How "wide" for wide-angle lens

[DivingPrincessE]

I used the search feature and answered one of my two camera questions (tripod v monopod for Alaska = monopod). I couldn't find an answer to my other question though.

 

How "wide" of a wide angle lens do the DSLR folks think is needed for Alaska? I have a 24-105 L lens, do you think that 24 is wide enough? I'm thinking about renting the 10-22 lens for Alaska, but I hate that it doesn't have IS. It's one of the main reasons I have not bought the lens yet. I'm waiting/hoping they come out with an IS version sometime. Do you all think 10-22 is needed for Alaska, or will the 24-105 be enough?

 

FYI-Not worried about the long lenses. I have a 100-400 L along with a 1/4 converter. :)

 

Thanks in advance!

[chipmaster]

You shooting a full frame like 5D or crop sensor rebel/7d. 24 is on the long side ~ 36mm on crop sensor. On a fullframe 24 is pretty good IMHO

 

I found super wide ( wider than 24 on full frame ) very fun not just for landscape but just all sorts of prospective too. Sadly I don't do that much as I'd like.

 

For landscape for distant stuff if you don't have nor want to purchase a superwide you can get away with multi shots panoramics.

 

For superwide IS really isn't a must have, if you got to have there is a very nice 16-35 F4 VR but that comes in "black" a far superior color anyways:D

[mrbelk]

Assuming you have a Canon APS-C size sensor in your camera, the EF-S 10-22 is a fantasic lens and is the same field of view as a 16-35 on a full frame sensor. Apparently there are some "L" features in that lens and the contrast, sharpness, and color are fantastic. My only complaint isn't really about the lens it's about how expensive the slim circular polarizing filters are so that you don't get any vignetting on the very wide end.

 

Perhaps for the scale of the vistas in AK, 24mm might be wide enough, but I'm not going to chance it.

 

For those short focal lengths, IS really isn't that important.

 

My kit will be my EF-S 10-22, 24-105 F/4L, and 70-300 F/3.5-5.6 (although I might see about renting a 100-400) and my EF-S 60mm macro lens.

 

I decided the other way on the tripod vs. monopod debate. The way I see it, my tripod can act as a monopod if I just close the legs; but there's no way a monopod can do what a tripod can do.

 

-MrB

[tobecool]

I used the search feature and answered one of my two camera questions (tripod v monopod for Alaska = monopod). I couldn't find an answer to my other question though.

 

How "wide" of a wide angle lens do the DSLR folks think is needed for Alaska? I have a 24-105 L lens, do you think that 24 is wide enough? I'm thinking about renting the 10-22 lens for Alaska, but I hate that it doesn't have IS. It's one of the main reasons I have not bought the lens yet. I'm waiting/hoping they come out with an IS version sometime. Do you all think 10-22 is needed for Alaska, or will the 24-105 be enough?

 

FYI-Not worried about the long lenses. I have a 100-400 L along with a 1/4 converter. :)

 

Thanks in advance!

 

 

someone told me it`s not good to change the lens so often, is that true? I have a 15-85 and 70-200, do you think we'd better take two lenses during the day trip, I mean for the exursions, or we can simply take just 70-200 for the sighting and 15-85 on the ship. thanks

[DivingPrincessE]

Nope, don't have a full frame. I have the Canon 1D mkiii (not Ds) for two reasons. I shoot wildlife primarily, so I cared more about the 10 fps of the 1D than the full frame of the 1Ds. The second reason is that 1Dmkiii runs around $4,000 new, as opposed to the 1Dsmkiii (full frame) that runs $7,000 new. The full frame/slower camera wasn't worth the extra $3,000 to me (personally).

 

Looks like I'll be renting the 10-22. Works for me :)

 

Thanks all!

[DivingPrincessE]

someone told me it`s not good to change the lens so often, is that true? I have a 15-85 and 70-200, do you think we'd better take two lenses during the day trip, I mean for the exursions, or we can simply take just 70-200 for the sighting and 15-85 on the ship. thanks

 

I'm not a pro by any stretch, but I have never heard that changing lenses often isn't good. Do they mean like it's not good for the camera/lenses? :confused: That's a new one.

 

It can be bad to change lenses in a dusty and/or sandy environment b/c the debris/dust can get on the camera sensor, which could affect the pictures. I've read this often in my Africa research. When I travel there I will be going with two bodies so I don't have to change lenses often (if at all). They say if you HAVE to change lenses try to do it in a clean an environment as possible, and keep the camera pointed at a somewhat downward angle.

 

I don't think that the dust/sand will be much of a problem in Alaska though, at least I haven't read anywhere that it will be. So I plan to only carry around one body (though I'll bring both on the trip) and change lenses as needed.

 

As for what lenses to carry around...I've never been to Alaska, so I'm not a good judge for that. Hopefully someone else will weigh in. I would HATE to miss a shot though, so I'm most likely to bring all my lenses everywhere that allows it.

[Sandi3667]

I was debating renting a wide angle lens for our upcoming cruise. I have an 18-55 with my Nikon D40, so it's already a little wider than what you have. The rental option I was looking at was around a 12mm, if I recall correctly. I wasn't sure if it would be worth the extra expense, so I searched online for Alaska photos shot with that lens. There are a few photo-sharing sites that gave me a good representation of what the result would be. I decided it wasn't worth the extra for me, since I can get fairly wide with mine already. I had some other equipment that would be more of a priority, so I'm making do with my existing lenses.

[aussiegav]

I have been looking at getting the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens for our alaska trip it is ment to be a very good wide angle lens

[DivingPrincessE]

I have been looking at getting the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens for our alaska trip it is ment to be a very good wide angle lens

 

I looked at that (among other lenses as well) and the general impression I got was that the Tokina was better than the Canon for inside photography (cathedrals, people, etc) because of the 2.8. I read the Tokina had a more durable build. The Image Quality was basically equal. People said that the Canon was better for outdoor photography b/c the Tokina had very bad flaring issues (allegedly) and problems or bad CA (though I never figured out what CA was). Since this lens is for landscape/outdoors, I chose Canon. I read comparisons on POTN (Photography on the Net) in case you want to check it out before you buy.

[chipmaster]

Wlidlife need 10FPS, BIF? Those are fast moving critters :eek: The 1DMKIII is a nice camera :D

 

Nope, don't have a full frame. I have the Canon 1D mkiii (not Ds) for two reasons. I shoot wildlife primarily, so I cared more about the 10 fps of the 1D than the full frame of the 1Ds. The second reason is that 1Dmkiii runs around $4,000 new, as opposed to the 1Dsmkiii (full frame) that runs $7,000 new. The full frame/slower camera wasn't worth the extra $3,000 to me (personally).

 

Looks like I'll be renting the 10-22. Works for me :)

 

Thanks all!

 

 

The whole purpose of a DSLR is to be able to change lense. Most of the better lens are metal mounts as are the mount on the camera. The metal mounts are good for thousands of changes if not more and a lot of abuse.

 

I have changed lens and to be honest with good technique find I have changed bodies more often than cleaned a sensor. Actually have yet to clean a sensor.

 

Get the lense for the prospective you want, its a pitty not to change lens and miss a shot IMHO. As long as you practice common sense and dont' change in the rain or horribly dirty enviroment and are reasonable quick you should be fine.

 

someone told me it`s not good to change the lens so often, is that true? I have a 15-85 and 70-200, do you think we'd better take two lenses during the day trip, I mean for the exursions, or we can simply take just 70-200 for the sighting and 15-85 on the ship. thanks

[tobecool]

Thanks a lot for your replies, DivingPrincessE and Chipmaster. we feel better now to hear your advice and feel safe to get the chance to change lenses whenever I want to, especially in Alaska. As everyone knows, I don't want to miss any chance during my trip in Alaska. Enjoy shooting with all your descent camera and lenses. Wish all you have nice trip and vacation in Alaska.

[DivingPrincessE]

Wlidlife need 10FPS, BIF? Those are fast moving critters :eek: The 1DMKIII is a nice camera :D

 

If I didn't have such a fast camera I might have missed this...an otter punching his brother in the nose for trying to steal his crab. :D

 

 

Another favorite in the middle of a high fps sequence (though yes, I prob could have gotten this with a slower camera)

 

[tobecool]

If I didn't have such a fast camera I might have missed this...an otter punching his brother in the nose for trying to steal his crab. :D

 

 

Another favorite in the middle of a high fps sequence (though yes, I prob could have gotten this with a slower camera)

 

 

wow!great shooting.

[mrbelk]

I looked at that (among other lenses as well) and the general impression I got was that the Tokina was better than the Canon for inside photography (cathedrals, people, etc) because of the 2.8. I read the Tokina had a more durable build. The Image Quality was basically equal. People said that the Canon was better for outdoor photography b/c the Tokina had very bad flaring issues (allegedly) and problems or bad CA (though I never figured out what CA was). Since this lens is for landscape/outdoors, I chose Canon. I read comparisons on POTN (Photography on the Net) in case you want to check it out before you buy.

 

Canon's EF-S 10-22 will not work on your 1D3. It's a 1.3x crop sensor and doesn't accept EF-S mount lenses like the APS-C bodies such as the 7D or 60D or the digital rebels.

 

-MrB

[DivingPrincessE]

Canon's EF-S 10-22 will not work on your 1D3. It's a 1.3x crop sensor and doesn't accept EF-S mount lenses like the APS-C bodies such as the 7D or 60D or the digital rebels.

 

-MrB

 

I have a rebel t1i as well that I'm bringing, I want to stick with my 1D primarily, but if I rent the 10-22, I'll shoot the lanscapes with my rebel.

 

I wish they would come out with an UWA for the 1D series!!

[mrbelk]

I have a rebel t1i as well that I'm bringing, I want to stick with my 1D primarily, but if I rent the 10-22, I'll shoot the lanscapes with my rebel.

 

I wish they would come out with an UWA for the 1D series!!

 

There's always this one: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm

 

It would have almost the FOV of ~11-20mm on your 1D3, but the fisheye effect might not be that cool in AK.

 

It's only 2x as expensive at the 10-22, too...

 

-MrB

[bbwex]

I am not sure how much you need such a wide angle in Alaska. There are clearly some shots that demand a wider angle, but 24mm isn't bad. I used telephoto more than wide angle. There were a couple of shots where I could have used a wider angle, but don't regret anything I couldn't get.

 

I think renting the extra lens is the way to go. You will see how much you like it/need it and you aren't buying it to find out. I did that with a 500mm reflector lens -- which I used a lot -- and bought one after the cruise.

[TheHopscotch]

I am a huge fan of the Sigma 8-16mm, as it is the widest non-fisheye available for crop sensor cameras (at least it was when I purchased it a while back). I've also owned the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and it is a fantastic lens, as well. Ultra wide angle lenses can be very fun and give you a new perspective! I adore mine. I did a comparison a while back in a blog post, comparing the Sigma 8-16 to the Tokina 11-16. I was very interested in seeing how the 8mm varied from the 11mm and how they performed against each other.

 

If you are interested in reading about it, my blog post is here: http://hopperscott.blogspot.com/2011/01/go-wide-or-go-home.html

 

I kept the 8-16 and sold the 11-16, as I don't need f/2.8 very often and found the close focusing ability of the 8-16 more my style than the ability to use 2.8. YMMV. By the way, those shots were on a Nikon crop sensor with a 1.5x crop factor, in case anyone was wondering.

 

I can't wait to see how the Sigma performs in Alaska in a few weeks!

[psyfi]

I used my tele WAY more than my wide angle. I don't think you "need" anything wider but if you want an excuse to play with a new lens, it works!