vader1

Ok, outside of point and shoots I have no experience. I did my research and bought a Sony A57 because it fit my budget, needs and got better reviews for video, (which is a priority) over similar priced Canon and Nikon products.

Now after looking into lenses, I opted to pay extra for a discontinued kit lens which is a 18-135 than the standard 18-55 kit. The 18-135 got very good reviews where the 18-55 was rated passable. I like some zoom option, but to be honest wide angle is going to be my primary concern. I will do some stills, but lots of video and we are generally talking about things like the Grand Canyon, Machu Picchu, mountain skiing kind of stuff. So super zoom is not important.

Now to my question........Is there a big difference in the look of capturing a large vista landscape like mountains or whatever between an 11mm lens over a 16mm?

I would like to buy one more lens to start for a mountain hike and have essentially two choices both at about $600-$700 each, and both get really great reviews. One is a Sony 16-50 which will give me more range of options but overlaps my first lens some, although with better IQ. The second option is a Tokina 11-16mm. Will going down to 11mm bring a bigger wow factor for landscapes than a good 16mm or will the difference be slight and the added range of the 16mm-50mm be a better buy? The 16-50 might help me avoid a little barrel distortion where it overlaps with my kit lens, but I still want the grand landscape shot and maybe the Tokina is better?

Having no experience with what a landscape shot difference is between 11 and 16mm, I have no clue if the scope difference in the shot is major or minor.

Thanks

John

NuncoStr8

Pictures of mountains with a wide angle are going to be disappointing. You'll think you are taking a picture of impressive peaks and the picture will show little bumps on the horizon.

A general rule of thumb is when things are far away use a telephoto, when things are close use a wide angle. IOW telephoto for mountains, wide angle for indoors and cities.

You'll probably use the wider end of your lenses more often for family pictures and snapshots, and your telephoto only for vacation shots and the occasional portrait. You'll not get much use out of the most extreme end of either wides or telephotos, and the wider the range of a zoom the worse the image quality over that range. That doesn't mean lenses that have a very narrow range are always better, just that every lens design is a compromise and the more it is asked to do the more compromises.

For your mountain hike, you want a telephoto. 135mm would probably be way more focal length than you'd want, so look for something closer to 50-85mm. It doesn't look like anyone markets a telephoto for your body in that range, however. If your kit lens is that great, you might not need to buy anything.

vader1

Well if that is the case then the maybe 50mm prime lens for only $200 bucks would be the better choice.

NuncoStr8

That's what I would do in your position

Heyitsgary

Here's a little tool from Canon where you can get a perspective on the same shot with different lenses:

Canon's Lens Perspective Tool

It should help a little, but might not apply completely to your question.

To Nunco's point. Think about this: If you want to shoot the entire range via wide angle - look at how much negative space you'll have below and on top of the subject and how little details you'll get in the subject. If you're planning on doing panaromic type shots/prints - you're probably better off stitching a few shots together and getting closer to the subject in each shot.

I'm looking through some old shots. Here's a single exposure of Pittsburgh: It's almost a 6x1 ration width to height. If I kept the original photo as a 6x4 or 10x8, consider how much sky, or negative space I'd have in the shot. I've probably cropped out 2/3s of the vertical space. Other panoramics I stitch together to ensure I get the detail I want from something far away.



I have a wide angle, and find I don't use it that much. I personally struggle with it and its use and trying to get the right mix. I try to use it for perspective shots (something close, with something massive in the background) or the occasional 'everyone's here, lets get a family picture' with 15, 20 30 people in it.