50mm Wide Angle

[Warren Ackary]

Hi all

Just wondering if I can get away with shooting wide angle shots using a 50mm? Cannot afford to get a 10-20 Sigma.. curios to hear other peoples suggestions

[livio]

Warren, I don't know if I understand your question but here goes. A 50mm lens is as close as we have on modern cameras to the human eye it is a standard all purpose lens great for portraits and general usage. The faster the lens bigger aperture, the more light it lets in the better it is with low light scene. A 10-20 Sigma lens being an ultra wide angle will have built in distortion and it will accentuate the perception of distance. You might be able to stand further back using the 50mm lens but it would be a long way back and then you end up losing clarity because of haze when you are just too far away from a subject. With some landscapes part of the appeal is the distortion introduced by the lens. The 50mm will give you very little if any distortion you can still take landscape shots just a little less creatively.

Kind Regards
Livio

[paulheath]

i think livio answered your question, if its affordability have you thought about the nikon af-s dx 18-55 vr? you can get these new for less than $60 will give you a nice wide 18mm for landscape etc. i cant comment on IQ as im a canon man

[Warren Ackary]

Thanks guys.. I have a D700 so I could just turn it to dx for the 18-55 vr.. that would be a 4.5-56 I guess for that price

[arthurking83]

With your D700(or impending D3 purchase) a Sigma 10-20mm is a waste anyhow!(same with a Nikon 18-55Dx).

That is while they will work, the effort of getting a new lens and then wanting more later on down the track will mean you will almost certainly be purchasing another wide angle lens to get full use of your Fx sensor!

There are other wide angle lenses available for Fx that work reasonably well.

FWIW: I already had the Siggy 10-20 for many years and made good use of it for all that time on my Dx Nikon's.
I subsequently got an Fx Nikon camera, but still used the Siggy 10-20 and my only wide angle lens for a good year or so. My only other wide angle lens option was a 24mm Nikon prime, and also my Tammy 28-70.
The Siggy in Dx mode on the D800 still gave the wider aspect of all my lenses at the time .. but I wanted more.

I ummed and ahhed for a year as to which lens to get to replace the 10-20, coming down to the choice of either Nikon's 16-35VR, 18-35 AF-S, or the Sigma 12-24.
As I still had the 10-20, I wasn't in a rush to decide until I though I'd make the right choice(to begin with). So the Siggy 12-24 it was .. but I also still want another more normal wide angle to go with it(one that takes filters more easily).

I think in the end, maybe another year or so, it'll be the Nikon 16-35VR for a lot of reasons.

other options for wide angles(for Fx) are:

Tokina 17-35/4
Tokina 16-28/2.8(but can't easily use filters again)

My only concern with the Nikon 18-35AF-S was the elevated price Nikon ask for it. It's a seemingly good lens, but not at the price they want for it. At under $500 this would have been my first option.
As it was, I thought that Sigma's 12-24 was the best price/fun+value option .. haven't regretted it(yet).

os. I'm assuming that your use of the concept of "wide angle shots using 50mm" .. you mean taking multi-shot panoramas or something like that?
if so, why not just use your 24-70 at about 35mm or so?

[Warren Ackary]

Hi Arthur.. no multishot pano's I just want to be able to get more in that I am with my 24-70, however when I tried to get a rolling hill side with the lens I had to crop it tight (shouldnt have to) to bring everything up close. I have read up on the Siggy 10-20 and yes, distortion

I thank you for your reply as you always have pearls of wisdom

[arthurking83]

.... I have read up on the Siggy 10-20 and yes, distortion

....

Siggy 10-20 actually has very little distortion(when compared to similar lens types) by pure numbers .. and in actual rendering of the image.

At 10mm(Dx frame obviously) there is a little distortion, but at about 12mm, almost all distortion is gone and straight lines at the edge of the frame are almost completely straight.
The one thing that needs to be taken into consideration tho, is perspective distortion, as you will mostly be at ultra wide angle focal lengths, if you tilt the lens from level, you'll see plenty of converging/diverging parallel lines more so at the edges.

if you want reasonably affordable UWA .. the Siggy 12-24 is a hoot!

[Banjo]

I have read this thread with interest - thanks.

[Warren Ackary]

Siggy 10-20 actually has very little distortion(when compared to similar lens types) by pure numbers .. and in actual rendering of the image.

At 10mm(Dx frame obviously) there is a little distortion, but at about 12mm, almost all distortion is gone and straight lines at the edge of the frame are almost completely straight.
The one thing that needs to be taken into consideration tho, is perspective distortion, as you will mostly be at ultra wide angle focal lengths, if you tilt the lens from level, you'll see plenty of converging/diverging parallel lines more so at the edges.

if you want reasonably affordable UWA .. the Siggy 12-24 is a hoot!

Hi arthur.. pardon my ignorance but does it have to be a 2.8 or not to get good quality? I have a Tokina 20-35 given to me (AF is shot) and forget what the f stops are because its been put in a cupboard (got dust/oil inside it also), it too a great image, just not sure if a lens like a UWA needs to be a 2.8 or does it even matter

[arthurking83]

doesn't have to be f/2.8 to get good quality.

in the early days, these faster lenses had the issue of being more hazy at their fastest aperture settings, and lenses that started with f/3.5 apertures may have displayed better contrast at f.3.5 than even the f/2.8 lenses.
Not always, but sometimes.
Lens makers were limited by the overall specs they could design their lenses with, so you may find that early fast zoom lenses (eg f/2.8) will usually have had short focal length ranges(eg. 1.5x or 2x)
These lenses with 1.5x focal length multiplication ranges actually worked quite well.
Then the race was on in earnest to increase zoom ranges from 1.5x to 2x and now the usual zoom range is closer to 3x(or 2.9x in many instances).

Nikon also had 20-35mm lens which then became the 17-35mm in the next generation whilst not only maintaining good IQ, but even bettered it.

mid range widey's went from 25-50 to 28-70's and now 24-70's are more popular. I guess in the next generation these lenses may be 20-70 zooms or whatever technology brings.
It's all a matter of what lens makers can design in terms of optical complexity to account for the difficulty in keeping quality high.

Had a quick look for Tokina 20-35 and there are two version. A f/2.8 and a f/3.4-4.5 version.
one major difference I see between the two is:
where the f/2.8 lens seems to have the typical(old style) AF/MF clutch system whereby you push pull the AF ring forward/back for AF(forward) or MF(backward) which disengages the screw drive.
The f/3.5-4.5 version doesn't seem to have this clutch mechanism.

Both seem to be 90's vintage.

I suppose there are two ways to view faster lenses:
1. stop it down 1-2 stops for optimum results
2. take advantage of the extra speed.

There is one furphy that needs to be eliminated from the list of advantages too tho.
In the old days, it used to be common for faster lenses to display a 'brighter viewfinder' experience, and technically this is still true for a few cameras(mainly EVF cameras I guess)
But the average DSLR has a viewfinder design that is optimised for clarity at about f/5.6.
Any lenses faster than this speed will not have any advantage in terms of viewfinder(optical) brightness for those DSLR types.
A faster aperture will be an advantage if using liveview tho.

[Burrster]

Hi Warren. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you are trying to take wide angle shots ( get more in a single frame) then you need a wider angle lens(10mm to say 35mm), of which you say you have a 24 - 70, fitting into this category. alternately as already said you need to step back further to get more in. Your 50mm is not wide in focal length, but it would be a good lens to use if you wanted to do pano stiches.
Unfortunately wide angle lens make distant objects look very small( hence you had to crop your image to bring the detail 'closer' to you. The best way around this is to use longer focal lengths and stich them. I often use 100- 200mm for 'rolling hillsides'. To bring all than detail close to me!

As for your question about the Aperture of F2.8, this in not necessarily a factor of whether the lens is good quality, but is often associated with quality, if that makes sense. An F2.8 is not neccessary, but is useful for particular situtations, ie low light, shallow DOF, Star filled night shots. alot of wide angle photos are taken at F8 - F16, to get great DOF.

In conclusion, 50mm is not wide unless you're willing to step back a lot, and F2.8 is not necessary.

I hope this helps.