UWA or TELE? Your opinions pls.

I shoot with a D80 and my only lenses so far is a 24-70 f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8... i have decided to be more engaged in my photography hobby and i feel i need to augment my lens lineup. My dilemma is i don't really know what my next lens should be.

This is what i normally shoot or will be extensively shooting:
50% street scenes (90% daytime; 10% night)
25% portraits (50% natural light; 50% flash)
10% landscapes/ cityscapes (50% day; 50% night)
10% events (30% day; 70% night)
5% sports (50% outdoors; 50% indoors)

With the above, what should be my complementing lens?

I am considering the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or the Nikon 70-300VR or the Tamron/Sigma 70-200 f2.8... There may be others you may recommend. My budget is *$600* (i'm fine with both preowned and brand new).

Thanks in advence

I went tele first.

Now that I have a quality wide-angle (17-35mm F2.8), I find I'm shooting and enjoying wide angle more.

So I guess I'm saying, get both. Or just pick one, and get the other when you have the $$

xjassa said:

I went tele first.

Now that I have a quality wide-angle (17-35mm F2.8), I find I'm shooting and enjoying wide angle more.

So I guess I'm saying, get both. Or just pick one, and get the other when you have the $$

Click to expand...

so you have come to like wide angle more? could you pls share with me why? in what situations? is a wide angle preferable in street photography? thanks

and as such, I never used it much.

When I was on the street, I tend to put the 85mm F1.8 on my D2h and use it as a short-tele portrait lens to capture my young son. I got tons of shots, and decided to get the 85mm F1.4 because of it (no regrets on that decision).

So I went WA recently by winning a 17-35mm F2.8 on the 'bay for a price I couldn't resist. What an awesome lens. Now I had to learn to use it.

The trick, at least for me (I hope others chime in), is to use the distortion to your advantage. Get low, get high, change your perspective. Put things on the edges, stuff like that.

While the tele is great for portraits, the WA is very good for telling stories-this is why it excels in PJ and street use.

I do shots like having my son climbing up landscaping rocks, with him on the outside, really close to the camera, and in the background have mom looking on.

Even though mom is only 8-12' away, she is sufficently blurred by the bokeh, and the wide angle perspective makes her look extremely distant. I like the shot because to my son who is 18 months old, being 12' away from mom is a long way away.

I wish I could post the shot, but I don't have an online account anywhere yet. Stuff like that makes the UWA a very rewarding, yet difficult, lens to master. I'm more naturally inclined to tele. Love my 85mm F1.4, 105mm F2.5 AIS, and hope to one day own the 135mm F2 DC.

As for wide angle? The 17-35mm F2.8 is wide enough and sharp enough for me. I'd like to get the 24mm and 35mm F1.4's to complete my F1.4 collection, but I seriously doubt I'll ever have the funds.

xjassa said:

and as such, I never used it much.

When I was on the street, I tend to put the 85mm F1.8 on my D2h and use it as a short-tele portrait lens to capture my young son. I got tons of shots, and decided to get the 85mm F1.4 because of it (no regrets on that decision).

Click to expand...

...

thanks for sharing your real-world experience. that was an eye-opener for me... you are using a FF dslr with your 17-35 so for my cropped D80 that would be a 10-24 (did i get that right?)

btw, as a dpreview member, i believe you are entitled to a free gallery to which you could upload your photos. On the menu bar, click on Galleries > > Upload. Havent tried this myself but i hope that works so you can share that photo of your son and his mom

thanks!

Any other opinion/sharings guys?

cyberjock said:

thanks for sharing your real-world experience. that was an eye-opener for me... you are using a FF dslr with your 17-35 so for my cropped D80 that would be a 10-24 (did i get that right?)

Click to expand...

No, it's the other way around. That is, 17-35 on FX would be 25.5-52.5 on DX.

Yes get the wa first. On your D80 yoi already have a 24-70 (36-105mm) and a 50mm (75mm F1.8) all very valid ranges. Don't get a 12-16, it's just to limiting and more expensive than the 12-24mm (or 18-36mm). If you get a 17-35 all you will have is a 24-52 equviliant with your 1.5x factor, not wide enough.

Actually you will find that you will get more street picts with WA than a short tele. reason's--bigger DOF, can shoot slower shuttter speeds than tele, can shoot from hip, can shoot up or down or even holding over head for a very different perspective.

Right now you don't have the experience but need to shoot and shoot. the WA will fill the need---ron s.
--
Keeping it sane in an insane world is an inconvenience at an inconvenient time!!
http://www.pbase.com/ron9ron

Based on what you say you like to shoot, I'd say wider before longer.

Also, on a D80, the 24-70 isn't wide enough at all.

Based on that, a 10-24 or a 12-24. I think both would be within budget.

I have the 12-24F4 Nikon, and I like it. (Also the 10.5 fisheye, which is really a fun lens).

It's harder to work with a wide angle lens - there is a lot more you have to take into consideration when you compose (look at the edges!!), and very small changes in shooting position can make big differences. On the other hand, it's easier to handhold shorter than longer, and easier to get wide depth of field.

But, you also do not have a long lens, so it's hard to say if you change what you like to shoot if you had the capability. If you go long, I'd recommend the 70-300vr Nikkor.

cyberjock wrote:> This is what i normally shoot or will be extensively shooting:

cyberjock said:

50% street scenes (90% daytime; 10% night)

10% landscapes/ cityscapes (50% day; 50% night)

Click to expand...

Based on those two statements, WA seems to definitely be the way to go.

Personally I'd need something wider on DX than 24mm, and given your list of preferences I'd say that is also the case for you. You have a lens that can do events as long as you don't find yourself in tight spaces, then you'd need wider. It's also good fro portrait. For general use it lacks wide angle. I'd also use wider for street as i like to get a feel for the environment rather than pick out bits of detail. Also landscape, I prefer wider as a rule.

My 'everyday' lens on DX was 17~35 f2.8. I found that a great wide/normal lens and a superb choice for general use, street and landscape (as well as offering a fast wide option for indoors at events). There's a debate regarding the use of the extra stop or VR if you get the 16~35 instead. The dury is still out for me, but I'd definately get one of those 2. A used 16~35 VR might be achievable on your budget or close enough to it? I personally still have a preference for the f2.8 lens at the moment, but pricess are holding up so it may be too expensive.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

medgeek said:

cyberjock said:

thanks for sharing your real-world experience. that was an eye-opener for me... you are using a FF dslr with your 17-35 so for my cropped D80 that would be a 10-24 (did i get that right?)

Click to expand...

No, it's the other way around. That is, 17-35 on FX would be 25.5-52.5 on DX.

Click to expand...

you're right. thanks for the correction

ron_9 said:

Yes get the wa first. On your D80 yoi already have a 24-70 (36-105mm) and a 50mm (75mm F1.8) all very valid ranges. Don't get a 12-16, it's just to limiting and more expensive than the 12-24mm (or 18-36mm). If you get a 17-35 all you will have is a 24-52 equviliant with your 1.5x factor, not wide enough.

Actually you will find that you will get more street picts with WA than a short tele. reason's--bigger DOF, can shoot slower shuttter speeds than tele, can shoot from hip, can shoot up or down or even holding over head for a very different perspective.

Right now you don't have the experience but need to shoot and shoot. the WA will fill the need---ron s.
--
Keeping it sane in an insane world is an inconvenience at an inconvenient time!!
http://www.pbase.com/ron9ron

Click to expand...

thanks for that valuable piece of advice ron. much appreciated. leaning towards the WA now

@PHXAZCRAIG - tnx man. I guess i'll be going to WA -- either the 10/12-24 you suggested or the 16/17-35 brought up by slimandy. one question though, when i do street/pj, i usually would want a person (or relevant item) in the foreground at full or 3/4 body in the frame as reference point. Using the wide end of the 10-24, how close would i normally be to that person/thing to do that assuming the person is about 6ft tall? just a bit concerned about being invasive. thanks.

Hoop99 said:

Hoop99 said:

50% street scenes (90% daytime; 10% night)

10% landscapes/ cityscapes (50% day; 50% night)

Click to expand...

Based on those two statements, WA seems to definitely be the way to go.

Click to expand...

yep, i guess my next lens should be in that category. thanks

slimandy said:

Personally I'd need something wider on DX than 24mm, and given your list of preferences I'd say that is also the case for you. You have a lens that can do events as long as you don't find yourself in tight spaces, then you'd need wider. It's also good fro portrait. For general use it lacks wide angle. I'd also use wider for street as i like to get a feel for the environment rather than pick out bits of detail. Also landscape, I prefer wider as a rule.

My 'everyday' lens on DX was 17~35 f2.8. I found that a great wide/normal lens and a superb choice for general use, street and landscape (as well as offering a fast wide option for indoors at events). There's a debate regarding the use of the extra stop or VR if you get the 16~35 instead. The dury is still out for me, but I'd definately get one of those 2. A used 16~35 VR might be achievable on your budget or close enough to it? I personally still have a preference for the f2.8 lens at the moment, but pricess are holding up so it may be too expensive.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

thanks a lot for that andrew i'll be on the lookout for a preowned 16/17-35 and see if it would fit my budget. Personally what would you prefer between the two considering a price difference of about $100 here? f2.8 vs f4+VR... tnx again

cyberjock said:

thanks a lot for that andrew i'll be on the lookout for a preowned 16/17-35 and see if it would fit my budget. Personally what would you prefer between the two considering a price difference of about $100 here? f2.8 vs f4+VR... tnx again

Click to expand...

There is a thread running at the moment that debates the difference and I've contributed to it. IMO I'd rather have f2.8 than VR. VR gets you 4 stops advantage, but only if nothing moves. The extra stop of the f2.8 lens is useful regardless of subject matter. People move. I can already shoot with a lens in this range at fairly slow shutter speeds; the kind of speeds I can get with VR are of limited use to me. Nice for museams and churches. Nice if you don't want to shoot wide open.

Far more important is IQ and handling. I have read that the 16~35 has sharper corners but My 17~35 is such a good lens I won't part with it until I have a chance to try the 2 side by side. I borrowed a 14~24 that i could have bought but i preferred the 17~35. If i had neither I would have to choose between a 17~35 and a 16~35 and i can't say for certain which way I'd go until i have a chance to test them. What I do know is the 17~35 has been my favourite lens on a D100, D200, F3, F100 and now a D700.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

slimandy said:

cyberjock said:

thanks a lot for that andrew i'll be on the lookout for a preowned 16/17-35 and see if it would fit my budget. Personally what would you prefer between the two considering a price difference of about $100 here? f2.8 vs f4+VR... tnx again

Click to expand...

There is a thread running at the moment that debates the difference and I've contributed to it. IMO I'd rather have f2.8 than VR. VR gets you 4 stops advantage, but only if nothing moves. The extra stop of the f2.8 lens is useful regardless of subject matter. People move. I can already shoot with a lens in this range at fairly slow shutter speeds; the kind of speeds I can get with VR are of limited use to me. Nice for museams and churches. Nice if you don't want to shoot wide open.

Far more important is IQ and handling. I have read that the 16~35 has sharper corners but My 17~35 is such a good lens I won't part with it until I have a chance to try the 2 side by side. I borrowed a 14~24 that i could have bought but i preferred the 17~35. If i had neither I would have to choose between a 17~35 and a 16~35 and i can't say for certain which way I'd go until i have a chance to test them. What I do know is the 17~35 has been my favourite lens on a D100, D200, F3, F100 and now a D700.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

wisdom gained. noted with thanks

You'd find the telephoto very helpful for sports and probably events, but WA and UWA is sooo much fun, and I think it's helped my composing of shots. With WA you have to get very close to your subject, or very close to your foreground (I often lie down on the ground). Also, I remember reading that amateurs use a wa and frame one subject, while hobbyists use a foreground and a subject, while experts use three elements in any uwa shot: foreground, medium distant subject, far distant subject. Usually want to use a story telling aperture (f16 or higher), though there's occasionally reason to use an isolating aperture (f4 or lower)....

As far as which lens, I was going to get the Tokina 11-16, but kymarto's very helpful recommendations made me change to the very well made sigma 8-16 (FF equivalent 12-24). Check out his input or send him a question directly; he is a real gentleman and extraordinarly knowledgeable and gifted. The uwa lens is demanding and fun, and one of the reasons I love taking pictures.

I've got a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 teleconverter, and except for sports and the zoo, I never use it!
Let us know what you get!

Steven Sax said:

You'd find the telephoto very helpful for sports and probably events, but WA and UWA is sooo much fun, and I think it's helped my composing of shots. With WA you have to get very close to your subject, or very close to your foreground (I often lie down on the ground). Also, I remember reading that amateurs use a wa and frame one subject, while hobbyists use a foreground and a subject, while experts use three elements in any uwa shot: foreground, medium distant subject, far distant subject. Usually want to use a story telling aperture (f16 or higher), though there's occasionally reason to use an isolating aperture (f4 or lower)....

As far as which lens, I was going to get the Tokina 11-16, but kymarto's very helpful recommendations made me change to the very well made sigma 8-16 (FF equivalent 12-24). Check out his input or send him a question directly; he is a real gentleman and extraordinarly knowledgeable and gifted. The uwa lens is demanding and fun, and one of the reasons I love taking pictures.

I've got a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 teleconverter, and except for sports and the zoo, I never use it!
Let us know what you get!

Click to expand...

Wow! that just got me excited for an UWA bigtime ... Can't wait to get one and be challenged ... will check out the sigma 8-16 vs the toki 11-16

I don't really do street shooting of people like that, so I don't know.

However, a very wide angle lens would seem to me to be inappropriate for street shooting. You'd need to get pretty close to people. Offhand, I'd think a 35mm on DX or FX would be good, and no wider that 24mm. Some people like longer lenses to be farther away from the subjects. Depends on how invasive you want to be, and also how narrow the streets are when you shoot.

I know a lot of people say wide angles are for landscape work, but they are for specific scenarios even in landscape. When I got my 12-24 (on a D300), just before a trip to Hawaii I naturally wanted to use it a lot. And I got wide landscapes with it. But at the same time, the distant mountains were shrunk down to a small bump on the horizon. If you shoot landscape with a wide angle, I think it works better to have a close foreground subject, something in the middle ground beyond that, and something pretty big in the background that is not too far away. If it is far away, it shrinks to nothingness in the image.

If shooting people with a wide angle, you have a couple of issues. If you have them in the foreground, the perspective is going to make them look bad, or weird. (The Big Nose effect). If you have them in the background, well then they are not your subject. If they are in the middle ground, what is the foreground subject? Also, unless you have a 1.4 lens, you could have depth of field that is great enough that you can't blur the middle or background should you want to.