12-24 or Panorama?

[Visual Reality]

Would the price of a 12-24mm be justified or would it be better to just use an 18mm length and combine shots for a panorama? Landscapes, of course.

This may be personal preference but it's a decision I'm going to have to make.

[K1W1]

The shorter the focal length the more problems you are going to get with image distortion when you try to combine the images.
Do you need 18mm or even less than 24mm for the Panorama's that you have in mind?
On the odd occasion that I have done them I try to use close to 35mm (50mm film equiv) for the most "natural" and easiest to combine images. Panorama's are after all usually large vista's with subjects that are in the middle to far distance.

[tizeye]

As a Realtor I make those visual tours all the time, which are panorama's set in motion with music. Rarely do I go below 28, and usually closer to a 50. Always far tighter (longer focal legnth) than I would use for the equivalent still to be posted on MLS. The reasons are two-fold. First is the better perspective control where the walls are not angled and bowed. The other reason, by bringing it closer you bring out much more detail to the panorama. Who cares if you have to stitch one extra frame to cover the same (usually horizonal) area.
I actually use that on a competitive basis as listings expire. I use the other persons pictures (or lack of) against them. With the homeowner, do a critical review of the photogarphy and contrast it with mine - including exterior shots and exterior panorama taken of their home prior to the appointment.

[Prospero]

I agree with the others that a longer lens is generally easier to stich then when using a shorter lens. With shorter lenses you indeed have lots of perspective issues and also a slight change in position of the lens will cause misallignments.

Having said that, a wide angle lens is definitly of great value for the money. In my opinion, in landscape photography, stitching several images together is seldom a good subsitute for a wide angle lens.

The reason for this is that the scene you are shooting is usually moving all the time. The wind moves all the vegetation, the clouds are moving rapidly, and if the scene involves water there is even more movement. This will make stitching very hard and will cause ghosting and bluriness in the result.

Also, it is nearly impossible to shoot HDRs or use gradual neutral density filters when trying to shoot a landscape as a panorama.

[Visual Reality]

Thanks for the tips guys, I thought about this at work and came up with some of the same ideas posted here.

I will have to consider all of this...but I will probably end up doing some of both since each has its pros and cons.

[Rooz]

just on the above points, the tokina for example has less distortion than the kit lens at 18mm, so wouldnt that make it easier to stitch photos together ?

[Visual Reality]

The distortion is a non-issue as it would be corrected before attempting the stitch.

[btuner]

i say just go with the sigma 10-20mm i cant seem to take that thing off my camera

[T06]

My question is how serious are you about photography. To me the idea is to second guess yourself, reason being if you're there for the long run you need to, to get where you want as in quality wise for the tools department. Sure you can buy numerous X for decimated value, but in the long run what do you want to achieve? I've seen what you have posted & think you have a very creative mind with insight, but if I was in your position I would find an outlet & hire some lenses. You guys are so lucky to be in a position to be able to do this. Honestly just hire them & try, in the long run it will save you thousands.;)

[Visual Reality]

Thanks T06, seriously though I haven't taken 10% of the pictures I'd like to take yet, I just want to get my gear lined up so that I am ready. I can't miss out when the time comes and I don't have the right gear. I know what situations I'm going to be in and the lenses that will work best in those situations.

The lineup will be 18-200 as primary general purpose, 35mm f/2 for indoor, low light and macro (with Raynox DCR-250), and 50mm 1.8 for portraits. Later I will add one on the long end and one on the short end - 70-300 VR and possbily 12-24 Tokina or Sigma. SB-600 will be here next week to manage the lighting...should be fun.

[Honest Gaza]

I see photography with "Wide Angle Lenses" and "Panorama" photography as two different things.

A wide angle lens will not only increase your field of width, but also your field of height. Whereas a panorama shot requires greater width without the associated increase in height....which is why the photos are stitched together.

Decide what you are trying to achieve, and that should help in answering your question.

[Visual Reality]

That is a good point. I think for the cost I will stick with panoramas for now, but in the future it might be worth adding a wide angle to the setup.

By the way...you can stack panorama shots vertically as well ;)

[T06]

By the way...you can stack panorama shots vertically as well ;)

you only need to do this when you're drunk:D

[Rooz]

That is a good point. I think for the cost I will stick with panoramas for now, but in the future it might be worth adding a wide angle to the setup.

By the way...you can stack panorama shots vertically as well ;)

why are you selling your kit lens ? any chance of you doing some tests of it against the 18-200 b4 you sell it ? i've read its a pretty good lens and i'm thinking of getting one as a throwaround lens. for $200AUD it seems like a steal.

[Visual Reality]

Yep I will do some testing. The plan from the beginning was to get the D80 / 18-55 VR outfit since the price was lower, and get the 18-200 to replace it when I was ready and have had a good chance to learn the camera. It would make a good macro lens and I will keep that in mind as I test it against the 35/2 which is intended to take over that function, but honestly I don't think it will compete there (close-up macro with Raynox 250, not distance, I'd need a dedicated lens there). It does have VR which I will evaluate. If its sharpness is relatively close, and good enough for my tastes it may stay due to the advantage VR will give me hand-held. It has the same macro reproduction as the 35/2.

For the price you are right, it is a steal. It feels light and cheap which can be good or bad depending how you look at it. It balances the D80 well...can't say that about the 18-200 which makes it front-heavy. I don't like the fact that the front rotates during focusing. The AF isn't very fast, either. My 18-200 smokes it, and the 35/2 is even faster (but much louder, like a power-tool).

I just don't think it will have much of a purpose left after the rest of my lineup comes into play. I've already got 18-55 covered, and at 55mm the kit lens is at f/5.6 while the 18-200 is only at f/4.8. Advantage - 18-200. I'll see how it does with the Raynox...if it loses there it doesn't have a purpose left in my lineup.

[Rooz]

all sound reasonsing. i'm actually not looking at it replacing any lens i have, its more a lens i can have sitting there for the occasion where i want something as light as possible with a decent focal range. at its price i think its worth that as long as the IQ is decent.

[Visual Reality]

Photozone's data must be theoretical - the max magnification is definetely better on the 18-55...I tested all 3 lenses together the best I could. I need to go through them all and get them posted, hopefully this weekend.

[e_dawg]

I also use longer focal lengths for pano. I also try to use the least distorting, highest quality lens for the job as well, which for me, is the Sigma 50/2.8 Macro. I have to say that the Sigma 50/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest, least distorting optics money can buy for the Nikon mount. Minimal CA and vignetting too. Probably the 2nd sharpest lens I own (after the Olympus 35/3.5 macro) and tied with the Olympus 12-60. Not too many people talk about this lens... it is really under-rated.

The last pano I did took 98 shots with my D80, stitched together using autopano pro. 146 MP image which took over 8 hours to render using an A64x2 5000+ with 4 GB of RAM.

I downsampled it to 61 MP and printed out a 34 x 11" that looked absolutely perfect. I can read the sign on the top of a building in the distance that is a 30 min drive away.

I have the 146 MP image tweaked in PS and ready to print a 78 x 23" in Qimage when I have time to find a large enough foamcore board to mount it on.