Is it wide enough?

[Poider]

I am thinking of getting nikon 16 - 85mm and nikon 80 - 400mm to replace my kit lenses, I am wondering how much wider is the 16mm of the 16 - 85mm compared to the 18mm of my kit 18 - 55mm lens, I have 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit lenses and feel the 16 may answer my need for something wider indoors and the 400 would be better for birding.
Peter

[rpcrowe]

I don't know if this helps but, the angles of view on a 1.5x crop for the following focal length lenses are:

16mm = 73.7 degrees horizontal x 53.1 degrees vertical

18mm = 67.4 degrees horizontal x 47.9 degrees vetical

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Peter,

I did some research a few months ago and decided that the 16-85 lens, being neither fast nor wide, wasn't for me.

Yes, you'll notice slight difference from the 18mm, but not enough in my view, to justify the spend - if it were f/2.8, then maybe, but it has so little advantage over your kit lens.

If/when I do buy a UWA, it'll likely be a 10-24m or 12-24mm at f/4-ish.

Cheers,

[Colin Southern]

Hi Peter,

It would be helpful to know more about what you'll be shooting.

[Poider]

I shoot anything, I like to get birds and animals in the wild, I like coastal and outback landscapes, I like night shooting and the sky
Peter

[Colin Southern]

Hi Peter,

Personally, I think a lot of folks mistakenly believe that one needs wide-angle for landscape, but my experience is that most of the time they end up giving a scene that's devoid of meaningful detail. I've shot a lot of landscape and these days I'm using a 70-200mm lens for it far more often -- and getting better results.

I wrote an article for premier filter manufacturer Singh-Ray on this topic - if you're interested, you can read it here.

UWA (Ultra Wide Angle) lenses CAN be beneficial for interior photography, but they tend to distort the depth perception, turning a small cupboard into a bowling ally.

[thequacksoflife]

I'd query the 80-400 (I own one) it's an old lens and uses the old screw drive focusing system (it's not a speed demon).

Agree with Colin about UWA's, the width will get you a very uninteresting pic. where they are good is for altering the perspective and giving more depth - e.g having some quite close in the foreground.

Whether the 16-85 is better than the 18-55 will be a personal thing. I think it is, slightly sharper, you have a greater range, and you can manually override autofocus.

[William W]

I don’t use Nikon now, but I have so before:

I am thinking of getting nikon 16 - 85mm and nikon 80 - 400mm to replace my kit lenses, I am wondering how much wider is the 16mm of the 16 - 85mm compared to the 18mm of my kit 18 - 55mm lens, I have 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit lenses and feel the 16 may answer my need for something wider indoors and the 400 would be better for birding.

Obviously you have an APS-C Format Camera.

The Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II DX is a newer lens and I do not know it, but if you are shooting INDOORS and that is one criterion for making the switch to a 16mm lens from an 18mm Lens, I am pretty certain you will be disappointed – 18mm to 16mm is NOT much difference in tight shooting situations.


To get a realistic feel for the difference:

Set your 18 –55 to FL = 18mm and then in your living room, frame four or five people in the shot at a distance of 10 ft (3mtrs) from the camera.

Then assuming you have a Size 8 shoe, place the toe of one foot to the heel of the other and step back one step only – and then do that again – you have moved back about 15 inches (40cm) – what you see in your viewfinder is a very close approximation of the extra width and height which you will get in an average, indoor shot.


The Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR is a lens I know and I think you will have challenges using this lens for birds in flight.

However, you will get reasonable joy using it for birds stationary in reasonable light (depending of course on your camera’s ISO capacity and your tolerance and limits of high ISO useability).

What is your High ISO tolerance / limit?

WW

[thequacksoflife]

I don’t use Nikon now, but I have so before:



Obviously you have an APS-C Format Camera.

The Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II DX is a newer lens and I do not know it, but of you are shooting INDOORS and that is one criterion for making the switch to a 16mm lens from an 18m Lens, I am pretty certain you will be disappointed – 18mm to 16mm is NOT much difference in tight shooting situations.


To get a realistic feel for the difference:

Set your 18 –55 to FL = 18mm and then in your living room, frame four or five people in the shot at a distance of 10 ft (3mtrs) from the camera.

Then assuming you have a Size 8 shoe, place the toe of one foot to the heel of the other and step back one step only – and then do that again – you have moved back about 15 inches (40cm) – what you see in your viewfinder is a very close approximation of the extra width and height which you will get in an average, indoor shot.


The Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR is a lens I know and I think you will have challenges using this lens for birds in flight.

However, you will get reasonable joy using it for birds stationary in reasonable light (depending of course on your camera’s ISO capacity and your tolerance and limits of high ISO useability).

What is your High ISO tolerance / limit?

WW

actually there is a noticeable difference between 16 and 18 (or 24 and 28 for FF) but whether it is what Tom expects....

I agree about BIF but not impossible!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ODgaxhZ_6a...0/dsc_3497.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z6WumK87fi...0/DSC_1463.jpg

[William W]

Agree with Colin about UWA's, the width will get you a very uninteresting pic. where they are good is for altering the perspective and giving more depth - e.g having some quite close in the foreground.

↑Humbug.
Don’t just agree with Colin.
Wide lenses are great for shooting indoors:
Anything "wet" and in "barrels" . . . just HAS to be good.



WW

[William W]

actually there is a noticeable difference between 16 and 18 (or 24 and 28 for FF) but whether it is what Tom expects....

This comment is actually a serious one:

Pls read carefully and note that the commentary regarding the (minimal & usually NOT useful) DIFFERENCE between 18mm and 16mm is for the application of shooting INDOORS in a typical sized living room of an average house in AUS - which is what the OP sort of outlined in the first post.

Sure - there is a lot more "difference", when shooting outside scenary or large groups of people at >20 ft from the camera etc . . . but that is not what those comments were addressing.

***


1463jpg is bloody excellent, using that lens.


WW

[thequacksoflife]

WW if I actually understood your wet and in barrels comment.........

you make a fair point on indoor photography and I missed the word indoor in the original post mea culpa, however many people buy them because they are wide and assume that the width is all that's important. For landscape shooting they can be boring if used poorly - something I've found over the years!

if it was for indoor photograhy I would go for something like a Tokina 11-16 f2.8, outdoors I'd go for one of the Nikon's 10/12-24 or a Sigma 10-20

and thank you for the comment on the greenshank. I think I was really lucky! Nikon need to produce an updated version!!!

[William W]

WW if I actually understood your wet and in barrels comment.........

I was having a joke with Colin and using your quote as a conduit.
I am quite fond of wine.
Hence the oblique pun – wet, inside and barrels

fair point on indoor photography, however many people buy them because they are wide and assume that the width is all that's important. For landscape shooting they can be boring if used poorly - something I've found over the years!

If you did not pick up on the fact that I was ONLY commenting on how useless the extra 2mm will be for typical shooting inside – then I did not explain myself clearly enough.
To be clear I was not commenting on the lens per se – I don’t know that lens at all.
As for other comments about landscape shooting and how wide to use or not to use – no comment from me on that one, either.

and thank you for the comment on the greenshank. I think i was really lucky! They need to produce an updated version!!!

Well it is clearly the better of the two and pretty squish that Focus was Acquired - as the bird was flying toward the camera – a D300 I recall.
Kudos for the Av setting also – as expect you left some wiggle room there – but understood that lens “needs” to be stopped down, at least to F/6.3

WW

[thequacksoflife]

If you did not pick up on the fact that I was ONLY commenting on how useless the extra 2mm will be for typical shooting inside – then I did not explain myself clearly enough.

that was my fault when I reread you were perfectly clear.

Well it is clearly the better of the two and pretty squish that Focus was Acquired - as the bird was flying toward the camera – a D300 I recall.
Kudos for the Av setting also – as expect you left some wiggle room there – but understood that lens “needs” to be stopped down, at least to F/6.3

WW

The Duck isn't as good but given the light wasn't good and it was moving quickly....

The shot was very probably at f7.1, I'd only shoot that lens wide open if it was the only chance of getting the shot

[William W]

The Duck isn't as good but given the light wasn't good and it was moving quickly...

Thanks for that info: I had been wondering about that (the different speeds of flight between birds) - I have no idea of Bird Speed.

***

We’re off flying around with the birds - I wonder what Peter Poider thinks thus far, about the two lenses he is considering?

WW

[Colin Southern]

↑Humbug.
Don’t just agree with Colin.
Wide lenses are great for shooting indoors:
Anything "wet" and in "barrels" . . . just HAS to be good.



WW

The problem with using UWA lenses in situations like that Bill is that it makes the pool 3 times as long (although lanes 1 & 8 have a small advantage!) -- and that's just soul destroying for the swimmers as they all get exhausted and set lousy times! (Great shot though!). Do you need a fish-eye lens for shooting inside a barrel? (or is that just for shooting fish in a barrel?)

[William W]

. . . no joking:
in the 1980's I did a set of publicity photos for a winery in the Hunter Valley (NSW).
They actually scrub out the insides of the (wooden) vats and they get inside to do that . . . I was using Pentax 6x7 - and I did use the 35mmF/4.5 fisheye for the shots of cleaning inside the barrel - but we didn't use those shots in the brochure - but it was fun shooting them.

WW

[Colin Southern]

. . . no joking:
in the 1980's I did a set of publicity photos for a winery in the Hunter Valley (NSW).
They actually scrub out the insides of the (wooden) vats and they get inside to do that . . . I was using Pentax 6x7 - and I did use the 35mmF/4.5 fisheye for the shots of cleaning inside the barrel - but we didn't use those shots in the brochure - but it was fun shooting them.

WW

I can just imaging you falling into a full one:

"OMG - Bill's fallen in! Quick - get him out!"

Bill: "I'm OK - I'm OK - just leave me here - I'm fine!"

[William W]

[Poider]

Peter poider thanks every one for their advice, I think I will stick with what I have untill I win lotto, maybe then I will buy a good 300mm f1.4 and a teleconverter, or just the straight 600mm

Peter