Posted by Basil Greber on April 16, 2008 at 3:22 AM
Hi all
I consider using a Tokina 12-24/4 DX + Tokina 50-135/2.8 DX combo for landscaping (18-36 and 75-200 equivalents). Do you landscape guys think that the gap thereby created is too large? Or does anybody use a similarly spaced combo?
I already have the 12-24/4 DX, plus I have a 18-135 DX Nikkor and a 85/1.8 Nikkor. I consider replacing the latter two with the 50-135/2.8 DX (selling the two would probably yield enough money) for two reasons:
a) The 18-135 DX is a plastic lens that extends when zooming. I'm always worried that I'll crush it. It's sharp, though. And convenient.
b) The 50-135/2.8 would make for a nice portrait zoom, rendering the 85/1.8 not all that useful anymore.
Any thoughts? Most important question is whether anybody has any experience with that kind of gaps in their lens line-up.
Speaking only for myself, the gap you cite (roughly 36-75 mm in 35mm terms) would be too big. I would guess, offhand, that 25% of my landscape shots fall into this focal range. My most used lens is the 24-120 D (Nikon has replaced with this with 24-120 VR, as you may know) and about half the time I use it it's below 50mm (75mm equivalent).
What's your own experience using the 18-135? You must have some sense of how often you're using that at 50mm and below? If it's rarely, you're probably okay making the move you're considering. If it's even occasionally (unless virtually all that time it's 24mm and below), you're almost certainly going to miss having this range covered.
In the end, I think only you can be the judge.
Posted by Basil Greber on April 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Kerry - Well, I've not used it between 24 and 50 too often. I mostly find myself at the wide end, or then at maybe 70-100 or something. However, this may not be true for all shooting situations (and also may be indicating a weakness in terms of my compositional abilities in that range... which might change, who knows? ).
Looks like there was also a reply from Charlie van Tassel (e-mail notification) - but I can't see it now. In any case, the suggested 17-35/2.8 is outside my budget (and the D3 too, definately ).
Basil
Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Basil,
For myself that wouldn't work, but if it works for you, then go for it. You can always add a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 in the future if you find you're missing that coverage.
I personally shoot most often in the 28-60mm range for 35mm and the lenses I chose for my 4X5 basically reflect that too.
Mel-
Posted by Richard Wong on April 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I shoot a large variety of subjects but basically only use two lenses. 17-35 & 70-300. I don't find myself needing much else except for perhaps a better telephoto.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on April 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM
When I go backpacking, or even hiking these days I only take 2 lenses my canon 17-40L, and a canon 70-200L. I don't usually miss the gap, but it does happen occasionally. I'm such a wide angle shooter these days, I take 98% of all my images with the 17-40.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Hey Basil - Here's a a link to Exposure Plot software. You can run it on a directory of photos (or a whole drive) and it will graph the focal lengths used, provided they show up in the EXIF info.
I'm not sure if you've seen this, but its helpful for analyzing which focal lengths you use most. Someone else posted it on here before, and I've heard stories about people being surprised how much they shoot at a particular focal length.
Might clue you in to how much you'd miss that gap in your range...
Posted by Basil Greber on April 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Zack - I guess you use these two lenses on an FF DSLR, right?
David - thanks for the link. Unfortunately, my Mac can't run *.exe files. I'll have a search for a Mac version. Interesting.
Basil
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 16, 2008 at 7:07 PM
I commonly only carry a Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 80-400mm VR lens. I just don't like that 20--50mm range much. It doesn't seem all that dynamic and I seem to naturally avoid it. I am an ultra wide freak though.
Basil,
Not sure I'm a 'landscape' guy, but I 'wanna be'... I had the same thought a few years back when I was building my kit.. I normally carry two bodies with one of three lens attached to them. I settled on a Sigma 10-20, which I'll never sell, and also a Sigma 50-500 for wildlife shooting... I also carry a Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro lens in my small camera bag with my filters & flash... This lens comes in very handy in a lot of instances...
The 50-500 is usually attached to my D200 & Carbon tripod, and my D70 has the Macro lens and a lightweight monopod attached to the lens foot.
I usually have everything I could ever want for a given situation, and only need to make one lens change to either body if I need to... It all depends on the terain and subject matter
I want to shoot... The 50-500 is not as heavy as you might think, or maybe have read, and for the Moola, it's an awsome lens. Almost all of my Avian Photos were taken with the 50-500, and almost through the entire zoom range.
I have several good Nikon lens as well, but always seem to have these three on the cameras..., and/or with me wherever I go. Some day, (when I win the Lottery) I'd like to see what it's like to use a 600mm f4, but until then, my Sigmas are just fine.
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it..
Dave
Dave Flaig
Green Bay Wisconsin
www.flaigphoto.com
"Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Looks like there was also a reply from Charlie van Tassel (e-mail notification) - but I can't see it now. In any case, the suggested 17-35/2.8 is outside my budget (and the D3 too, definately ).
Basil--yeah, if you could afford the 17-35 and a D3, you wouldn't have to worry about picking up a lens to cover the 24-50 gap.
The responses from those who mentioned that they tend to shoot ultrawide most of the time...I'm guessing that most of you spend the majority of your time shooting in the "grand landscape" venues. Some of us aren't so lucky. Here in the Great Lakes region of the upper Midwest, there are fewer (not none, just not as many) such opportunities. Normal and short telephoto focal lengths are a frequent priority.
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 16, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Kerry--
Not necessarily "grand landscapes" for me. I often shoot ultrawide in tight conditions, such as a small canyon. Mostly though, I am getting up very close to my subject with the ultrawide, which tends to make the background appear smaller.
Kent--yeah, I do some of that too, in my neck of the woods (i.e. get very close to something with an ultra-wide lens)...that's where the "most" and "majority of the time" modifiers come in. But I have found fewer ultra-wide opportunities shooting in places like the Chicago area forest preserves than, for instance, when I was in New Mexico last September. I guess the point is, subject matter and shooting location are likely to play a large role in focal length (and, by extension, lens) choice...which isn't exactly an original thought on my part.
I don't have experience with gaps, but I am concerned by the fact that I generate a gap if I update my lens-set up with a wider zoom, a 17-40 or a 16-35. I will not carry three lenses, so I would then only take either my 24-105 and my 70-200 or the lets say 16-35, which then generates the gap and I just don't like the idea. In fact like Kerry mentiones extreme wide-angle needs some other kind of subject matter that most of the time is not available for me, so I will most likely stick to the 24-105 which offers reasonable wide-angle.
I don't know if me not wanting to have a gap that I never had helps you...but the concern is reasonable and I think you should decide very very carefully....
So yes, I think the gap is too big. In my case as mentioned, i rather sacrifice some mm on the wide-end, to not have that gap at a very standard focal length. (still have a huge gap between 200 and 600... )
Posted by Basil Greber on April 17, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Thanks for your responses, everybody. It's obvious that there is no clear-cut answer (which would've been nice, but the world's mostly not all that simple ). What some of you mentioned really makes me think about it - not all locations are equally well suited for a certain type of composition and focal length. I really like going ultrawide, but what if I, at some point, end up in a really great location that, however, doesn't offer that "typical" ultra wide composition. One option is to bring a cheap prime (35/2 AF-D Nikkor comes to mind) - but that would be a bit cumbersome, I think, and against the initial plan to simplify the lens line-up a bit and at the same time only travel with well built (constant length when zooming and focusing) lenses.
In any case, thanks a lot - and further input is of course most welcome!
I work with a 6x7 MF camera and don't use zoom lenses, so my response may not be very relevant to you. However, since I make landscape photos some of this might be helpful.
I use 3 fixed-focus lenses for my work. These are the following:
45 mm wideangle (equiv to 22 mm in the 35mm format)
105 mm standard (equiv to 50 mm in the 35 mm format)
200 mm telephoto (equiv to 100 mm in the 35 mm format)
My favorite of the 3 is the 105 mm. I like it because the standard perspective allows me to compose scenes without even pulling the camera out. What I see with my eyes is pretty much what I get with this lens.
W.r.t. to the intermediate focal lengths, I can pretty much get away by altering the distance between the camera and the subject. Of course, since I don't (often) use the camera when perched at the edge of a cliff, this works out fairly well.
Good luck with your lens selection.
Posted by Basil Greber on April 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Hi Anil
Even though (or maybe because) you shoot a different format and without zooms, your insights are very valuable and much appreciated. Actually, I've never had a "normal" prime yet - I've had 50, 85, and 105 at one time or another (well, and 400/5.6 and 500/7.2, but that's irrelevant here ), all on APS-C format (where a 1.5 x crop multiplier applies).
I've compared the work on your website to Zack Schnepf's, and without a doubt, your respective lens preferences show in your and Zack's work. It's not like one is better and the other is worse, of course not, but I think there's really a noticeable difference in composition and style. Very interesting indeed. I think you're mastering a certain type of composition where I do very poorly. So, maybe I should sell my 85/1.8 and get a 35/2 for some inspiration and new views.
Now, that's food for thought. And that's also why I love these forums here - in contrast to other places, a gear-related discussion doesn't degenerate into a "this lens has 10 % higher MTF scores but more CA" type of discussion, but remains focused on what counts - on how you see the world through that lens.
Discussion
16 repliesI consider using a Tokina 12-24/4 DX + Tokina 50-135/2.8 DX combo for landscaping (18-36 and 75-200 equivalents). Do you landscape guys think that the gap thereby created is too large? Or does anybody use a similarly spaced combo?
I already have the 12-24/4 DX, plus I have a 18-135 DX Nikkor and a 85/1.8 Nikkor. I consider replacing the latter two with the 50-135/2.8 DX (selling the two would probably yield enough money) for two reasons:
a) The 18-135 DX is a plastic lens that extends when zooming. I'm always worried that I'll crush it. It's sharp, though. And convenient.
b) The 50-135/2.8 would make for a nice portrait zoom, rendering the 85/1.8 not all that useful anymore.
Any thoughts? Most important question is whether anybody has any experience with that kind of gaps in their lens line-up.
Basil
What's your own experience using the 18-135? You must have some sense of how often you're using that at 50mm and below? If it's rarely, you're probably okay making the move you're considering. If it's even occasionally (unless virtually all that time it's 24mm and below), you're almost certainly going to miss having this range covered.
In the end, I think only you can be the judge.
Looks like there was also a reply from Charlie van Tassel (e-mail notification) - but I can't see it now. In any case, the suggested 17-35/2.8 is outside my budget (and the D3 too, definately
Basil
For myself that wouldn't work, but if it works for you, then go for it. You can always add a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 in the future if you find you're missing that coverage.
I personally shoot most often in the 28-60mm range for 35mm and the lenses I chose for my 4X5 basically reflect that too.
Mel-
I'm not sure if you've seen this, but its helpful for analyzing which focal lengths you use most. Someone else posted it on here before, and I've heard stories about people being surprised how much they shoot at a particular focal length.
Might clue you in to how much you'd miss that gap in your range...
David - thanks for the link. Unfortunately, my Mac can't run *.exe files. I'll have a search for a Mac version. Interesting.
Basil
Kent in SD
Not sure I'm a 'landscape' guy, but I 'wanna be'... I had the same thought a few years back when I was building my kit.. I normally carry two bodies with one of three lens attached to them. I settled on a Sigma 10-20, which I'll never sell, and also a Sigma 50-500 for wildlife shooting... I also carry a Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro lens in my small camera bag with my filters & flash... This lens comes in very handy in a lot of instances...
The 50-500 is usually attached to my D200 & Carbon tripod, and my D70 has the Macro lens and a lightweight monopod attached to the lens foot.
I usually have everything I could ever want for a given situation, and only need to make one lens change to either body if I need to... It all depends on the terain and subject matter
I want to shoot... The 50-500 is not as heavy as you might think, or maybe have read, and for the Moola, it's an awsome lens. Almost all of my Avian Photos were taken with the 50-500, and almost through the entire zoom range.
I have several good Nikon lens as well, but always seem to have these three on the cameras..., and/or with me wherever I go. Some day, (when I win the Lottery) I'd like to see what it's like to use a 600mm f4, but until then, my Sigmas are just fine.
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it..
Dave
Dave Flaig
Green Bay Wisconsin
www.flaigphoto.com
"Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Basil--yeah, if you could afford the 17-35 and a D3, you wouldn't have to worry about picking up a lens to cover the 24-50 gap.
The responses from those who mentioned that they tend to shoot ultrawide most of the time...I'm guessing that most of you spend the majority of your time shooting in the "grand landscape" venues. Some of us aren't so lucky.
Not necessarily "grand landscapes" for me. I often shoot ultrawide in tight conditions, such as a small canyon. Mostly though, I am getting up very close to my subject with the ultrawide, which tends to make the background appear smaller.
Kent in SD
I don't know if me not wanting to have a gap that I never had helps you...but the concern is reasonable and I think you should decide very very carefully....
So yes, I think the gap is too big. In my case as mentioned, i rather sacrifice some mm on the wide-end, to not have that gap at a very standard focal length. (still have a huge gap between 200 and 600...
In any case, thanks a lot - and further input is of course most welcome!
Basil
I work with a 6x7 MF camera and don't use zoom lenses, so my response may not be very relevant to you. However, since I make landscape photos some of this might be helpful.
I use 3 fixed-focus lenses for my work. These are the following:
45 mm wideangle (equiv to 22 mm in the 35mm format)
105 mm standard (equiv to 50 mm in the 35 mm format)
200 mm telephoto (equiv to 100 mm in the 35 mm format)
My favorite of the 3 is the 105 mm. I like it because the standard perspective allows me to compose scenes without even pulling the camera out. What I see with my eyes is pretty much what I get with this lens.
W.r.t. to the intermediate focal lengths, I can pretty much get away by altering the distance between the camera and the subject. Of course, since I don't (often) use the camera when perched at the edge of a cliff, this works out fairly well.
Good luck with your lens selection.
Even though (or maybe because) you shoot a different format and without zooms, your insights are very valuable and much appreciated. Actually, I've never had a "normal" prime yet - I've had 50, 85, and 105 at one time or another (well, and 400/5.6 and 500/7.2, but that's irrelevant here
I've compared the work on your website to Zack Schnepf's, and without a doubt, your respective lens preferences show in your and Zack's work. It's not like one is better and the other is worse, of course not, but I think there's really a noticeable difference in composition and style. Very interesting indeed. I think you're mastering a certain type of composition where I do very poorly. So, maybe I should sell my 85/1.8 and get a 35/2 for some inspiration and new views.
Now, that's food for thought. And that's also why I love these forums here - in contrast to other places, a gear-related discussion doesn't degenerate into a "this lens has 10 % higher MTF scores but more CA" type of discussion, but remains focused on what counts - on how you see the world through that lens.
Thanks a bunch!
Basil