Wide-Angle Lenses

[Alex_B]

But I believe Fred is a fan of extreme wideness.

I guess he is! and so am I .. not for every shot.. but I do not want to miss it for architecture and even some landscape.

It seems surprising that really wide wide-angles are being neglected in this way. For example there's no 10mm lens (other than fisheyes) to equate to the 15mm primes you can get for 35mm film/sensors.

well, maybe this is because wide angle is a problem with sensor design ... light hitting the sensor at a very shallow angle is not really all that easy to deal with ....

 

[fmw]

There are many ways to define wide angle. In the 35mm world most people consider a 50mm focal length (30mm or so on digital) to represent a look similar to what we see with our unaided eye. Given that, then any lens producing an angle of view greater than that of a 50mm lens would be wide angle. Here are my comments on the wide angles I have owned for 35mm cameras.

35mm is pretty close to 50mm in terms of the angle of view. These lenses provide a slight wide angle effect that doesn't really look like a wide angle effect. It is a very nice focal length and one I used often. It is as easy to control as a normal lens.

28mm would be a modest wide angle. You shouldn't see much stretching at the edges and the lens should be very rectilinear. You can point these lenses around and get some wide angle look without overdoing it.

24mm for me was always the workhorse wide angle. With it you get images that are obviously wide angle. You can see some image stretching and keystoning. The lens can get hard to control when it is pointed severely away from level. Photographing people with it is a challenge if you are looking for a flattering perspective.

20mm is the beginning of the superwide world. 20mm lenses produce very strong wide angle effects with severe keystoning. In order to render a person with normal perspective you would need to be far enough away to generate a full figure.

18mm was one of my favorites and the Nikkor 18 f2.8 is a truly superior lens. Imagine the 20mm with just an extra touch of keystoning and corner stretching but still completely rectilinear. This lens has what I would describe as extreme wide angle perspective.

14mm gets in the area of the maximum that is possible with a rectilinear lens without stretching the edges beyond recognition. These lenses go crazy as soon as you point them anywhere other than level. They become almost a novelty lens when you point up or down or left or right. Crazy keystoning and strange looking corners.

16mm in most product lines is a full frame fisheye. That is 180 degree field of view measured on the diagonal. There is a tradeoff between straight lines, image stretching and barrel distortion in wide angle design. The FF fisheyes are curvilinear. They don't correct for barrel distortion. Straight lines anywhere other than dead center are rendered as curves. There is no image stretching at all for this reason. I view them as special purpose lenses to generate an affect.

Most of my wide angle photography was done with an 18, 24 and 35 - serious, medium and mild wide angle. These focal lengths for me were the most versatile and gave a bit of each type of wide angle perspective. I carried the three of them everywhere I went and usually left the 14 and 16 behind. Nikon has never made terribly good 28's so I usually didn't own one except for the 28mm shift lens which was an exception to the rule. For every time I mount a telephoto lens to my camera, I will mount a wide angle 10 or 20 times.

Now that I'm digital I have only a single wide angle zoom lens - the Nikkor 12-24 f4. It doesn't hold a candle to the fixed WA's I had for 35mm but at least it lets me shoot wide. It is my "normal" lens. Oh! I almost forgot. I do have a full frame fisheye as well - the Nikkor 10.5mm so that I can go crazy from time to time.

 

[scrutiny1]

Why is it that they "go crazy" when pointed anywhere other than level?

 

[Don Simon]

Well I imagine it's the perspective that goes crazy. I don't think the lenses actually start dribbling or speaking in tongues... or maybe Nikon's do that

 

[fmw]

Yes, the perspective. Wide angle perspective has two very obvious characteristics. One is that the distances near to far are enhanced. Near things seem nearer and far things seem even farther. The other is keystoning or converging lines. Vertical keystoning doesn't exist when the lens is level. When you point up or down any lens will show keystoning. With wide angles the keystoning is enhanced and the shorter the lens the greater the enhancement. I guess my point was that, if you move a normal or telephoto lens from level it behaves pretty well. When you move a wide angle from level it misbehaves. And, of course, it dribbles, screams and speaks in tongues.

 

[t_rust]

Once you want something wider than 17mm you have limited options.

have a look at my blog article for sample photos and a few links for comparisons of ultra-wide angle lenses. Article is on Canon, but 3rd party lenses are available for Nikon mount as well and the links cover Canon and Nikon:

http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/wide-angle-zoom-lens-selection-for.html


Regards,
T

 

[photobug]

Another option to consider is buying an inexpensive pano head like the Nodal Ninja, the Panosaurus or the Jasper Pano-Head.

I have the older version of the Nodal Ninja. Once you get it set up for your lens (a 50mm works fine) you can get some nice wide angle shots fairly inexpensively.

Probably not an option if you're looking to shoot indoor or outdoor architecture though.

Something to consider.

 

[Alex_B]

Another option to consider is buying an inexpensive pano head like the Nodal Ninja, the Panosaurus or the Jasper Pano-Head.

I have the older version of the Nodal Ninja. Once you get it set up for your lens (a 50mm works fine) you can get some nice wide angle shots fairly inexpensively.

Probably not an option if you're looking to shoot indoor or outdoor architecture though.

Something to consider.

i always wondered what the disadvantages of the cheaper ones are .... considering to buy a pano head myself... but not sure if I shopuld spend a fortune or save money for lenses ...

 

[photobug]

Mainly the disadvantage is how sturdy they are(n't). That and the ability to do multi-row panos. The Jasper won't, the other two will.

If it's something you'd use often then spend the money on a top quality rig. For occasional use any of these three will work fine.

 

[mysteryscribe]

What amazes me (In a very good way) is the number of points of views here because everyone has a slightly different background.

My architectural and landscape was very very little, but I did a ton of people. In shooting people a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera is about a wide as I wanted to go. Even for group shots. In groups it was because of the coverage of my strobe light. In a single person the perspective shift got to be very noticeable after 35mm.

However those who come at it from a more commercial point of view consider the 35mm normal. It surprises me only because I have a totally different perspective on wide angle. One of the many reasons I hang out here.