My current lens inventory is (all Nikkor):
I do mostly wildlife and travel photography and my existing lenses seem to fulfill my needs, but I can't shake the feeling that a 17-35 f/2.8 (or wide prime) is missing from the list. However, I'm not sure that I've ever really missed not having one.
That makes me question whether I have a "vision block" in the wide-angle range and just don't see the possibilities that I could be getting. After all, with my D2X, I'm really jumping from 10.5mm to a 42mm equivalent with the 28-70.
Assuming that I can "zoom with my feet" in many circumstances, what am I otherwise missing from a creative standpoint by not having a wide solution? Of course, examples with any explanations are especially appreciated...
#1. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 0Ben_hur Registered since 29th Oct 2005Mon 11-Dec-06 01:49 PM
I am by no means qualified to lecture but I do possess a 19-35mm zoom which i use on film and I have to say that its not the same as zooming with your feet. the relationships of subject sizes and their relative composition changes according to the focal length you are using (which leads to the particular feel that a wide angle lens has). walking away from the subject fits it in the frame yes, but the resulting image will not be the same as a close up taken with a wide angle...there is a feeling of compression of space and intensification of the subject matter which you get through using a wide angle. having said that i dont think you will find a wide angle very useful for wild life, it will be fantastic for rendering images of architecture and landscapes when you travel though...
D200, N2020, n80
The Image Barrel
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#2. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 0f11 Nikonian since 23rd Feb 2006Mon 11-Dec-06 01:56 PM
If you have never been hampered by a restricted interior or felt the need for an expansive scenic shot, you in fact may not need wider. If on the other hand you want a just in case lens, a used 18-70mm DX could be had for a good price.
#3. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 0Valentino Registered since 04th Dec 2004Mon 11-Dec-06 01:57 PM
At the wide end zooming with your feet will only do so much since a true wide angle will alter the size relationship of the foreground vs the background. The area under 28mm is significant. Since you do travel photography and anything you pass may make a good subject, I suggest a 18-200VR since you can easily hand hold and have great versatility. alternatively, a 17-55 is another way to go. Forgive the pun, but without a wide angle lens you don't know what you are missing. Check out my Christmas gallery below, the more recent top images where shot mostly with a 12-24 at 12mm and the ones below mostly shot with the 18-70 at the wide end. These could not be done at 28mm or above.
Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Moderator Emeritus
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography
#4. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 0archivue Registered since 26th Mar 2002Mon 11-Dec-06 04:35 PM
After all those sound advices, I'll risk more of a viewpoint
I'm more in travel and architecture (I'm an architect) and thousands of years ago, when much younger I had a 28 mm, a 50 mm and a 200 mm while using film.
Today, with a D200, I use again a 28/2 AIS, A 35/2 AI'sed most times, a 50/1.4 AI'sed for interiors and portraits and a 85/2 AIS for portraits and architecture (it's less heavy then the 180/2.8 that was my favorite before) ! I did use the 20/2.8 AF but nearly stopped using it since I have the 28/2...
Why no wide angle ? Because they introduce a distorted perspective with the "all in the box" way of seeing things, I usually prefer the "pieces of" sort of pictures that can also "say the story"
Sure, I can't get all the "famed" ceiling of such old building, but in most cases I can still "evoke" it through details and use of DoF... My own "vision" of a building being more from afar through a tele lens to bring it against it's surroundings (needs often quite a walk "away" from the building ).
Of course there are many different ways of seeing things, through all the individuals we are... Some don't really need a wide-angle (wether on film or on digital), others need, on the contrary, the foreground and sky effect... So, there's no "truth" in either, just sometimes a case of NAS or a curiosity that can be easily fulfilled for cheap
My two cents of "difference"
"Architecture and Photography are following the same goal ... To sculpt with light !"
#5. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 0TonyBeach Registered since 20th Sep 2006Mon 11-Dec-06 05:04 PM
If you can afford it, buy it. I bet you end up using it more than the 10.5 fisheye you own. This is kind of like in Field of Dreams when the voice says "If you build it, they will come." Having that lens opens up your eye to a whole new way of seeing the world.
D200 w/Nikkor & Tokina lenses
#6. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 0shape shifter Registered since 12th Oct 2004Mon 11-Dec-06 08:25 PM
If I were shooting the D2X listed in your profile, I would probably purchase the 12 - 24mm DX lens. This would give you a digital equivalent of 18 - 36mm.
Even though I shoot film, I confine most of my lens usage to just two: an 18 - 35 wide angle zoom, and the 80 - 200 telephoto. Just not that much utility in using a midrange when you have this sort of a combo.
"One photo out of focus is a mistake, ten photo out of focus are an experimentation, one hundred photo out of focus are a style."
#7. "RE: There's a hole in my line-up!" | In response to Reply # 6jwake Basic MemberTue 12-Dec-06 12:29 AM
I second Shape Shifter's opinion...the 12-24DX is a great wide angle and paired with the 80-200 you can do just about anything (I plug the gap with a 28-70 AFS but the darn thing is so heavy I leave it at home if I am on the road and don't miss it).
"From the Florida Panhandle"
"From the Mtns of New Mexico"