# Nikon 11-16 Wide angle Lens



## donny1963 (Jan 21, 2017)

One of the things that annoys me about this 11-16 wide angle for my Nikon D7100, is that.

(A) you can't go to 11 mm and use your pop up flash on the camera, because the lens is so wide the flash can't send light down below the lens so you get this shadow shaped like a cone at the bottom of your images.
(B) you must use a off camera flash to overcome this..

it's not very often i use such a wide angle, mainly taking large groups of people is 1 of them the other is  in cramped places where i don't have much room to step back to the subject of my shot.
it's not really good for portrait other then large group shots,

It's a great lens tho it does fight lens distortion, because it's a  rectal-linear, so it helps to fight against things looking like they are stretched or warped very pleased with the quality of the wide angle it does, except for the fact i have to use off camera lighting to avoid getting this cone shaped shadow at the bottom of my images lol..  of course if i zoom into 16 MM i don't get that shadow it's when i get to below 13 mm

Just that fact that i  need to have an off camera flash system bothers the hell out of me.
Any one ever experienced this before?

Donny


----------



## photo1x1.com (Jan 22, 2017)

Hey Donny,
you could use a popup flash diffusor. However, with wide angle lenses the light fallof of the flash is pretty extreme because you are close to the subject with your camera flash. So for example the vignetting of your lens will appear even more extreme if you use a flash to shoot a large group of peple. Plus, there is of course the distortion, you better place the slim people in the corner of the frame  .


----------



## donny1963 (Jan 22, 2017)

photo1x1.com said:


> Hey Donny,
> you could use a popup flash diffusor. However, with wide angle lenses the light fallof of the flash is pretty extreme because you are close to the subject with your camera flash. So for example the vignetting of your lens will appear even more extreme if you use a flash to shoot a large group of peple. Plus, there is of course the distortion, you better place the slim people in the corner of the frame  .



Yeah, the diffuser is not one of my choices, i just simply use off camera flash to solve this iuss.
OR i also figured out another trick if i'm shooting out doors and just want to use my pop up flash as a fill flash i turn my camera upside down, and therefor the shadow would be created at the sky, how ever the sky is too far away to create a shadow thus i don't have to worry about any shadows.
That method eliminates any shadows, of course this only works out doors..

Donny


----------



## photo1x1.com (Jan 22, 2017)

donny1963 said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Donny,
> ...


Clever method


----------



## fmw (Jan 22, 2017)

The good thing about the problem, OP, is that it is motivating you to use off camera-flash.  On-camera flash should be illegal.  They make the worst deer-in-the-headlights look images possible


----------



## donny1963 (Jan 22, 2017)

fmw said:


> The good thing about the problem, OP, is that it is motivating you to use off camera-flash.  On-camera flash should be illegal.  They make the worst deer-in-the-headlights look images possible



I do use On Camera flash some times, not when i'm doing something serious, if  lets say i'm taking a shot of a birthday party or something i use the on camera flash because i don't want to be carrying around all kinds of stuff..

How ever when using this 11-16 MM lens i need to use my speedlight SB 900, and use it off the camera.
When doing portraits or what ever i always have the SB 900 off the Camera i use 2 of them, and many times use umbrella setup,or
attach my softbox diffuser to my sb 900.

I don't like harsh light aimed at my subjects i always diffuse it and spread it out evenly.
I enjoy shooting out doors on a cloudy day, because the clouds act as one large diffuser and never get shadows.

Donny


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jan 22, 2017)

You could affix your speedlight to your camera, make sure it's zoomed all the way out, and use a diffuser if you really want to use on camera flash. Or bounce the light off of something (reflector, etc).


----------



## fmw (Jan 22, 2017)

donny1963 said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > The good thing about the problem, OP, is that it is motivating you to use off camera-flash.  On-camera flash should be illegal.  They make the worst deer-in-the-headlights look images possible
> ...



You need to stop mounting your flash to the camera body.  Always.  Period.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 22, 2017)

fmw said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



Unless you are bouncing it.
You know,  like off a ceiling or something.
I use rogue flashbenders for that. Works great. 
So....yea. 
Almost always

sent by synchronized cardioversion


----------



## Derrel (Jan 22, 2017)

fmw said:
			
		

> You need to stop mounting your flash to the camera body.  Always.  Period.



I disagree with this dogmatic statement so much that that I used the Disagree button for like the 30th time in 36,000-plus posts. Just flat-out poor, dogmatic,and ill-informed "advice". As shown by Pixmedic's comments above, and by 35+ years of experience on the part of me, and millions of others.

There is a REASON that Canon and Nikon have $589, dedicated speedlights that are designed to, as in D_E_S_I_G_N_E_D to connect directly to the camera's hotshoe, and to allow through the lens light control. Bounce flash off of ceilings, walls, bounce cards, plastic spoons, business cards, and so on....all are well-understood ways to control and modify the output from a camera's shoe-mounted flash.

Event,photojournalism, and wedding shooters very often use a shoe-mounted, powerful, rotatate-able, tilt-able, zooming shoe mount flash.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2017)

Derrel said:


> ...........There is a REASON that Canon and Nikon have $589, dedicated speedlights that are designed to, as in D_E_S_I_G_N_E_D to connect directly to the camera's hotshoe, and to allow through the lens light control. Bounce flash off of ceilings, walls, bounce cards, plastic spoons, business cards, and so on....all are well-understood ways to control and modify the output from a camera's shoe-mounted flash.
> 
> Event,photojournalism, and wedding shooters very often use a shoe-mounted, powerful, rotatate-able, tilt-able, zooming shoe mount flash.




Dizzactly!  I've used _fisheyes_ with shoe-mounted speedlights.


----------



## fmw (Jan 23, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing.  There is no need to attach it to the camera.   Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 23, 2017)

fmw said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



That's just a matter of preference. You gain absolutely nothing by holding the flash when bouncing off the ceiling compared to having the flash on the camera. Your just needlessly tying up a hand. 

sent by synchronized cardioversion


----------



## fmw (Jan 23, 2017)

What I gain is the flexibility to change the aim point of the flash unit easily and instantly.  Try it.  You may like it.


----------



## Frank F. (Jan 23, 2017)

A friend of mine says:

*"There is only one sensible and permanent solution for Nikon Pop Up Flashes: open them, but some drops of epoxy glue into them, close them."*


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 23, 2017)

fmw said:


> What I gain is the flexibility to change the aim point of the flash unit easily and instantly.  Try it.  You may like it.



try flashes with swivel heads. you may like it.
in an inclosed area bouncing off the ceiling, holding the flash out a bit wont make any significant difference.

im not really sure why you are trying to push some absolute rule with flashes.  especially wish such a flimsy example.
im not sure how much experience you have with bouncing flashes off ceilings, but with a rogue flashbender and a ceiling, a flash mounted directly to the camera
is every bit as effective as any direction you could hold it with your hand. for _*direct*_ flash, meaning _*not*_ bounced, things are different. for direct flash I either use a flash bracket and a small softbox diffuser, or off camera completely on a stand. (or someone holding the flash on my monopod)

but again, for bouncing off the ceiling, there is no advantage to holding the flash. all you are doing is wasting a hand that could be better used doing other things. like, any other things.

ill give  you an example, since this seems to be a complicated concept.
this shot was taken at the Tampa aquarium. above the bride and groom are blue and purple spotlights.
this was shot with a SB700 mounted directly on the camera, pointed up with a rogue flashbender in front directing the light up and backwards.




wedding by pixmedic, on Flickr


this shot was taken with the same flash and rogue flashbender, but with my wife holding the flash on a monopod camera right.
the same blue and purple spotlights apply.



DSC_0169 by pixmedic, on Flickr


as you can see, the same results were achieved with both methods. the biggest difference being that instead of having to deal with someone holding a flash, and where to put it when im not using it, i could simply put the flash ON THE CAMERA and bounce it of the ceiling and literally get the same result. so much easier for me.

if you want to hold your flash in your hand, theres nothing wrong with it if that is your preference....but it seems a tad irresponsible  to tell people they should _*never*_ put the flash directly on the camera when it is obviously a perfectly feasible technique.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 23, 2017)

Frank F. said:


> A friend of mine says:
> 
> *"There is only one sensible and permanent solution for Nikon Pop Up Flashes: open them, but some drops of epoxy glue into them, close them."*



well, we werent talking about the popup flash...
but yea...popup flash isnt the most useful tool on the camera. 

however....they do make diffusers for the popup flash, and properly utilized i have seen people get some pretty good results with them. 
i wouldn't completely discount any source of light when its needed.


----------



## Frank F. (Jan 23, 2017)

@pixmedic I replied to the opening post of this thread


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 23, 2017)

Frank F. said:


> @pixmedic I replied to the opening post of this thread



oops. my bad. 

carry on. nothing to see here.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 23, 2017)

fmw said:


> I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing.  There is no need to attach it to the camera.   Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.



This assumes one has the technology that makes off-camera synch possible.  Not all cameras have that ability, nor can everyone afford it.


----------



## Destin (Jan 23, 2017)

480sparky said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing.  There is no need to attach it to the camera.   Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.
> ...



I would disagree strongly. If you have a DSLR or camera with a hot shoe, wireless flash is well within your budget. Don't care who you are. 

Trigger $37: YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras : Camera & Photo

Flash $65: YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

So for $102 you not only have just any wireless flash setup, but an RF one at that. 

And if that's too expensive you could buy an optically slaved flash for like $40, and trigger it with your built in flash. 

Money is no longer a barrier to wireless flash.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 23, 2017)

Destin said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective. 

sent by synchronized cardioversion


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 23, 2017)

Destin said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



If money isn't an issue, then you're more than capable of buying such systems for anyone who wants one.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2017)

Destin said:
			
		

> ..SNIP>you could buy an optically slaved flash for like $40, and trigger it with your built in flash.



Ooopsie....you accidentally listed one of the main uses for a pop-up flash: optically triggering other flash units!!!

Ajnd for the poster putting forth the idea he and a friend share, the idea that the pop-up flash is of so little utility that it ought to be cemented permanently shut? That is is just a dumb idea. Please refer to the Strobist website's articles dealing with how to use ON-AXIS fill-flash as a second flash source, used with a second flash, and sunlight. The idea that a pop-up flash is "useless" is flat-out inoccorrect and shows narrow-minded thinking. On-axis is where fill lighting has traditionally been placed, for literally, decades. And since in sunlight situatioins, you want about Minus 2.5 to Minus 3.0 EV from the flash....the pop-up flash is perfect for that. Or if you need a shot at night? pop-up flash to the rescue. Or you want to do slow-speed synch...pop-up flash...works fine. And more uses as well. But cementing it SHUT? Dumb idea. Maybe also fill the filter threads with epoxy as well? You know, to prevent filter use?

There are numerous articles on the web, detailing the NEW way to shoot fashion/avante gard flash work with a flash unit literally as CLOSE to the axis of the lens as is possible, such as taping a camera-maker's speedlight right to the barrel of a 70-200 zoom lens. This on-axis fill light evenly fills in shadows quite nicely, and creates a look that is very different than what you get with a speedlight flash that is four to five inches higher than the lens axis. Check into this flash-taped-to-barrel-of zoom-lens look! This can be used solo, or with other flash units.

Look at Terry Richardson's new Vogue and W and othe rmagazine fashion/editorial shoots, using the extremely low-profile flash brackets he uses, where the speedlign is right at about the middle of the lens mount's height....this creates a sort of modern look, similar to what a large ringlight produces. Oh...wait...the Paul C. Buff company has a Moon Unit light that....fits right on the camera itself, and the lens shoot right out from the middle of the "doughnut".

Ooopsie....yet more contradictory evidence about "where" flash units belong....


----------



## Destin (Jan 23, 2017)

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 3716368, member: 89707]

If money isn't an issue, then you're more than capable of buying such systems for anyone who wants one.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup. 

You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 23, 2017)

Destin said:


> [QUOTE="480sparky, post: 3716368, member: 89707]
> 
> If money isn't an issue, then you're more than capable of buying such systems for anyone who wants one.



You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.

You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.[/QUOTE]

how about the point about not needing a wireless setup at all? shot plenty of wedding receptions, and a few baby pictures  with the sb700 mounted _*on the camera*_ bouncing off ceilings. 
where did this idea that flashes dont work when mounted to the camera come from. its false. 
off camera flash is great for some applications, but not all.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 23, 2017)

Destin said:


> You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.
> 
> You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.



I'm glad you believe everyone who uses a camera is dripping cash all over.  Fact is, some would *love* to be able to buy a "several hundred dollar" camera.


----------



## Destin (Jan 23, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.
> ...



Sparky, you're still ignoring my point and frankly just being ridiculous. Clearly anyone who's debating this as a problem already has a several hundred dollar camera, and the OP clearly also has a several hundred dollar lens. 

If someone had the means to acquire those items, it's reasonable to assume they can get $100 together in some way to get off camera flash if they want to. 

I got involved with photography at 16 years old, and busted my ass washing dishes to be able to buy some cheap camera gear. I saved for TWO YEARS to buy my first 70-200 2.8. 

I've left photography twice now because cash got tight in hard times and I had to make sacrifices and sell off equipment to buy a vehicle/pay tuition. 

Yes, I'm in a much more fortunate place now and have some better equipment with plans to get more. But I've been as broke as anyone that's into the hobby, and I haven't forgotten my roots. 

I'm simply saying that off camera flash isn't the $1000+ investment that it was 5-7 years ago, and it's now attainable to the average non-professional hobbyist.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2017)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> ...SNIP>>>*off camera flash is great for some applications, but not all*.



Exactly right. The cost and affordability of off-camera flash has no bearing on its usefulness. One issue that has NOT been brought up is that the better on-camera speedlight units give incredible in-the-dark AF assist patterns which almost no off-camera flash units can give. An on-camera speedlight on the right camera can allow you to focus, literally, in the dark, or in really dim,dim lighting situations.

Bounce flash, bracketed flash, flash taped to the lens barrel, low-rise bracketed flash, pop-up flash, flash bounced off a Flashbender or homemade diffuser, long-throw "foofing" of bounced flash at very high ISO levels (in the Denis Reggie six-figures for a wedding style), there are plenty of uses in the regular, real world for plain 'ole hotshoe-connected flash, either directly IN the hotshoe, or connected with a TTL remote cord, or trigger-tripped flash that is basically, ON the camera.

The biggest no-brainer that seems to not have been mentioned is that, with a camera-mounted flash, the photographer, his camera and lens, and the flash unit can move around as one unit--no need to lug a lightstand and modifier from place to place. Agreed, off-camera flash is no longer the $1,000 investment it was 5-7 years ago; but it is still has basically the same old issues with weight, size, and effort to set up and to move, and to fiddle with while actually shooting.

I bought my first professional Speedotron studio flash system in 1986,and never have I thought it could replace Vivitar or Nikon or Canon speedlight flashes for me, and it never did. I consider a 1-meter pigtail TTL remote cord like the Nikon SC-17 cord to still be "on-camera" flash.


----------



## Frank F. (Jan 24, 2017)

I never did what my friend did. And I used my little flash on board in case of emergency with improvised diffusors. Yet for serious Strobism I would rather use a pocket wizard with 5 Cheapo Flash Units instead of Nikon's CLS. For fill flash I use on axis but with a real flash that does not have the trouble of the little one being obscured by hoods of 14-24 or 1.4/24..

Two of my 3 DSLRs do not feature a poop flash .... neither the D3 nor the D500 have it.


----------



## fmw (Jan 24, 2017)

> That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective.
> 
> sent by synchronized cardioversion



I'm not talking about effectiveness.  I'm talking about image quality.   The flash can fire wherever it is.  It can't make modeled images when located at or very near the lens.


----------



## goooner (Jan 24, 2017)

fmw said:


> > That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective.
> >
> > sent by synchronized cardioversion
> 
> ...



Am I missing something here, if the flash is on or near the camera, and is bounced off the ceiling, the 'source' of the light will be the ceiling, from the camera/subjects point of view. You guys are talking in circles.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 24, 2017)

fmw said:


> > That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective.
> >
> > sent by synchronized cardioversion
> 
> ...



you obviously have no clue about bounced flash, and have yet to address this issue. 
there were two different types of flash usage being talked about here, one where the flash is near the lens, which you are very wrong about also. 
(see: portraits taken with ring flash)
the other, is where the flash is bounced off a wall or ceiling. 
both are capable of producing good images. 
a speedlight on the camera, bounced off a wall or ceiling is perfectly capable of producing good images. 
ive already shown this in my example, and how it makes no difference whether the flash is on or off camera. 
for bounced flash, the location of the flash has zero effect on image quality, because the light is diffused by being bounced off a wall or ceiling. the location of the flash is largely irrelevant.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 24, 2017)

taken with a speedlight mounted direct to my camera, bounced off the ceiling




DSC_0994 by pixmedic, on Flickr


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 24, 2017)

Shoe-mounted flash:


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > > That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective.
> ...



It is as though one has to write a book in order to avoid people misunderstanding a post.  I agree with everything you said.  My comments about bounce flash were simply that the light doesn't have to be attached to the camera.  Someone suggested that one good use of a camera mounted flash was bounce flash.  I agree.  But I don't use camera mounted flash myself and I explained that bounce is not only possible but easier for me with a hand held flash unit.  You obviously know that already.  

My comments about image quality were about lights located near the lens, not bounce flash.  I've been roundly criticized for stating that flash units mounted near the lens produce poor modeling and lousy images.  You won't talk me out of that notion.  I have way too much experience.  Someone else suggested that a pop up flash was a good way to trigger outboard strobes.  I disagree.  The pop up flash will reduce the quality of modeling.  A bounce flash would be fine, of course, but pop up flashes don't do bounce flash.

A photographer who wants the best image quality should never, ever use the pop up flash.  Not ever.  Not even once.  A photographer should never ever use a camera mounted flash unit of any sort except for bounce flash.  Those who do bounce flash with a camera mounted light should try hand holding the flash unit.  They may prefer the flexibility it affords just as I do.  Like me, they may give up camera mounted flash altogether.

I realize that the pop up flash may be necessary to catch something quickly.  But that isn't the best image quality.  I understand that pop up flash may be fine for things like forensic photography, as an example.  That isn't about image quality. It is about recording evidence.

Hopefully that provides enough context to defend my positions fairly.


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2017)

goooner said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > > That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective.
> ...



Not I.  You are correct.


----------

