0

I'm planing to go on a trip where I plan to do some landscape photography. While I started out with 18-105mm lens, I noticed the quality can be poor around the edges in some cases and I know it's really not the best lens to do landscapes.

While I read this and this, I'm still not sure which lenses to use as wide-angle. So I'm looking for sharper quality as my current lens and wide. I've seen THIS review of 18-55mm VR which says the quality is good, but I'm not sure is this wide or isn't.

So which lenses should I be looking at for a beginner to mid range for my Nikon D5300 camera?

Community
  • 1
danizmax
  • 477
  • 4
  • 13
  • I don't understand what the question is: you have a 18-105mm, and you are looking at a 18-55mm wondering if it is wide? 18mm is 18mm They both have the same widest focal length of 18mm. If you are unsure about the focal length, why would you pick an alternative with the same focal length (on the wide end)? – null Aug 25 '15 at 14:03
  • So what are you saying? 18-105mm is considered wide when at 18mm? Because the Nikon 35mm f/2D AF from my first link is. – danizmax Aug 25 '15 at 15:00
  • 1
    With a given body, a field of view is given by the focal length. That is the only parameter defining how "wide" your angle will be. – Olivier Aug 25 '15 at 16:02
  • 2
    The question What is an ultra-wide lens? covers the definition of wide and ultra-wide lenses. – mattdm Aug 25 '15 at 16:49
  • @Olivier that's something that wasn't completely clear to me. Its a bit confusing that there is no real definition mostly opinions what people consider wide. Like I read in an answer posted by mattdm. Thanks to both! – danizmax Aug 25 '15 at 17:21

1 Answers1

2

I think the question is mainly about performance of various lenses. Set at 18mm your 18-105 will shoot the same field of view as the 18-55 set at 18mm. However that does not mean the pictures will come out the same. Generally speaking the 18-55 is a sharp lens across the range it servers (I dont own an 18-105 so I cant really comment). A lot of people really like the Nikon 12-24 for wide work there is also the more consumer directed 10-24. For what its worth any lens set to a specific focal length will shoot the same picture (on a given camera body). An 18mm lens is an 18mm lens if its a prime or if its a variable zoom set to 18mm. Since you already have the 18-105 which covers the same range as the 18-55 I would opt for the 10-24 which will cover everything from 10-18 that you cant cover now.

If you have a spare $20,000 lying around you can opt for Nikons legendary 13mm lens (assuming you can find one)

Dave
  • 612
  • 3
  • 7
  • Umm That 12-24mm lens is the double the price of my camera. Is it worth putting such expensive lens on a such camera? – danizmax Aug 25 '15 at 17:15
  • @danizmax, some people give the advice to directly buy a full frame body with high end lenses because in the end, if you keep having photography as a hobby, you will save money (arguably true). But when beginning with DSLR, most people don't really know what type of photo they will like doing. Anyway, you tend to keep the lenses and changing camera body, so yes, it may be a good idea, it depends of your "feelings" toward photography... and of your wallet thickness :) It's worth saying that this 12-24 isn't full-frame compatible – Olivier Aug 25 '15 at 17:31
  • That linked Ken Rockwell review of the 12-24 is over a decade old. The 10-24 review from 2009 isn't much newer. A lot of lenses have been added to the mix since then. – Michael C Aug 25 '15 at 19:57