New lens for Peru/Inca trail

[joghurt]

This summer I am planning an epic 3 week adventure into Peru. The highlight of the trip will be a 4 day hike into the Inca trail high up in the mountains. Now I wanted to get a new lens for a long while but I am very unsure what to invest in. The trip and a hike will require me to pack as lightly as possible so I plan to only take my nikon 35mm f1/8, and the new lens (and a tripod). For quite a while I had my eyes set on the sigma 10-20mm, as I love shooting landscapes where often I find myself craving less than 18mm, but I am not sure if I am quite ready yet to leave the comfortable 18-55mm range the stock lens provides. This is why I am now also looking at things like the 17-50mm sigma or something like the nikon 16-85mm?

By looking at pictures taken with my 18-55, I rarely venture outside 18-35mm zone, but sometimes you do want a little bit more...

Other things to consider are:

I will use the new lens as the primary lens for out-of-city shooting. Also, while on the trail I do not want to be changing lenses all the time - it must be relatively versatile I guess. Unless you can convince me I will be ok with a 10-20

I have a limited budget, so anything +/- £100 from a new sigma 10-20 but not much more. I am happy to buy (slightly) used however.

I am very much an amateur still grasping the art with my D3100, but the faster/sharper the lens the better ofc.

 

[RON_RIP]

It is hard to fault the16-85. I have it and still think of it as the perfect dx lens, I have always found the 16mm focal range to be wide enough.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

If it were me, my first choice would be a 28mm f/1.8G but Nikon wants way too much money for that lens. That being the case, I'd slap a 35mm f/1.8G on that D3100 and call it good. If you really want something wider though, like the Sigma 10-20mm you mentioned, you might want to consider the Tokina AT-X 12-28 F4 PRO DX.
....

 

[joghurt]

35mm is just about brilliant for most things, but while im on trips I often find that it just doesn't take the whole beauty of some places in! Too often I find myself at the 18mm thinking it's not quite wide enough! I had a look at that Tokina and it really does sound brilliant.. how does it compare against the 12-24mm previous version? And would you say it is better than sigma 10-20? (also, oh how I wish I could afford the nikkor 12-24 )

Ron, the 16-85mm is very tempting.. but how does it compare to the 18-55 standard lens? I read that it is very much the same thing but with more focal range.. and while I have had some good times with the 18-55, sometimes I just wish it was that little bit sharper.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

35mm is just about brilliant for most things, but while I'm on trips I often find that it just doesn't take the whole beauty of some places in! Too often I find myself at the 18mm thinking it's not quite wide enough! I had a look at that Tokina and it really does sound brilliant.. how does it compare against the 12-24mm previous version? And would you say it is better than sigma 10-20?

Yes, you're squeezing more into the frame with a wide-angle lens but everything in the frame is also going to be smaller which can easily lead to images with no clear subject for our brain focus on and leaving you with a weak shot. Less is often more. I shoot landscapes with my big zoom most often for this very reason; it allows me to isolate a specific subject which simplifies the composition and makes for a more powerful shot.

As for the Tokina 12-28mm vs. the Sigma 10-20mm: I'd say they're both very good choices but the Tokina, based on my experience with it, would be the better choice. Really, you can't go wrong with either though.

....

 

[joghurt]

I never really thought about it this way. I will have to go and practice more of that. Still with that in mind, I can't always fit some subjects into that focal range with compositions that I have in mind. And some places just seem to call for a picture that takes the whole view in, even if it is just for your own memory. (at least that's how I'm convincing myself into spending all that money on a wide angle)

if not a lens this wide, what would you recommend as the next lens (after 18-55 and 35) would be, considering upcoming trip as well?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I never really thought about it this way. I will have to go and practice more of that. Still with that in mind, I can't always fit some subjects into that focal range with compositions that I have in mind. And some places just seem to call for a picture that takes the whole view in, even if it is just for your own memory. (at least that's how I'm convincing myself into spending all that money on a wide angle)

if not a lens this wide, what would you recommend as the next lens (after 18-55 and 35) would be, considering upcoming trip as well?

Well first off I'm not knocking wide angle. Wide angle can be good but I think it demands a higher level of thought and composition to be used WELL. Further, what I *am* saying is that it's all too common to try and cram more into a photo than can be while still having a GOOD photo. That being said I have several really bad "memories" photos that I love and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes their "badness" can be a little endearing.

Still, if you want shots with "Wow!" factor you need to consider what makes a good landscape photo and one of those critical things is a clear, strong Focal Point. That might sound obvious but it's easy to think your photo is going to convey the sense of awe and majesty you're feeling but without a focal point, without a strong subject the viewer can connect with, that's not going to happen. It will trigger memories for you, yes, and again, that's good. Wide can be good but don't feel every shot needs to be taken at 10mm. And a STRONG SUBJECT will balance all that wide-ness so you don't wind up with a big, wiiiiiide shot of teeny tiny little things... zzzzzzz.

....

 

[joghurt]

What would you class as a strong focal point for a landscape photo? take this one for example (not one of mine sadly!). I rather like it, but I can't think what would be a good focal point in this case?

https://flic.kr/p/irWi5c

And also, so we don't stray too far from the topic, is there a good lens you'd recommend for someone in well.. my predicament should we say?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

What would you class as a strong focal point for a landscape photo? take this one for example (not one of mine sadly!). I rather like it, but I can't think what would be a good focal point in this case?

https://flic.kr/p/irWi5c

The focal point in that photo is the white cap mountains. The eye will always be drawn to the brightest "spot" in the frame and here the white caps are being nicely framed and balanced by practically everything else in the photo.

The darkish clouds overhead are just contrast-y icing on the cake.

And also, so we don't stray too far from the topic, is there a good lens you'd recommend for someone in well.. my predicament should we say?

You don't have a predicament you just need to study up on compositional technique. What lens you should have depends a lot on your style of shooting and what you're trying to say. A good wide would be the Tokina 12-28mm f/4, I wouldn't want to be without a 35mm f/1.8 and good zoom like the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 or the Nikon 70-300mm VRII. If I could only have one lens for the trip it would be the 35mm f/1.8 or the Tokina 12-28mm f/4 though. I could be happy with either.
.....

 

[egosbar]

i bought the 11-16 tokina and im stoked with it , great value

 

[RON_RIP]

35mm is just about brilliant for most things, but while im on trips I often find that it just doesn't take the whole beauty of some places in! Too often I find myself at the 18mm thinking it's not quite wide enough! I had a look at that Tokina and it really does sound brilliant.. how does it compare against the 12-24mm previous version? And would you say it is better than sigma 10-20? (also, oh how I wish I could afford the nikkor 12-24 )

Ron, the 16-85mm is very tempting.. but how does it compare to the 18-55 standard lens? I read that it is very much the same thing but with more focal range.. and while I have had some good times with the 18-55, sometimes I just wish it was that little bit sharper.

I find it be sharper than the 18-55 and with better focal length. As I said, I find the 16 wide enough and the 85 mm length covers about 80 per cent of what I ever need. Thought of switching to the 18-140 but I do not think it is quite as sharp and I often need that extra 2mm at the low end. Beyond that I switch to my 70-210 if I need to compress a landscape.