Is A Wide Angle Best ? For Scenic Thailand

Bluebird 65

Bluebird 65

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I'm quite new to hobbiest photography and have 3 lenses for my Nikon 3100 (The one it came with, a Nikon Nifty Fifty and a Tamron telephoto).

I have been pondering a wide angle for some time and with a pending holiday to Singapore & Thailand (Scenic Krabi), am thinking this would be a good time to fork out. My first question is, would a wide angle be the most versatile if I am taking only one lens?

Secondly I don't have a huge budget and am considering this:

https://www.jessops.com/p/sigma/10-20mm-f3-5-ex-dc-hsm-lens-nikon-af-77910

Although, doesn't appear great in a number of reviews, it's just possible that this is the best I am going to get for that sort of money????

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks
 
Personally I wouldn't bother, ultra wide angle is actually only useful in a very few situations and what happens when people buy one is they try and make all their photos fit the UWA formula and then when you look back at your photos you'll wonder why you can't see anything interesting in them. I've hauled UWA lenses all over the world and have only a handful of photos that are better because I had a UWA, none of those are from Thailand (or Vietnam), nowadays I don't bother taking one.

For travel, a superzoom (e.g. 18-200mm) is ideal as you don't want to be wasting time changing lenses when you could be capturing the interesting but fleeting moments. Add a fast prime for night time (night markets are fab in Asia) and you're sorted.
 
A wide angle may come in handy for photographing temples where space is a bit cramped and the occasional landscape etc. but I think if you are only taking one lens then you might miss the longer focal lengths.

You will mostly get away with using the widest angle on your kit lens in my opinion, but 10-20 would limit you a lot....think shots of people, closeup details on temples, markets etc.

Also if you are on a budget I would recommend looking at used rather than new. Jessops can be quite pricey. If you don't want to risk ebay then plenty of reputable used camera dealers that often have a warranty. Then if you later decide to sell you will take less of a hit.

I'm a Canon user, so not familiar with Nikon lenses, but if you really only want to take one lens I would maybe look at reviews for the 16-85.
 
If could jump in here please.

I had the same query with our Japan trip next year. Looking at the "experts" on youtube some say best for street photography is the 24mm, others the 35mm and yet again the 50mm lens. With all this conflicting advice I decided on just taking my 50mm f1.4 nikon lens together with my 24-70mm f2.8.lens.

Ok why these two lenses.
first the 50mm lens because I already have it and will hopefully be more discreet for use in Tokyo and other cities on the tour
The 24-70mm lens for more general views which I also own having used it for similar shots before and on the Nikon D810. Cropping a photo if needed is no problem

I did think about the 70-200mm lens but weight had to be considered if my wife and I are on an all day walking excursion

Also apart from being a backup camera my panasonic camcorder will be packed as well for the video side of the trip. Well used in Egypt as easily put into pocket to stop it being pinched also did some stills with it.

surely more interesting that just a stills shot?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=746OXm_AW6c


As against getting another lens do have a think about getting a small camcorder you wont regret it.


Forget that sigma lens in your link, this is what happens. You have to be very particular using exteremly wide lenses on what you take

CI40kOF.png

Taken with my nikon 12-24mm lens @12mm . The sides of buildings look as if they are falling in.

Hope this is of some help Paul
 
Last edited:
I too have an APS-C camera. If I'm only going to take lens on holiday it's the Tamron 16-300mm, which does nothing as well as better quality lenses of more restricted zoom range, but catches all those shots you wouldn't have got with a bagful of better lenses because you had the wrong lens on your camera at the time. If I'm taking two lenses I'll add my Sigma 8-16mm, plus a 35mm f1.8 because it's so small and light it doesn't count.

A lot of people sneer at kit lenses and superzooms (such as 18-250mm, 16-300mm, etc.) because they compromise on image quality in order to get a wider range of focal lengths or lower price. The truth is that some modern kit lenses and superzooms are quite good enough that nobody except an experienced photographer will be able to tell the difference in image quality between a shot with one of these "compromised" "inferior" lenses and a top quality lens at the same settings on an A4 print size. Of course they can't do the kind of seriously blurred background shots with best creamy bokeh beloved of glamour and portrait photographers, and which requires top quality lenses, but when you're on holiday you probably want as much as possible of everything in focus, and you'll have sunlight, so you'll be shooting at around f8 anyway. The image quality differences between top quality lenses and kit lenses and superzooms are much reduced at small apertures.
 
For scenic Thailand I'd recommend something like a 16-85 plus the 50 you already own. This makes for a really good walkabout lens.

As said already, UWA lenses have restricted usage, and below 24mm equivalent (16mm DX) require careful use in the right scene. Superzooms (I've had a few) compromise in too many areas (not just image quality, but light transmission too) and often one will get as good an image using a decent short telephoto lens & cropping compared to using the telephoto end of a SZ.
 
Another vote here for a wide-angle - short tele zoom.

The 16 - 85 is the equivalent to 24 - 127 on FF which would seem ideal to me. I can't comment on superzooms as i've never used one, so couldn't vouch for their quality.

Ultra-wide can be far too wide.
 
IME Superzooms are perfectly fine if you buy a decent one, my Nikon 28-300 was fantastic and my Olympus 14-150 is pretty damn good too. Each have their limitations but have more than acceptable sharpness, focus close (surprisingly handy when travelling) and have a good range, no doubt if you buy the cheapest Sigma superzoom it will be carp but spend a little more and they are pretty fine.

I have a few large large prints hanging in the house and the response is always along the lines of “where is that? that’s amazing! Did you take it?”, never have I been told “tsk, looks like you used a superzoom”.

To be fair, your 16-85mm is a fantastic lens and will probably be all you need, add a normal (35mm) prime and You should be covered.
 
chris malcolm said:
A lot of people sneer at kit lenses and superzooms (such as 18-250mm, 16-300mm, etc.) because they compromise on image quality in order to get a wider range of focal lengths or lower price. The truth is that some modern kit lenses and superzooms are quite good enough that nobody except an experienced photographer will be able to tell the difference in image quality between a shot with one of these "compromised" "inferior" lenses and a top quality lens at the same settings on an A4 print size. Of course they can't do the kind of seriously blurred background shots with best creamy bokeh beloved of glamour and portrait photographers, and which requires top quality lenses, but when you're on holiday you probably want as much as possible of everything in focus, and you'll have sunlight, so you'll be shooting at around f8 anyway. The image quality differences between top quality lenses and kit lenses and superzooms are much reduced at small apertures.
Click to expand...

My first lens on a DSLR was a Sigma 28-300mm and by any standards for image quality it was at best a utility lens :D but lenses like this can make great day out and holiday lenses. The ultimate optical quality may not be up there with the top end zooms and primes but in a whole image viewed normally few people will grumble and the biggest issue is possibly going to be the modest aperture range. I took some of my favourite pictures with that Sigma lens :D

Anyway, my wife is Thai and I've been there a few times. I just take a 35mm lens and a compact for the longer and wider stuff in good light but a wide angle on a quality camera would be very nice for scenic and temple shots. Stitching could be an option if all that's available is a standardish lens like a 35 or 50mm but maybe a 17-200mm or a 10-20mm and a fast 35 or 50mm for low light use or a quality camera plus a prime and a compact for the longer or wider shots could be pretty much ideal. Two lenses might push the budget though and if pushed for a one lens solution personally I'd go for a 35mm equivalent f1.8 and a compact but a wide or superzoom is an attractive option.
 
Don't misunderstand me about superzooms - when conditions are good one can create reasonable images, especially working between the wide and middle of the range and provided the lens can be stopped down at least 2 stops. Using a Sigma 18-250 HSM I've made reasonable size prints (16" X 12" IIRC) from some of the images I shot in Morzine using the wider end, and they looked OK at normal viewing distance. Not all lenses are equal, and I've used a couple of older Sigma 28-200 lenses and have been much happier with the results from those, even on crop.

It all depends what you want. Using a superzoom, you'll come home with better pictures than if you went snapping with a compact. But if you view holidays as an opportunity to take photographs and enlarge your portfolio in exciting surroundings then you may find it isn't adequate.
 
realspeed said:
Forget that sigma lens in your link, this is what happens.
Click to expand...

I could quite easily list a number of "see what happens when" for every lens type when they are miss-used. And that is what it specifically is. Just like camera shake due to inadequate shutter speed... Do you think that doesn't happen with less wide lens? Yes it can just not so strongly, but still would be totaly unacceptable

Ultra widespread are very special kind of tools. I find one invaluable for real estate and some of the landscape work, but without your boring everyday 24-70 and a mild telephoto life would be very difficult indeed.
 
realspeed said:
If could jump in here please.

I had the same query with our Japan trip next year. Looking at the "experts" on youtube some say best for street photography is the 24mm, others the 35mm and yet again the 50mm lens. With all this conflicting advice I decided on just taking my 50mm f1.4 nikon lens together with my 24-70mm f2.8.lens.

Ok why these two lenses.
first the 50mm lens because I already have it and will hopefully be more discreet for use in Tokyo and other cities on the tour
The 24-70mm lens for more general views which I also own having used it for similar shots before and on the Nikon D810. Cropping a photo if needed is no problem

I did think about the 70-200mm lens but weight had to be considered if my wife and I are on an all day walking excursion

Also apart from being a backup camera my panasonic camcorder will be packed as well for the video side of the trip. Well used in Egypt as easily put into pocket to stop it being pinched also did some stills with it.

surely more interesting that just a stills shot?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=746OXm_AW6c


As against getting another lens do have a think about getting a small camcorder you wont regret it.


Forget that sigma lens in your link, this is what happens. You have to be very particular using exteremly wide lenses on what you take

CI40kOF.png

Taken with my nikon 12-24mm lens @12mm . The sides of buildings look as if they are falling in.

Hope this is of some help Paul
Click to expand...
That video reminds me of when we were there a few years ago, it was 52 degrees at the top of that slope... I used a 24-70L lens for 90% of my shots there, and I don't see it needing to be any different in Thailand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top