VR is cheap, good and small - ideal for travelling) but it is a very personal thing
     
    StephenM likes this.
  4. Liam_89

    Liam_89

    Messages:
    154
    Name:
    Liam
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I used to use a Tamron 10-24mm on my D3200 and it was a great lens,
    I used it after upgrading to my D7500 too,
    I decided to sell it and upgrade to the latest version of the 10-24mm to accompany my Sigma 18-35 1.8
    Great lens and can be had reasonably cheap,
    One on eBay at present for £180
    The ultra wide angle would be great for city’s and buildings,
    I even used mine for landscapes too
    Here’s one of mine from the said lens
    https://flic.kr/p/K5JLeY
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  5. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not sure what that means, but I'm only looking to click landscape, sea, lakes and other pictures with a wide angle. After a thorough search ended up on Sigma 10-20mm.
     
  6. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    1,557
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    UWA is ultra wide angle. The thing to remember is using an UWA is not just about being able to get a wider image, you really need (IMO) to pay attention to whats in the foreground.

    I would offer this as a fair example of what might work well though there was a lack of interest in the sky...
    [​IMG]DSC_9494.jpg by Eloise, on Flickr

    I'm no expert however so check out https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm for some guidance.

    The Sigma you chose should work perfectly on your camera.
     
    soeren likes this.
  7. Pazz68

    Pazz68

    Messages:
    37
    Name:
    Brian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A friend of mine bought a Sigma 10-20 and he lent it to me to try out, I was very impressed with the results and bought one myself the following week.

    Had it for a couple of years until I sold it as I'd bought a full frame camera and replaced it with the Nikon 16-35.

    I'd personally recommend it
     
  8. Nawty

    Nawty

    Messages:
    6,215
    Name:
    Ned
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    UWA = ultra wide angle, which is what the 10-20mm lens is.

    And to reiterate my point, UWA lenses aren't really for 'clicking' anything, they are only really useful in certain situations and are difficult to use to get good dramatic perspective (which is what they are for). More often than not you end up with the thing you want to see as a small dot in the background, or crazy you get converging verticals.

    Apologies if I am doing your photography skill a disservice but having travelled the world with expensive UWA lenses in my bag, as often as not they don't get used at all so nowadays I don't bother taking them at all. So, again, be sure that is what you want.

    edit: Ken Rockwell spouts a lot of hyperbolic nonsense but his guide on using UWA is pretty good actually: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
    StephenM and Eloise like this.
  9. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,883
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I normally have the Nikon 24-70mm non vr lens on my camera, that seems to cover most needs, it was the only lens I took on a baltic cruise and didn't need anything else. This time for the fjords it will include the 70-200mm lens as well. I did consider the 80-400 mm nikon lens but decided it is really a tripod lens due to weight, but that is on the Nikon D800 or the Nikon D810. I have to add I am not keen on Sigma lenses on Nikon cameras anyway I don't think you get the best out of the match.

    Remember a smaller field of view is no drawback, as long as you overlap each shot by about a third you can stitch them together in an editing suite like the adobe elements 14 or15 version easily to make a pano shot. Don't get hung up on wide angle lenses

    extreme pano shot of several photos stitched together (about 180 degree angle)

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  10. soupdragon

    soupdragon

    Messages:
    927
    Name:
    Tony
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well, to my mind, taking an additional lens with you would not make much difference regarding weight or bag space required.
    So why not take them both?
     
  11. Birdy06

    Birdy06

    Messages:
    166
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is a good UWA lens too . The second version (DXII) has an internal auto focus motor too so it’ll work with your camera. There is a 11-20mm version too.
     
    Pound Coin and adrianday like this.
  12. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    1,557
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    One thing to note about Sigma lenses (when used on Nikon) is that the zoom ring operates backwards compared with Nikon's own lenses.
     
  13. AgentOrange76

    AgentOrange76

    Messages:
    218
    Name:
    James
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Have look on Nikons website - they have a lens choser app which shows you what you will see from a given position with the choice of lens. It changes the image accordingly. Might change your mind on the need for ultra wide.
    I have the d3400 and my second lens was the 70-300mm to go along with the kit lens. Im tending to use this more then the 18-55mm. I think you would find that more use than a few mm wider. I had a super zoom bridge camera previously and found I would take more photos at the mid range than wide or super long.
     
  14. adrianday

    adrianday

    Messages:
    748
    Name:
    Adrian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Used the first version with a D7000. The only difference is the internal focus motor. I'd highly recommend this lens if you fancy some UWA madness.
     
  15. StephenM

    StephenM I know a Blithering Idiot

    Messages:
    2,731
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Personally, I'd modify that to "great for a certain type of landscape" or even "great for a certain way of photographing a landscape".

    A wide angle lens "gets more in" but it can only do this by making the image of objects smaller - so the mountain in the background shrinks, to let you get more of the lake in the foreground in. This may not be what you want if the mountain is what inspired the photograph.

    A wide angle lens is also (and for the same reason - that it gets more in) more likely to make it obvious if you haven't held the camera straight by magnifying the effect of converging verticals. Possible to use for effect, yes - but you may not want to.

    You can, as already pointed out, get more in by merging multiple exposures.

    Everything depends on how you personally "see" and for landscapes I prefer longer than normal to normal focal lengths. I'm old enough to remember the time that a 20mm lens on full frame was a startling optical achievement (say 16mm in AP-S terms) and landscape photography was both possible and successful before then. You get a different look, it's true - but only (dare I say it) different to the older landscape photographs. Most that I see on forums and the like were taken with wide or ultra wide, possibly because of the reasoning that runs:

    1. You must introduce a feeling of depth into a photograph (query - why always?)
    2. You do this by having a strong foreground object (query - why not use some of the other methods that have the same effect of giving depth?)
    3. Therefore to include the foreground object as well as the scene that attracted you (and which must of necessity be rendered much smaller in the photograph) you need a wide angle lens.

    Apologies for intruding a personal hobby horse; this is mainly a caveat that YOU might not see things in the same way as wideanglers and therefore won't need a tool that isn't needed for your vision.
     
  16. Nawty

    Nawty

    Messages:
    6,215
    Name:
    Ned
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    Nearly always a particularly uninteresting rock...
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
    StewartR and juggler like this.
  17. Andy82

    Andy82

    Messages:
    138
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Do you definitely need it that wide? For City and travel the sigma 17-50 2.8 is decent. I have this lens, its great but quite big and heavy.
     
  18. newbie1

    newbie1

    Messages:
    1,042
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    +1 for reconsidering your focal length.

    For landscape photos that you love, what focal length was used? If you didn’t try and figure that out before you might be surprised by the answers.

    Personally I use a full range of focal lengths choice really depends on the image that I’m going for.
     
  19. Birdy06

    Birdy06

    Messages:
    166
    Edit My Images:
    No
    ... Only if your creativity doesn’t stretch any further. You can’t blame a lens for the content, just the the person behind it.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  20. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thank you everyone!
    The thing is, I'm an amateur photographer and never tried stitching or post processing. Its just a hobby which I plan on making a side income through stock photography. I've never used my 18-55 to its full use but since it'll be my first trip to Europe I wanted something that would eventually capture the complete landscape, be it mountains or lakes. Came across this page and saw some beautiful shots with NIkon D3200 and Sigma 10-20: https://explorecams.com/photos/pair/nikon-d3200=sigma-10-20mm-f4-5-6-ex-dc-hsm
    Already studied about rule of thirds and manual modes including long exposures, night trails and everything. I just want the photos like those on the above pages!
     
    Blythman likes this.
  21. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'll be taking both, my question is should I go for 10-20mm or any other for landscape and travel photography.
     
  22. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    994
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The Nikon Kit 18-55 is an incredibly versatile lens, oft derided for no other reason than its given away almost for free with the camera bodies, and Is a 'cheap' lens... but cheap doesn't have to mean nasty.

    Next up.. beware chasing 'wide' for landscapes... packing more land into a landscape does not more landscape make...... oft means more boring.... as you squash big skies and huge vistas into a tiny frame where nothing leaps out to give impact or drama.

    Most of the old masters used reletively narrow angle lenses, for landscapes; if not 'long' telephoto range lenses to isolates subjects of interest in a big vista, then most often the 'normal' angle lens, like an 80mm on Medium format, or a 50mm on full-frame 35mm, or 35mm on crop-sensor digital. Where 'wide' lenses have been employed, they have rarely been 'ultra' wide as is now in vogue; and on 35mm film cameras of old, few used anything much wider than perhaps 24mm, which is the equivilent of 16mm on crop-sensor digital, and close enough to the range of what you got with the Nik-Kit 18-55.

    In short,. you probably DONT need a wider lens than what you have... and wide lenses are notoriousely difficult to make work. Telephoto's 'zoom in' on a small bit of schene, they inherently deliver pictures with impact, and obviouse 'interest'. Wides grab huge expanses of scene, shrink it all down into the frame, and deminish 'impact' so you, as photographer really have to do that much more work, to make sure you dont have day-glow dogs in the frame, or intrusive litter; they can be infuriating to work with simply NOT reproducing in small scale the drama you see on the spot. A-N-D you get into the realms where the perspective goes skewy and parallel lines start to obviousely bend or converge, and not look like they do on the spot, and the wider you go, the more these niggles start to bite.....

    As said that kit 18-55 is an incredibly versatile lens, and can serve up some cracking shots without too much of a faff. If you want more wide occassionally, too you also have the option of doing it with panorama stitching, taking multiple shots accross a vista, which, can give you as much 'wide' as you want, and far more than you can get even from the widest of UWA's... I have the Sigma 8-16.. the estate agents favorite and about as wide as UWA's go... yet,.. you can get as much wide with the 18-55, in a 3-shot pano-stitch, for no extra cash up front, and a little messing in post-process.. for the few occassions it might serve up the image you imagine. Meanwhile.... that 18-55 is a very useful lens, and NOT having that much wide, it will tend to make you that much more selective of how you shoot, finding the interest and paying attension to the detail you do get in frame, rather than being greedy, grabbing it all in one go, and then being disapointed you have so much 'boring' or that theres so much unwanted 'clutter' or that the pictures just dont have the drama you percieved on the spot.... which may help you develop your craft.

    Oft said that Ultra-Wide lenses aren't about cramming in BIG spaces, but opening up SMALL ones... ie NOT the best for big landscapes, but, as the 8-16, the estate agents favourite, getting into small spaces, where you cant back up to fit more in the frame.

    Think long and hard about whether you would actually get what you hope from a wider lens....... then more still whether, planning a trip to Europe....you will be able to learn how to best exploit that lens before you go.... and how much of your trip you want to spend trying to get to grips with such a demanding bit of kit........

    As to the question of the Sigma 10-20... as long as its a USM version, and I believe they all are, then it does have its own focus motor, and will AF on the D3200 without in body focus motor..... whether you would really miss AF on such a wide lens, especially for big landscapes where you are almost always going to be focusing on Hyper-focal anyway, it's probably pretty much a non-issue........ I have the D3200, and neither my 4.5mm fish or my 8-16UWA get used in AF much anyway! Close focus at such short 'zoom' settings is incredibly close, Depth of Field incredibly deep, and with such a wide vista giving plenty of area for the red-dots to get confuddled by and make the AF motor 'hunt' as the electronics try and work out a focus-distance, its a dang site easier to just turn the ruddy thing off and go by eye anyway! But that Is if you decide you can really make use of a UWA and are prepared to lugg that extra weight around with you every where, on your trip and spend the time it'll demand not just to use, but to get to grips with as well..... That I think remains the main question...... Other than that, the Sigma 10-20 is well regarded, (I'd rate it higher than my twice the price 8-16 TBH) comes in a couple of guises, the earlier f4.5 and later f3.5 OTMH, the earlier version being a little cheaper if you can still get one new, but probably not much cheaper 2nd hand, where many dont recon the extra stop of aperture makes a big difference on such a wide lens anyway, and almost none for landscapes where you will likely be shooting at tighter f-no's anyhow.
     
  23. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    1,557
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Mostly I agree Mike however...
    ...is wrong (IMO). Or at least vice versa is wrong in that a UWA is nothing like a "3-shot pano". Its that thinking which leads to bad UWA photography.

    As the link @Olivia Green showed demonstrates, UWA is about impressive foregrounds much more than wide distance shots. You need to find a strong foreground item which is then put in context by the wider angle.
     
    Olivia Green likes this.
  24. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not sure about the technical part but some of the long exposure shots on that page is what I'm looking for, and it falls under the category of landscape images I assume. Sigma 10-20 is great for it right?
     
  25. jpgreenwood

    jpgreenwood

    Messages:
    807
    Name:
    jason
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I also had the D3200 and kit lens. I upgraded the kit lens to a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4. it goes everywhere with me.
    I also bought the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8-4 and again is a super lens.
    I once travelled to Verona and Venice and only took a 50-200mm Nikon. It was so restrictive and I found I had to stand so far away to get what I wanted, and most of the time, when photographing buildings, it was impossible to get everything in..
    The Sigma will give you more range, slightly wider and longer than your kit lens. Couple this with a 1.4 or 2.0 Teleconverter (TC) would give you more range, is very slimline and easy to travel with.
    Yes it will slow things down a couple of stops with the TC fitted but if you are taking landscapes, nothing is moving anyway so you can take your time to compose and get settled.
     
    Olivia Green likes this.
  26. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    newbie1 likes this.
  27. welshwizard645

    welshwizard645

    Messages:
    1,003
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Be wary though - not all telephoto lenses will take a 2.0x TC, and if you have a Sigma lens, it needs a Sigma TC (unless that has changed with newer lenses as my 180 macro will not take Nikkor TCs)
     
  28. jpgreenwood

    jpgreenwood

    Messages:
    807
    Name:
    jason
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    adrianday likes this.
  29. jpgreenwood

    jpgreenwood

    Messages:
    807
    Name:
    jason
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Not true. My Sigma and Tokina will autofocus with a Kenco Pro 1.4TC.
     
    soeren likes this.
  30. jpgreenwood

    jpgreenwood

    Messages:
    807
    Name:
    jason
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    JACK88 and soeren like this.
  31. welshwizard645

    welshwizard645

    Messages:
    1,003
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    didn't mean AF... my Nikkor TCs will not go on the back ok my Sigma macro 180 unless I want to crack my glass...

    I can't speak for Kenco as it is 3rd party. And IIRC Kenco and Tokina are co-owned
     
  32. Olivia Green

    Olivia Green

    Messages:
    42
    Name:
    Olivia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Aren't Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 10-20 for same purpose? I'm an amateur and was looking for a pre owned Sigma 10-20 and had already got a deal of 4 year old Sigma 10-20 for around $230. :(
     
  33. StephenM

    StephenM I know a Blithering Idiot

    Messages:
    2,731
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've looked at his site, but haven't found any mention of what equipment he uses. Does he say somewhere what lenses he uses, as many of his images don't immediately strike me as requiring an ultra wide angle lens. I presume you have analysed them to determine why you like them, and how the effect can be reproduced (with your own twist, of course)?
     
  34. jpgreenwood

    jpgreenwood

    Messages:
    807
    Name:
    jason
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    They are both wide angle lenses if that is what you mean.
    If you want an all rounder lens good for cityscapes and landscapes, go for the Sigma 17-70. You will be surprised how much more range it will give you over your kit lens, and quality will also be improved.
     
  35. Scirocco_09

    Scirocco_09

    Messages:
    752
    Edit My Images:
    No
    An ultra wide lens isn't a great choice for every landscape, as others have said it can give you striking results if you have a great foreground otherwise it can be better to use longer focal lengths. In mountainous areas an ultra wide lens will make distant peaks look tiny, a long zoom is far better for that type of area as it will emphasise scale. I'd recommend an ultra wide 10-20mm (or 11-16mm if you prefer Tokina), a 18-55mm zoom which you have and a Nikon 55-300mm lens to have in your kitbag - that will give you a full range and you can pick the one that best suits the purpose
     
  36. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    994
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    An 18mm lens turned portrait has the same vertical FoV as a 12mm in landscape. The Width, OTMH is just under half, and you can almost get the horizontal FoV in two frames, so three gives you the same horizontal, plus the over-lap to stitch... so statement 'holds' on the maths at least.....

    As far as the perspective is concerned... a strong foreground element is a strong foreground element.,... if you have the FoV around it, shouldn't make any odds whether you get that framing with one shot UWA or 3-shot stitch...... in theory... in practice, you probably wont.. but you might get close.

    As far as long exposures go? ho-hum... if exposure or subject shifts twixt stitch panels, you likely have problems..... but it's circumstance dependent.

    Main issue here, is that wides demand more from the photographer to exploit them, UWA's even more so, where a tele, to a certain extent, does deliver almost by default, cropping clutter and simplifying the scene.

    As has been said, a UWA is more apt for getting into small spaces, like city scapes, or interiors, where you cant back up to get wide, rather than packing big expanses of land into a traditional landscape.... (and there, as much possible post-processing is likely still required to true up converging verticals and such, due to restrictive 'low' vantage point, as pano-stitching, so still swings and roundabouts to some degree) while there is good reason to use a tele for scenery, to capture the on-the-spot drama of big mountains and the like, making them prominent in the frame, rather than shrinking them into obscurity in it......its all knowing what the kit does and how to exploit it, as much as anything.. practice and craft over credit-card and hardware!

    But either which way, with a few weeks until I went on holiday, I would be rather sanguine whether I could learn to exploit a new lens, ANY new lens, even more a notoriously tricky lens to make work for you, before I went, and whether I wanted to spend that trip trying to learn the foibles of a new lens as well as complete new genre of photography, rather then seeing the sites that are there.....
     
    soeren likes this.
  37. newbie1

    newbie1

    Messages:
    1,042
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    These look like like they are taken with longer focal length. Write and ask if the info is not on the website?
     
  38. soeren

    soeren

    Messages:
    1,129
    Name:
    Soeren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    But that (stitching) then introduces a whole new set of issues, like as you said long exposure difficulties but also the need for a tripod, the work at the computer, dof (though admitted that can be an advantage too) and difficulties to do my favorite, the uwa closeup. While, as mentioned, difficult to master i love shooting WA's.
    I'd have some problems making this through stitching
    Sony A6000 with 12mm f/2 Samyang
    20554-20171207090805.jpg
    Hmm seems to be lousy quality :(
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2018
  39. chris malcolm

    chris malcolm

    Messages:
    1,325
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Don't forget perspective projection. For example, most wide angle lenses are rectilinear, or at least doing their best to emulate linearity, i.e. straight lines in the world will end up as straight lines in the image. But that kind of perspective projection, like all kinds of perspective projection, of rendering a 2D image of a 3D world, is a compromise. Its faults are that balls near the edges of the image don't look circular, and even more unpopular, fat people near the edges of a wide angle linear image look fatter.

    Consider standing in front of a very long straight brick wall. When you look to the right the top and bottom of the wall converge to a vanishing point on the right. When you look to the left they converge to a vanishing point on the left. When you look straight ahead at the wall they are parallel. So how can you possibly stitch those three images together to make a wide panoramic view of the whole wall? Obviously the supposedly straight converging lines to left and right must curve to meet the supposedly parallel but now curved lines of the central straight ahead image.

    A perspective projection which naturally does that sort of thing is a fish-eye projection. A fish-eye projection preserves subtended angles of view instead of straight lines, in other words all objects whose apparent width in view angle terms is so many degrees will occupy the same linear width in the 2D image. Balls at the edge of the image will still look perfectly round. Fat people at the edge will look no fatter than those in the middle. But all straight lines will no longer be straight, tending to curve more the further they are from passing through the centre of the image.

    Because we have two horizontally separated eyes and have a natural field of view which is wider than it is high we have a natural preference for landscape orientation images. So the volume stretching vice of the rectilinear perspective projection shows itself at its worst at the left and right edges of a landscape orientation image. We, and architects especially, also have a preference for non-converging parallel vertical lines when making images of rectilinear buildings with straight sides. Even more horrible than converging straight lines are the curved straight lines that a fish-eye projection uses. So the aesthetically more pleasing compromise was invented of using a rectilinear perspective projection along the vertical axis, thus permitting straight non-converging architectural lines, and a fish-eye or angle-preserving perspective projection along the horizontal axis, thus stopping the awkward width stretching of balls, people, and trees of a rectilinear projection.

    Of course there is no lens which will do that kind of thing. But it's what panorama image stitching programs usually do. There are also sophisticated perspective control programs which will let you turn a rectilinear projection image into a fish-eye projection image and vice versa, as well as turning either into the compromise panorama perspective projection mode.

    That's why stitching together a few shots into a panorama doesn't (by the usual defaults) get you the same image as a wider rectilinear lens, or indeed a wider fish-eye lens, would give you. It does let you stuff a wider view into your image, but not in the same way as either kind of lens would do it. The resulting images will not look the same.

    By the way, please note that the so-called "perspective distortion" of wide angle rectilinear lenses which does nasty things to balls and fat people at the image edges is not a distortion caused by the lens. It's caused by your eye being in the wrong position. You can prove this to yourself by taking such a "distorted" wide angle image, closing one eye, placing the other eye exactly in line with the centre of the image, and then moving your eye closer to the image. When your eye reaches the distance from the image which gives it the same angle of view as the camera had you will see that this so-called "distortion" has completely vanished. It's a geometric artefact of switching subtended angles of view between eye and camera. Therefore, contrary to the views of some ignorant camera shop salesdroids (and those who owe their education in perspective to such people), you can't reduce that kind of "distortion" by buying a more expensive wide angle lens. :)
     
    Teflon-Mike likes this.
  40. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    994
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    To get things straight from the off, I am not a pano-stitch freak.. not sure I am even that much of a fan, TBH....

    It seemed like a gimmick when I bought my first Digi-Compact err.... fifteen years back? And the sales-man said "Zoom Lenses are as dead as film!"... err... yeah... the thing didn't even have an optical zoom, the salesman raving about the 'digital' zoom for greater tele, and then pointing at the stitching software that came on the included disc, for 'as much wide as you want!"... even more, err.... I think...... think... therefore I err! lol

    Err.. where was I? Oh yeah... listening to some spotty faced oik almost two decades ago, trying to flog me a little pocket camera, and tell me that twenty odd years of film and a City & Guilds in this subject were all completely out of date and redundant.. 'cos widgetal'....... Drafty though, a lot of what the burger-flipper predicted has come to pass... I think a lot is self-full-fulling-prophesy in a way, enough people shout "Digital is the Future" loudly enough, people start to believe it and it becomes self perpetuating, the 'advances' in technology directed by customer demands and expectations, those so much set by the marketing, and around the circle it goes again..... but still......

    Daftly, it took until maybe six or seven years ago, long after I had killed that early Digi-Pact, that I found the disc with the camera-software on it, and decided to have a shufty at it all..... the pano program had, very rapidly, after I bought the camera been deleted from the computer.... it was to my mind very much a gimmick, and it took so much processor power, I don't think I ever made a pano with the thing without the computer locking up or blue-screening on me with a memory error! Though, I have to admit I didn't try very hard..... A couple of computers later, and with a little more RAM and a lot more HD space.... "Oh!.. It wurks!" and I gave it another whirl...

    Co-incidentally I had just bought the 4.5mm fish for crop-sensor widgetal, and it was interesting to see what it could do.... and as interesting to see that Photo-Shop included it in the version I upgraded to about the same time..... Did NOT convince me that I shouldn't buy the UWA..... but it IS remarkable how much you can do with Kit+Stitch....

    Yes, a tripod can be handy... but its not essential.... some I believe have gone as far as special indexed heads to make stitch sections..... but,

    [​IMG]
    Kit and stitch with the aproximate coverage of a UWA at 12mm... could do with cropping square, but it was a quick, rough and ready comparison, with the Sigg7 8-16 UWA.(nicked from Tutorial Ultra-Wide-Angle vs Kit & Stitch, featuring a fish!)
    [​IMG]
    Same shot with the siggy, at 10mm.. its a tad wider... but interesting how the stitch has maintained the vertices better, and the church doesn't look like its falling over backwards.

    Kit shot was made from just 3 sections, hand held..... like I said, was rough and ready.... but, shows the potential, and with just a little care and attension to what you are about, you can get well into UWA terratory with pano-stitching, without lugging about a tripod or index head, or spending a lot of money on a UWA.....

    NO! there are circumstances its no substitute for a UWA - Lens... in same way that cropping from Fish isn't either.... conclusion of Tut those two were taken from, is that they are three distinct 'tools' with different merits, if a lot of possible over-lap, in the tool-box of 'wide-Phoptography', neither is a substitute for another, they all have their merits and drawbacks...

    But... as a toe in the water of wide..... Kit&Stitch DOES have a lot to offer..... for starts, its CHEAP! No added gadgets need be bought.

    Yup, does take some time in post-process, and it can be rather hit and miss whether you get the sections you need, and software can stitch'em.... but, I could have spent as much time in Post-Process trying to key-stone out converging verticles in the UWA shot, or de-fishing and cropping the 180deg shot with the fish.... its all swings and roundabouts and ways of skinning cats, as they say....

    Your little boy shot? No you couldn't have got that with kit&Stitch because of the motion between merge frames... on the other hand.... you probably could have got it backing up a bit with a longer lens, or something no less impact....

    Back to skinning cats.... and Kit+Stitch is just one tool in the tool-box.. a very cheap one..... and as the old adage, its a bad workman that blames his tools..... a good workman would have the more suitable tool for the job in his box, but would also probably not be utterly stuck if he'd left it at home, and improvised.

    Advice against leaping into the wide-side with a UWA.. OP says they haven't got all they could from the kit 18-55.... A UWA, then is as likely to bring far more niggles and drawbacks learning where one is more or less apropriate than anything else, let alone might be exploited, and kit&Stitch,, down and dirty, is cheap... its certainly a lot less to lugg up and down big hills or around town on holiday, it does have a lot merit, for the few occassions you might really want to go that wide, and might actually get the benefit of going wide, and a newby likely will get more shots they like, being limited to the tried and trusted of a moderate mid-range zoom, than trying to get to grips with the foibles of something completely new, that IS peculiarly tricky to come top terms with.

    I was, earlier trying to follow the plot of links to photo's the OP said she wanted to make pics 'like', and it was intriguing, that so many of them actually didn't exploit UWA very much.... a lot were made by effect, often in the colour, or in slow-shutter; more found drama or impact in forground interest... in short, those photo's merits, where there was any, was NOT generated by the lens, but by filters or subject or old fashioned, back to basics composition. Where there was obvious 'wideness' it was like the church example, skew vertices, falling backwards buildings and un-natural perspective, that is a feature of a wide, that some may deem 'effect'... like fishiness.... but, lens makers will actually try and dial out as 'distortion' in their rectilinear corrections, and software will try and 'correct' even more with lens profiles! Which poses an interesting argument about one mans rubbish... but still....

    Conundrum... twenty odd years ago I back-packed round northern India, with a camera bag, packing a couple of SLR's, a lot of film, four or five lenses, filters, etc etc... oh, and the trusty little XA2 compact in my pocket! What would I take today?

    Curiously, the same camera bag is now filled with just one D3200 'crop-sensor' (and one of the smaller ones at that!!) DSLR's! The fish, the 8-16, kit and 55-300, dont actually give me any more range of lens, but do take up more space... the flash gun and the film have been evicted to fit them in! So much for the miracle of silicon miniaturisation! I don't even think that it is any lighter, even though there were a couple of motor-winders and spare batteries in the bag quarter of a century ago.....When I went on that trip, it was sort of a case of taking all as I didn't know what I would find..... now I do.... and of the digi-kit of today, as alluded, one camera and lenses with less range than I used 25 years ago, takes up more space..... all up, I would PROBABLY leave the lot behind.... and pack the trusty XA2 film compact again..... its diddy, it has cracking resolution, and it's batteries don't go flat for YEARS! Would need to take film with me of course... but meh! Somewhat more discerning these days, I'd be more inclined to make every frame count... meanwhile, the lack of 'zoom' would beg more for thought and finding the angle, as well as discernment over whether a scene really was worth a frame..... Might not get so many photo's but probably more that I liked... and I'd not be sweating so profusely on the 'Tourist-Bus' lugging so much gear about, or worried about where to put it between the chickens and the goat, or it being snatched by the little urchin as I got off, etc etc etc.....and could spend more time enjoying the trip, rather than playing cameras.....

    Maybe you have to experience that over-load of excess to better appreciate why and where it may actually be more of a handicap than an advantage.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice