Hi,
I have a Nikon 3100, although I am hoping to upgrade as soon as I qualify :D Anyway I am thinking of a new lens, I have a 70-300mm and a 18-55mm. I prefer landscape/seascape and wonder if it is worth getting another lens that may give me that little something extra with this type of photography, maybe wider? Still new to all this so not sure, any suggestions greatfully received :)
Often for landscape you want a wide angle lens. I would suggest the Sigma 10-20. Great lens for a decent price. Get the variable aperture one, the fixed f/3.5 version is not worth the extra expense.
Thank you Donoreo I will look into that :tup:
Before I saw Don's response I thought Sigma 10/20!
Excellent value and will certainly give your photography a new perspective...as soon as you look through the viewfinder! :)
brilliant thank you :D
Before buying a new lens decide what camera you are going to upgrade to? If it's going to be full frame then the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 isn't going to be any good. If you are sticking to the APS-C size sensor then it's ideal. :tup:
Thanks Oldboy, lot's to think about then, it's going to be a little while yet but always good to have the next one ready to aim for...my next camera will still be a Nikon (just what I am used to and love) but how far up the range we go we will see ;)
Oldboy,yous hould be called BadBoy, you are such a minx! Now poor janes gonna want a new camera.
The wide angle opens a whole new aspect to your photography, but try one first to understand that it is also limited in its use for Vista type landscapes.
The wider angle of view gives you good foreground and or massive skies, but it also makes everything in the distance look very small. A mountain range in the distance
might only look like a wiggly line. The 10-20 is a lovely lens and you can get some amazing depth perspective in your pictures but for long views and wide expanses it does not work at all and you are better of stitching a panoramic with several pictures.
Oh dear, I am just reading this back and I hope I have explained that correctly.
I have a sigma 10-20 that I got from Santa (2 Christmases ago). if you are really keen on Landscape its the way to go, Personally I find it a little limiting as I generally use a 18-270 and find that I often spot something that I want to be closer to want to zoom in more. Having said that its sharp, light and fun to do creative things with. (It does have a big filter size so that can increase the $$
Quote from: JaneM on April 29, 2014, 02:33:26 PM
Hi,
I have a Nikon 3100, although I am hoping to upgrade as soon as I qualify :D
Quote from: DigiDiva on April 29, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
Oldboy,yous hould be called BadBoy, you are such a minx! Now poor janes gonna want a new camera.
If you read her original post she indicates she will upgrade her camera when she qualifies. I pointed out that if she goes for full frame the 10-20 Sigma will be of limited use. ???
When I started in photography back in dark(room) ages, and people mainly used 35mm SLRs which came with 50mm standard lenses, the standard kit for anyone other than specialists was 35mm and 135mm. In terms of frame filling capability, that's roughly 21mm, 31mm and 84mm for your sensor size. On this view, you're already using a wide angle lens.
There are two properties of lenses that are related to the focal length: the size of the image produced (double the focal length and the size of the image produced doubles (for distant subjects) and hence you get less in the frame; and for any given focusing distance and aperture, the depth of field (area covered by acceptably sharp focus) gets bigger. The converse of the first point is that as the focal length gets less, the image gets less, and as your sensor remains the same size, you get more of the scene in. The angle of view has increased - hence wide angle.
So if you need to "get more in" and can't step back far enough, a wide angle will make it possible. As will creating a panorama and stitching the photos together - and for some purposes this will give a better result. But that's another topic.
"Stepping back" introduces a second - and more important point. The apparent size of an object depends on how far away it is, and this applies to our eyes and a camera lens equally. If we double the distance to a tree, the image size halves. Now consider what happens with the archetypal landscape with a big rock in the bottom corner of the frame and a very distant view beyond. Suppose the rock is 20 feet away; the rest of the scene we'll take as being at infinity. Move 10 feet closer, and the rock appears to have doubled in size; but the effect on the backdrop is negligible. Hence, to make an object bigger, move in close (and when expressed like this, it's trivial). But if we want to include the same angle of view - well, we've moved in close and reduced the amount we're getting in, so we need a wide angle lens to get it back in.
And that's the rationale for using a wide angle lens for landscape photography. You need (you don't always!) a sense of scale, so you need a prominent foreground object; or, you need a sense of depth (you don't always), and a prominent foreground object is one of many ways to do this, so you need a wide angle lens...
What you need depends on how you "see" the subject. You use your camera position to control the perspective effect you want, and then use a lens to "get in" what you need to. I personally don't have a great deal of use for a wide angle lens for landscape photography, but that's down to the way I see the landscape and interpret it. I usually use lenses that give the angle of view that you get with a focal length of about 30mm - but in my case, they are 110mm and 150mm, as I use film cameras with a larger frame size.
Quote from: Simple on April 29, 2014, 09:41:44 PM
The wide angle opens a whole new aspect to your photography, but try one first to understand that it is also limited in its use for Vista type landscapes.
The wider angle of view gives you good foreground and or massive skies, but it also makes everything in the distance look very small. A mountain range in the distance
might only look like a wiggly line. The 10-20 is a lovely lens and you can get some amazing depth perspective in your pictures but for long views and wide expanses it does not work at all and you are better of stitching a panoramic with several pictures.
Oh dear, I am just reading this back and I hope I have explained that correctly.
I have to point out you are wrong on one thing and not sure what you mean by the other.
1. It is not limited in use for landscapes
2. The line about depth and long views
First, it is not limited to landscapes. You can use it for much more than that. You can use it for anything creative where a wide angle could work or you want it to work. I have a photo in mind I plan to use mine for it is not a landscape (but it is outside). They are also good for interior photos. If you visit a cathedral or something of a similar size thy are very handy. Estate agents also use them for taking photos in houses to sell.
The second, not sure what you are saying. You mean because the distance can look far away it does not compare to a panorama? It does depend on what you are looking for. If that is what you meant.
Oh Dear, I thought I would be misunderstood. I love my 10-20 and use it for loads of landscapes. StephenBatey has explained it far better than me. What I meant was that with a wide expanse view, some people would think that if they had a wider lens they could get more of the view in. This is ofcourse true but as you go wider everything becomes smaller in the picture, especially what is far away (long view) and that is not necessarily what people want, hence the stitching might be a better option.
Quote from: Simple on April 30, 2014, 05:00:59 PM
Oh Dear, I thought I would be misunderstood. I love my 10-20 and use it for loads of landscapes. StephenBatey has explained it far better than me. What I meant was that with a wide expanse view, some people would think that if they had a wider lens they could get more of the view in. This is ofcourse true but as you go wider everything becomes smaller in the picture, especially what is far away (long view) and that is not necessarily what people want, hence the stitching might be a better option.
That makes more sense and explains it much better. Of course it all depends on what you want, if you like the wide view with small things, or wide view with a more "regular" perspective of things with them not being small.
I did a 360 stitch up a few years ago when I was in Wales green laning - couldn't have been done with a wide angle lens obviously, though I did use a 24mm in portrait mode from memory - took 36 shots I think.
Had it printed out - only abou 15" tall - but about 7' long. Still in the tube as I'm not sure how to frame it ;D :legit: