| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2011 04:32:26 PM · #1 |
| I'm looking at getting a nice wide angle lens for landscape photography, and maybe something I could also use for portraiture. I was looking an an 85mm f1.8 or 1.4 or a 105mm ... just wondering what everyones thoughts are. I shoot with a Nikon D300, I find myself shooting a lot of landscapes but want to start getting into portraits so something that would do well with both areas would be a better bang for my buck. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 04:49:00 PM · #2 |
Both of those lenses are telephoto lenses, not wide angle. Either one will make a good portrait lens.
If you want a wide angle, you need either a zoom lens or a wide angle prime. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 05:29:23 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Both of those lenses are telephoto lenses, not wide angle. |
I think to be considered wide-angle the FL should be less than 50mm, the approximate FL of the human eye. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 05:40:41 PM · #4 |
If you are looking for an actual wide angle, many of us like the Sigma 10-20. I really like mine.
You're probably not going to find a single lens that's great at both portraiture AND wide angles... at least not really wide angles that are nice for landscapes. You're most likely looking at two different beasts. One lens that could possibly satisfy you for both purposes is the Nikon 18-200.
Message edited by author 2011-04-14 17:42:43. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 05:57:25 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Both of those lenses are telephoto lenses, not wide angle. |
I think to be considered wide-angle the FL should be less than 50mm, the approximate FL of the human eye. |
Less than about 50 on full frame... usually 35mm or less.
28mm is considered "normal" on cropped sensor cameras. So, wide-angle would be less than 20mm.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2011 06:19:31 PM · #6 |
I've been quite happy with my Tamron 10-24.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2011 06:28:28 PM · #7 |
| When I shoot a portrait with my 10-22 it is usually for comic effect. If your sitter wants their head bigger than their body this is the range to shoot in. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 09:50:05 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Both of those lenses are telephoto lenses, not wide angle. |
I think to be considered wide-angle the FL should be less than 50mm, the approximate FL of the human eye. |
The rule of thumb for what is considered a "normal" lens is that the normal focal length is when the focal length is equal to the diagonal of the image rectangle.
For a 24mmx36mm frame or "full frame", a normal lens is approximately 43mm.
I did the calculation for Canon's APS-C sensor once and I believe that the result was about 30mm. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 10:41:14 PM · #9 |
| I have a Tokina 12-24mm Pro DX f/4 and it does a fine job. I'm also shooting a D300. Not nearly as expensive as Nikon but get's the job done. I didn't want to invest alot in a DX lens since I hope to move to FX soon. Hope this helps Maver. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 11:15:49 PM · #10 |
| Don't forget the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, I've been very pleased with mine. Probably hard to go wrong with the Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. One drawback to the Tokina is the short range, but it makes up for it with very good sharpness across the frame and good color saturation. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/06/2025 08:01:11 AM EST.
