An aquaaintance has offered to buy me a new lens in return for some photo work.What wide angle would be best for a shot 17` back and object is approx. 36` long? Please help.Thanks
#1. "wide angle" | In response to Reply # 0Tue 19-Jun-01 11:10 PM
Using math equations:
An object 17 feet away and 36 feet long would require an angle of view of 93 degrees. A 24 mm lens covers 94 degrees. If he is buying, you may want to talk him into the 20mm AF-D, but the 24 mm would cover this angle. It wouldn't leave much of a margin for error though. At exactly 17 feet away, a 24 mm would cover 36.4 feet wide object, but beware of cropping the neg.
PS, I am surprised George Oei, our resident engineer, didn't have this plotted out on a graph before I got here . Just Teasing George!
#2. "RE: wide angle" | In response to Reply # 1Merlin Basic MemberWed 20-Jun-01 03:30 AM
This sounds like a great deal to me!
Couple of tips, without knowing what the "object" is (an experimental cruise missile in an underground bunker? Luxemburg's first thermo-nuclear weapon? The mind boggles!) that might help you:
A wide wide-angle lens - and I think the 20mm will be your best bet - can do strange things to vertical and horizontal lines. Try to position the camera at the EXACT center of the object and at the mid point of its height. With the camera on a tripod, make sure it's completely level on every axis. If you have to use flash, you'll get a "hot-spot" in the center of the object if you mount the flash directly on the camera - think about a way to bounce-flash the scene, or set up two flash units slaved together to illumintate the whole target.
#4. "RE: wide angle--My answer differs" | In response to Reply # 1vfnewman Basic MemberWed 20-Jun-01 12:43 PM
I ran an independent calculation on this problem. I arrived at a different answer via two methods:
First, I used "f/Calc". It's a handy little photographic calculator available at:
I used the "field of view" function to iteratively solve for a horizontal fov of 36 feet at a 17 foot subject distance. At 17mm the fov is still just under 36 feet. Suspicious of my different answer, I used the "angle of view" function. According to f/calc, a 24mm lens has a horizontal angle of view of 73 degrees. A 17mm lens has a horizontal aov of 93 degrees.
Not wanting to trust only one source of answer, I found this page that tabulates angles of view:
It shows the horizontal aov of a 24mm lens as 74 degrees, and that of a 20mm lens as 83 deg. It does not give a horizontal aov for a 17mm lens, but the trend is obvious.
Please check again and see if our results still differ--I'd like to have an independent verification of my work.
#5. "RE: Wide angle freebie" | In response to Reply # 3jrp Charter MemberWed 20-Jun-01 01:14 PM
Measure up your client-friend pockets and willingness .... and what you want/need as cash for the job.
The 24mm will do the job and with less strain on verticals than a 20mm.
As said above, if possible, then get the 17-35mm AF-S
Have a great time
JRP (Nikonian at the north-eastern Mexican desert)
Previous photographic journey, before Nikonians:
A Brief Love Story
Have a great time :-)
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade.
Check our workshops at the Nikonians Academy and the Nikonians Photo Pro Shop
#6. "wide angle freebie" | In response to Reply # 0
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-01 AT 01:14 AM (GMT)
I was incorrect in my earlier answer. A 24mm covers 83-84 degrees diagonally. A 20 mm covers 94 degrees diagonally. So I think your best bets are the 18-35 mm (Good, I own it) or the 17-35 mm (Sell your left arm if need be). Sorry for the mistake, I was thinking diagonally =). Thanks to Victor for the correction.
maybe I should have left this for George Oei.
#8. "RE: Wide angle freebie" | In response to Reply # 7KenF Basic MemberWed 20-Jun-01 11:03 PM
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-01 AT 03:03 AM (GMT)
Hmmm, sounds like a job for a 17-35 because of the lack of distortion - yeah, that's the ticket. $1500 or so for a 17-35/2.8 AF-S Nikkor, and worth every penny.
If your friend balks at this (or goes to boink you with a hammer), the 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-D goes for about $500, I think.
Here's a couple of reviews from Ken Rockwell's site (different Ken):
#9. "RE: Wide angle freebie" | In response to Reply # 8gewe21 Basic MemberWed 20-Jun-01 11:24 PM
Geez, Jeff... sorry I did not follow this thread. Read this thread just now. Hm... no, I'm not yet an engineer. I'm trying to be, though.
!!Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!!
P.S. Jeff, how come you still remember my "engineer" signature ?
"Dude, you're getting a Nikkor !!!"
#10. "RE: Wide angle freebie" | In response to Reply # 9Thu 21-Jun-01 08:55 PM
I live in Grand Rapids, MI. "Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam" is on way too many bumpers around here.
I don't know why I remembered the engineer thing. My brain likes to hang on to a lot of trivial info. My wife is berating me to go on "Millionaire". If I do, and I win, keep an eye on my profile to see all the new stuff I get (F5A, the full line of AF-S lenses, a D1X. Hey, a guy's got to have his dreams!)
Alas, I digress. I have seen your name quite a bit, and I guess it just stuck. Now, if only I could memorize those depth of field tables and film reciprocity failure characteristics. But, then I wouldn't have all this room left for important things like names and personal stuff
Happy Shooting and Enjoy your summer off (or do I presume too much),