Prettym1k3 wrote:
Wide lenses are specialty lenses in my opinion. Much like a fisheye or a tilt-shift. When used sparingly and appropriately to add to the image (eg. capturing a cityscape with an UWA lens or creating a fun environment with a fisheye) they work very well. But, I repeat, should be used sparingly.
I use my fisheye just a little bit during receptions, and use my wide angle during receptions (sometimes) and usually for just a few shots of the ceremony to capture the entire environment.
It totally depends on your style, and your vision...35mm on full frame is considered wide angle...which really isnt wide at all...to me, the fov you get from 35mm on full frame is NORMAL... That's how i see the world...i shoot at 17mm on dx all the time, a LOT... For me that's not even that wide...it doesnt give a novelty look that you get with a fisheye, which should be used sparingly...wide is awesome... It tells a story...especially at weddings...
11mm on dx to me isnt that wide either... I dont shoot everything with it, but like the shot i posted above, the lens isnt adding anything to the photo that wasnt there already...as far as the moment goes....hardly can be compared to the effect of a fisheye
When I shot Nikon I never felt the need to go wider than 24mm. Now that I switched over to Canon I had the Canon 16-35 and didn't like it because it distorted so heavily on the wide end. I sold it and got the 17-40 instead and like it quite a bit. I still use it around 24-35mm for most actual photography, but love it at 17-20mm for really wide inclusive dance floor shots.
As with any tool, it's about knowing how to use it. I certainly wouldn't use a wide angle close to peoples faces, but further back or at odd angles it looks fine.
Joshua Gull wrote:
When I shot Nikon I never felt the need to go wider than 24mm. Now that I switched over to Canon I had the Canon 16-35 and didn't like it because it distorted so heavily on the wide end. I sold it and got the 17-40 instead and like it quite a bit. I still use it around 24-35mm for most actual photography, but love it at 17-20mm for really wide inclusive dance floor shots.
I know some Nikon shooters who are using the Nikon 17-35 F2.8 AFS along with the 70-200 F2.8 AFS on FX as a two lens kit for weddings. They stopped buying new glass and upgrade camera bodies instead.
I am getting to the point, after trying out the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 on DX on my last Hindu wedding, that I finally understand that an ultra wide like that is really a specialty lens. The Nikon 12-24 F4G seems more practical to me on DX; starting at 24mm and going wider only if necessary.
williamkazak wrote:
I am getting to the point, after trying out the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 on DX on my last Hindu wedding, that I finally understand that an ultra wide like that is really a specialty lens. The Nikon 12-24 F4G seems more practical to me on DX; starting at 24mm and going wider only if necessary.
I totally agree, i had a 12-24 tokina before the 11-16, and the range was far more useful on the former, but problem is a) it wasnt that sharp wide open, and b) it's not a 2.8...i'd LOVE for nikon to release a 12-24 2.8 for dx...the 14-24 doesnt interest me at all.... If i shot fx i'd have a 17-35 in a second...
