|
takeit4granite
Sep 19, 2002, 10:42 PM
Post #1 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2002
Posts: 93
|
I have a half decent camera body with a stock 35mm lense and I want to move into something with a wider angle. Any recomendations?
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Sep 20, 2002, 12:47 AM
Post #2 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
35mm is wide angle, dude!
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Sep 20, 2002, 1:16 AM
Post #3 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
20/2.8 or 24/2.8 are nice lenses in the Nikon line, similar lenses exist for Canon, Olympus, Pentax, and Minolta. If you have a Nikon or Canon body you could probably rent both and see which suits you better.
I used to have a 20/4 manual focus lens that I sold on eBay. I'd really like it back...
|
|
|
|
|
cyberclimber
Sep 20, 2002, 1:03 PM
Post #4 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 243
|
I have to admit that I cheat and use a 20-35mm zoom alot, but if I could only take one fixed focal length lense with me on a climb, or indeed on a whole climbing trip, it would be a 24mm f2.8. 20mm is really nice, but less versatile and harder to effectively compose and make your subject (climber?) prominant. If you get close enough with a 20mm for your subject to be prominant, it is really hard to avoid distortion. Distortion can be good if you work with it, but how many severely distorted climbers do you want to see on a roll? The 24mm is an excellent landscape lens as well.
Have fun
|
|
|
|
|
bluedubbed
Sep 20, 2002, 4:25 PM
Post #5 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 33
|
Hi.
I'd agree with cyberclimber. A 24mm lens is nice and allows for great compositions. I'd look for that extra f-stop and get an f/2 rather than an f/2.8. It makes all the difference especially if you are shooting in low light w/o a flash, but depending on what type of camera you have, that extra f-stop can cost you quite a bit of money (i.e., Leica lenses). A fisheye (usually 19mm or so) lens is a lot of fun to experiment with, but you get a lot of distortion as you move away from the horizon.
I would look for a used lens on e-bay. Make sure the lens has no major scratches or fungus inside.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
takeit4granite
Sep 20, 2002, 4:44 PM
Post #6 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2002
Posts: 93
|
Thanks for all the tips.
My camera is a fairly crappy plastic body Minolta but I also have an old 60's era Miranda metal body with a lense that is all blotchy with some sort of fungus? It still shoots somewhat clear but I would like to replace it with something better.
|
|
|
|
|
kcrag
Sep 27, 2002, 11:48 PM
Post #7 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2002
Posts: 599
|
Takeit4granite...
I think you have the right idea... replace that Minolta camera body BEFORE you start investing in lenses. Consider going with a Nikon or Canon, then build your lenses to suit. (me... I'm a Nikon chick!). Make sure you buy into something that gives you the option of complete manual over-ride. Keep it simple.
My wide angle lens is a Nikkor 24mm/F2.8 -- love it. Not too expensive, and distortion is minimal.
Good luck, and have fun shooting!
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Sep 30, 2002, 2:34 PM
Post #8 of 8
(2125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Hey what's wrong with Minolta mounts! They are WAY less expensive than Nikkon, just for the names sake. A new mount may help, but since you already have a Minolta lense don't jump ship too quick. Otherwise you'll be buying a whole new setup right out of the gate.
As for close up lenses, I've heard great things about 24mm's. check www.photo.net for some lense reasearch, a nice 24-105 zoom is going to be my next purchase I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
