UWA lens owners - do you use the lens hood?

#1 Jan 15th, 2014, 14:41
Join Date:
Sep 2011
Location:
Off-line. Gone.
Posts:
3,275
  • DrRudi is offline
#1
Hello All,

I recently purchased a 10-24 lens, which takes a 77mm filter. The lens hood is about 110mm wide.

For a variety of reasons - not least the size of the lens hood - I was thinking to leave the hood at home.

Any thoughts about this? - I am planning to use the lens primarily for streetscapes.

With thanks.
Gone.
#2 Jan 15th, 2014, 14:44
Join Date:
Jul 2012
Location:
kolkata
Posts:
3,131
  • iamsomnath is online now
#2

Re: UWA lens owners - do you use the lens hood?

Dr. I use the nikon 14 24 which has a built in hood so no option. But earlier I used Tokina 11 16 and the hood did cut a lot of flares. Also works great as a protection to front Element from bumps etc. These UWAs helps you to go very very close to the subject and often the viewfinder dosen't depict right distance , many a times i have bumped into the subject and hood has saved the glass ;-) .So please do use the hood
Cheers
Somnath goswami
Last edited by iamsomnath; Jan 15th, 2014 at 17:00.. Reason: To add some points
#3 Jan 16th, 2014, 02:52
Join Date:
Jan 2014
Location:
London
Posts:
16
  • BenOB1 is offline
#3
Yes the hood will help prevent lens flare when the sun's up and high in the sky (unless you want to keep it in for artistic reasons), but also will take some of the force of the bump if you knock into a wall while it's slung over your shoulder or if you drop it.
#4 Jan 16th, 2014, 08:12
Join Date:
Sep 2011
Location:
Off-line. Gone.
Posts:
3,275
  • DrRudi is offline
#4
Somnath, and Ben: thankyou.
#5 Jan 16th, 2014, 09:06
Join Date:
Jul 2012
Location:
kolkata
Posts:
3,131
  • iamsomnath is online now
#5

Re: UWA lens owners - do you use the lens hood?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRudi View Post Somnath, and Ben: thankyou.
You are welcome Doctor. I admire your posts on many topics including photography. Keep the ball rolling
#6 Jan 16th, 2014, 09:24
Join Date:
Aug 2009
Location:
North Carolina, USA
Posts:
846
  • sam78a is offline
#6
Got the 11-16 and I use the hood. As already noted, it keeps things from hitting it and it also reduces flare if shooting into the sun
#7 Jan 16th, 2014, 10:09
Join Date:
Feb 2005
Location:
=*USA*=
Posts:
3,472
  • Hyderabadi is offline
#7
Don't leave home without it.


“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain
#8 Jan 16th, 2014, 11:45
Join Date:
Dec 2008
Location:
Interweb
Posts:
16,222
  • vaibhav_arora is offline
#8
Guys,

Are there any recommendations for an affordable UW (nikon compatible) that has a good range and limited barrel distortion - my maximum usage is at the 18 mm mark (I suppose I could go wider). I think something around 12 to 24 or higher should work very well. I cant afford anything more than $500 though.

With the new 18-140 VR I love everything else but the barrel distortion at the wide end is killing me (as you must have noticed from my trip reports - i enjoy shooting brick walls )

thanks in advance
V_A

p.s. I posted on Dr Rudi's thread as he himself is a nikon and a UW user.
#9 Jan 16th, 2014, 12:06
Join Date:
Sep 2011
Location:
Off-line. Gone.
Posts:
3,275
  • DrRudi is offline
#9
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaibhav_arora View Post p.s. I posted on Dr Rudi's thread as he himself is a nikon and a UW user.
You're very welcome!

You won't be surprised that I stuck with orginal Nikon for the UWA lens - however the guys in the photographic store were really keen to sell me a Sigma 10-20. Obviously they'd make more money selling the Nikon, but that didn't change their approach.

Sigma have two in that part of the range:

10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC (HSM)

and one slightly faster: 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

As always, I don't know what prices you pay in your market. The F3.5 will be the more expensive of the two, however I should think you'd find the F4-5.6 for under $500.

Hmm, just over - you'll need to shop around.



EDIT: And thanks to other posters for telling me to take the hood.
#10 Jan 16th, 2014, 12:14
Join Date:
Dec 2008
Location:
Interweb
Posts:
16,222
  • vaibhav_arora is offline
#10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRudi View Post EDIT: And thanks to other posters for telling me to take the hood.
I've not used a UWA but on this trip especially I learnt the hard way that a hood is very useful. Got considerable flare while shooting a few buildings - the south has lots of sunshine even as we here in the north are shivering under cold waves and fog.

Thanks for the tip - will look up the lens.
#11 Jan 16th, 2014, 12:27
Join Date:
Sep 2011
Location:
Off-line. Gone.
Posts:
3,275
  • DrRudi is offline
#11
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaibhav_arora View Post I learnt the hard way that a hood is very useful.
I've always used the hood on the 55-300 - it is not much wider than the lens. However the hood on the 10-24 is a "petal" hood - and it so much wider than the lens - I'm worried it will impractical or an imposition to carry in the bag (fine once it's on the lens).
#12 Jan 16th, 2014, 12:27
Join Date:
Jul 2012
Location:
kolkata
Posts:
3,131
  • iamsomnath is online now
#12

Re: UWA lens owners - do you use the lens hood?

Vaibhav be warned, shooting brick walls and Uwa doesn't go hand in hand .UWA is for coming closure to subject not for width because it has that signature of pushing even slightly far objects into very far away. The inherent field curvature doesn't work well for architecture. I have used upto 28 mm in ff terms with manageable distortion. Also for ALL reasonably priced Uwa... Be prepared to face CA which is very irritating. Enough rant from me...
Cheers
#13 Jan 16th, 2014, 12:34
Join Date:
Dec 2008
Location:
Interweb
Posts:
16,222
  • vaibhav_arora is offline
#13
Thanks Som, this is food for thought. I would not want much CA either but curvature is the first thing that's making me feel bad about the 18-140 VR. It does have its sweet spot in terms of fl just like any other zoom.

What would you recommend? Do I go back to my 18-55 (which was what i started with on the D40). It never gave me the kind of results this one does. The 18-140 is noticeably brighter (I checked DXOmark's transmission figures and they're very good for 18-140). Also, the 18-140 takes much nicer photos of people as well, but the buildings at 18 mm is where it starts showing me its limitations. Nikon hasn't issued the firmware update for D7000 yet for correcting 18-140 distortions so am stuck with even more post processing.
#14 Jan 16th, 2014, 12:42
Join Date:
Jul 2012
Location:
kolkata
Posts:
3,131
  • iamsomnath is online now
#14

Re: UWA lens owners - do you use the lens hood?

I have used a jugaad sometimes when I wanted to go wide without curvature. That is simply shoot at 35 mm... Two shots side by side and stitch them...
#15 Jan 16th, 2014, 21:12
Join Date:
Aug 2009
Location:
North Carolina, USA
Posts:
846
  • sam78a is offline
#15
All ultra-wides (even something like the very expensive 14-24 f/2.8 which of course should only be used on a FX camera) has distortion. My Tokina 11-16 is pretty well controlled I think...as posted above, you don't get the lens to shoot bricks or something like train tracks. Of course, the purpose of the UWA is depth perception and using the distortion to your advantage, so you need to get smoething compelling right infront of the camera, something perhaps a meter back, and then something in the background for the best shots. Secondarily, the lens can be used to "get it all in" for something like a temple, but photoshop stiching can do that too, meaning you really just use the UWA for the depth exaggeration. There is no perfect UWA. I like the Tokina, but I came from the Sigma 10-20, and I miss the extra mm's at the longer end, but for me the f/2.8 was more critical.

Hard to suggest what lenses to get without knowing what you shoot. Do you still have the D40, or do you have a newer camera? If you have a D7000 or better, you can use non AF-S lenses and keep autofocus. Assuming you don't have this, I would actually keep the 18-55, bypass another 18-XXX lens and pick up first an ultra-wide (if you think you will get use out of it depending on what you shoot) If you don't really need an UWA, you can never go wrong with the 35 f/1.8 DX lens, or the 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 (FX) lenses. In the USA, there are often good deals for a refurbished 70-300 VR for about $350, which is a good deal for a lens that good. The 35 and 50mm f/1.8 cost about $200 each and the 85 costs about $450 or $500.

I have a D7000, just got the SB-700 flash (which is very nice), and for my lenses I have the 35,50,85 f/1.8 (the 50 is the old AF-D lens), an 80-200 f/2.8 lens (which is excellent), the sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and the tokina 11-16 f/2.8. If you want a really good telephoto lens and your camera can AF with the older AF-D lenses, I suggest the 80-200 f/2.8 which can be had used for about $1,000. If money is more tight, and you like primes, I am sure the 180 f/2.8 AF-D (about $50-600 used) will work at least as good as the zoom. Not sure what less expensive fast telephoto lenses exist, but I heard very good things about the slower 70-300. I am sure the 55-200 DX lens is good too.

Similar Threads

Title, Username, & Date Last Post Replies Views Forum
Lens - Fungus - HELP!! Nov 15th, 2011 10:46 9 6083 Photography
Tokina 11-16 lens Jun 27th, 2011 20:59 46 20358 Photography
Camera or/and Lens ? Feb 7th, 2011 00:49 19 2997 Photography
Want to buy a lens Apr 29th, 2010 21:16 44 7768 Photography


Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules»
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
© IndiaMike.com 2018
Page Load Success