wide lens perform well in landscape photography

I own a DSLR for less than a year ヴィトン 財布 76876, currently shooting with my Nikon D90 and 18-70mm DX lens. Since the beginning of it, I am deeply in love with shooting landscapes photography: seascapes, skyscapes, cityscapes.

I am thinking of upgrade to what I believe the next best lens for landscapes photography: 10-24mm DX lens, but I received mixed messages makes me doubting and delaying my decision.

From what I see in web posts/pages and discussion with friends, ultra-wide lens photography is not about "fitting more in" but "putting subject into the picture": "covering more into photo" was what I after and this sounds like maybe this 10-24mm isn't for me toms shoes outlet.

Here's an example photo of my photography style:

A lens has to be adapted to your vision and subject. Landscape is a very broad category and I know fine-art landscape photographers who mainly shoot with wide lenses and others mainly with telephoto lenses (ex: 70-200mm).

The angle-of-view of ultra-wide lenses really emphasizes the foreground. Moving back with a longer lens is not equivalent (as someone suggested) as it changes the relationship between of things at different depths.

In some locations you end up very close to the scenic vistas (beaches, nature trails) and there are interesting foreground details which deserve emphasis (flowers, seashells ergo carrier online, moss, etc) in which case a wide-angle be easier to compose with. Other locations http://www.tresorparisbracelets2013.com, the interesting things are far and without a long lens is becomes difficult to make an interesting shot.

Regardless of what angle-of-view your lens is ヴィトン, you have to be able to fill the frame with interesting things ティファニー ネックレス Shoes For Indoor Cycling Classes. Jay Maisel says 'Everything in your frame helps you or hurts you'. If I can crop an image without changing the aspect ratio of my frame, I consider that I failed to take the best shot possible ergo carrier sale.

Take the shots from you gallery for example and imagine if there was more to the sides and above or below. Would the shot be more interesting? Or would people start wondering what its about sac vanessa bruno?

All of that discussion about "putting subject into the picture" is a bit of a red herring -- it really is about fitting more in. It's about getting all of what's "out there" ティファニー 指輪, but also getting what's "right here" at your feet. The contrast of scale makes that vast space out there much more impressive.

There are couple of cheap and easy ways to tell whether you'd be buying a tool or a decoration toms shoes outlet How To Find Dazzling Cocktail Party Dresses. The more direct of the two is to rent the lens for a weekend (assuming you have a decent camera shop available -- here in Toronto, we're blessed with a couple of good retailers ergobaby carrier Being Smart And Stylish With Bran, Vistek and Henry's, that will gladly rent you such a lens because they know you're much more likely to buy it after using it than while it's just an abstract notion).

The second is much cheaper -- all you need is a short ruler and a piece of cardboard with a 2-units by 3-units hole in the middle (4x6 inches or 10x15cm is a comfortable size to work with). Frame the scene through the hole so it looks the same as what you're seeing through the 18mm end of your lens and measure the distance between your face and the card. Carry the card and ruler (your viewfinder) with you for the next couple-three-four shooting expeditions. If moving the cardboard closer to your eye than the 18mm-equivalent distance makes a better picture often enough, your decision is made. (That technique cheap toms shoes, by the way, is how I used to decide which lenses/boards to bring with me when shooting 4x5 -- at something like five pounds apiece, mounted, you don't want to sacrifice film casque dr dre, at about a pound for every four exposures toms shoes on sale, to carry lenses you don't need when hiking.)

Looking at the picture you included here and the pictures I saw on your flickr page, I'd say that you'll really enjoy the ultra-wide lens. What I think you'll find is that you'll have to get closer to your subject but you'll still get more into the frame at the edges. So to get something similar to your example picture above, you'll walk right up to the edge of the water, hold the camera just a couple inches above the water (which will challenge you to keep it level (something that is much more important with the ultra-wide lens) (you might also want to get one of those little hotshoe bubble levels)), and you'll still get more of those banks to either side.

You can handhold the wider focal lengths a little longer than you can longer focal lengths, which is really nice for those water-blurring pictures I see you like. Not that you can really hand-hold a one-second picture, but you can make do holding the camera on top of a semi-stable rock.

You will see some loss of detail in subjects that are farther away. So that sign and. kayakers?. would likely be a little blurrier.

My Canon 10-22 has some CA in the corners wide open, but I don't spend any time thinking about that when I take the pictures, and it very rarely shows up. It has a lot less CA than my 40-year-old manual focus telephoto lens or my consumer-zoom 55-250mm ティファニー.

Haystack Rock is hardly the most original subject, but I think this shows a little of what the ultrawide will do: at 10mm, this picture is a little crooked because I was already backing away from the incoming waves and the camera was just below knee level, and I was so close that I still couldn't get away fast enough and my shoes got soaked. If you can figure out how to download the original full-sized image from flickr, you can also see some of the worst CA I've seen with this lens, along the edges of other rocks. If you tried to frame this with a longer lens you wouldn't have to risk getting wet (so not nearly as much fun to use ;)), but the waves wouldn't be as prominent compared to Haystack Rock, and it might be difficult to avoid getting more empty beach in the foreground.

Landscape photography can be a very broad field, and can make use of focal lengths anywhere from 10mm up through 400mm. Not every focal length will work for every landscape photographer ティファニー GPS Chips Can Now Be Built In To Almo, and what you define as your own personal style will ultimately dictate the kind of landscape photography you do clarisonic face brush. Ultra-wide angle tom shoes, wide angle, normal focal lengths, and telephoto lengths can all work for landscape photography. Generally speaking, you use ultrawide/wide to get close to your foreground, while still capturing expansive depth in your scene. The more you zoom, the more you can focus on a specific element of a landscape scene, subtracting the unnecessary and zeroing in on the elements that matter.

As a landscape photographer myself, I've tried not to limit myself. I have shots taken with 400mm telephoto, and shots taken with 16mm wide angle (its not quite ultra-wide on my camera, as I have an APS-C sensor currently.) I like many shots taken at 16mm/FF or 10mm/APS-C, as when done right, they can capture amazing close-up detail (such as pebbles under the water near a lake shore) while still bringing in the beauty of the surrounding landscape. I would say my favorite focal lengths are probably ultrawide (16/10mm FF/APS-C), 24/16mm FF/APS-C, 70/85mm FF, and 200mm FF. I think a lot of the best landscape photography rolls in around the 24mm (effective) focal length range ergo baby carrier, with the second most common being the 16mm (effective) focal length range. Those few very talented landscape photographers come up with amazing compositions at 180-200mm, however there are fewer such shots.

You might want to look at my answer to the following question: EF-S 18-55mm kit vs 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for nature photography I have linked several great landscape photographs shot with ultra-wide angle lenses to demonstrate the value of wide-angle lenses http://www.clarisonicmiausa2013.com.