Are you a wide boy (or girl)?

rob marshall

rob marshall

Messages
140
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
No
There seems to be something of a thing recently about going very wide on landscapes. Even on a full-frame camera people seem to be switching to a 17-40 lens. I even thought about it myself, then realized I don't really need one as I have a 24-105 on my 5DM2 (full frame). Perhaps it's more appropriate on a half-frame DSLR such as 50D or D300 But on a full-frame camera?

What do we think? How wide does a landscape need to be? What about lens distortion when you go too wide? If you go too wide do you just end up with large areas of empty space with little interest?

Post images as examples if you wish.

And what about stitching as an alternative to getting wider?

If you are quoting lenses used, please state if you use full-frame or crop camera.
 
Last edited:
I think Ultrawides are overused, They can be very useful but I prefer a less exaggerated perspective myself. 24mm is my lens of choice for 95% of all my work, the rest being usually 135 or 100mm. My 50mm gets very little use.
 
I used to use the Sigma 10-20mm on DX / cropped bodies but was never happy with the results. Just too much of the subject in the image. I've since come to find the 45mm on full frame to be ideal for me.

It's just a matter of preference, and unless I need to use wider due to restriction on my part (can't move back), I'd avoid wide angle for landscapes.
 
It really depends on the subject and the composition you have in mind, for some an ultrawide is the only solution, although I tend to just use my 24-120 for landscapes these days as 24 is usually wide enough for me. There are times, though, when I wish I still had an ultrawide!
 
jpw said:
There are times, though, when I wish I still had an ultrawide!
Click to expand...

One thing I didn't mention at the start is about height. We are often concerned about going wider, but that also means going higher. A lot of very wide shots have to be cropped because there is too much relative area for sky and uninteresting foreground - just to get more width across the scene.
 
I was largely happy for Landscapes on crop with my 17-55, never felt I really need to go wider, on FX I seem to be around 23-28mm on my 18-35.
 
I like to go wide with my landscapes, but I try to find some foreground close by to drag into the image. I quite like distortion sometimes too.

Some examples:


Foot steps in the sand by rob_mank, on Flickr


Sunset from Mam Tor by rob_mank, on Flickr

Since buying my D700 I haven't bought a wide lens yet, but it is on the list!! I would go for a 14-24 if using filters wasn't a fortune!
 
10.0-24.0 mm f/3.5-4.5 (flickr exif)
 
^^^ here's one from just over the ridge...!

4.jpg


Couldn't have got all of Rushup Edge in without the ultrawide, Sigma 12-24 for this one. I've sold it since but do miss it for the odd occasion when it would be useful, and I have tried panorama stitching with varying degrees of success but you can't replicate the perspective exaggeration that an ultrawide has.
 
redddraggon said:
I was largely happy for Landscapes on crop with my 17-55, never felt I really need to go wider, on FX I seem to be around 23-28mm on my 18-35.
Click to expand...

If you have Photoshop Bridge and you collect your landscapes together in one folder, it's useful to do a search based on focal length setting; eg. less than 24mm, and see historically how many shots you have actually taken at a wide setting.
 
Me, I've just ordered a 47mm for my 4x5 outfit, similar AOV to a 12mm on FF DSLR.

I used to love my 12-24 Sigma.
 
rob marshall said:
If you have Photoshop Bridge and you collect your landscapes together in one folder, it's useful to do a search based on focal length setting; eg. less than 24mm, and see historically how many shots you have actually taken at a wide setting.
Click to expand...

How do you think I know ;)
 
jpw said:
^^^ here's one from just over the ridge...!

4.jpg


Couldn't have got all of Rushup Edge in without the ultrawide, Sigma 12-24 for this one. I've sold it since but do miss it for the odd occasion when it would be useful, and I have tried panorama stitching with varying degrees of success but you can't replicate the perspective exaggeration that an ultrawide has.
Click to expand...


OK, that;'s a good example of where it comes in useful - 18mm on a full-frame, is that right? And persumably you couldn't stand further back. There is not much distortion there either. Good shot!
 
Last edited:
rob marshall said:
OK, that;'s a good example of where it comes in useful - 18mm on a full-frame, is that right? And persumably you couldn't stand further back. There is not much distortion there either. Good shot!
Click to expand...

That image was shot with a Sigma 12-24 on a D700 FF, yes 12mm on FF, but the focal length was set to 18mm for that image.
 
rob marshall said:
OK, that;'s a good example of where it comes in useful - 18mm on a full-frame, is that right? And persumably you couldn't stand further back. There is not much distortion there either. Good shot!
Click to expand...

Thanks, yes 18mm on the 12-24, it's not that I couldn't go back further, I was right on the edge of Mam Tor and couldn't get any further forward as there was a fair drop, and it was blowing a gale too. Any further back and I wouldn't have got the curve of the road in as the grassy ridge in front would have obscured it. The lack of distortion is the great thing about the 12-24 (as well as the ultra wide FOV), it's really something to behold and the new version doesn't seem to inherited it quite so much. Might have to get another... :thinking:
 
I regularly use the 17-40 on full frame, but I actually preferred the focal length on 1.3x crop, I find it a bit too wide on full frame, although it is a good option to be able to go wider if needed I guess.
 
Mank said:
I like to go wide with my landscapes, but I try to find some foreground close by to drag into the image. I quite like distortion sometimes too.

Some examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_mank/5871169040/
Foot steps in the sand by rob_mank, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_mank/6193343042/
Sunset from Mam Tor by rob_mank, on Flickr

Since buying my D700 I haven't bought a wide lens yet, but it is on the list!! I would go for a 14-24 if using filters wasn't a fortune!
Click to expand...

Hi

I'm a newbie so please excuse my lack of knowledge, may I ask how you got such amazing colours in your picture?

Is it due to the use of a polariser or a ND lens, I've recently purchased a B+W CPL slim without the MRC and also a 10 stop ND filter to use on my 24-105 lens, hoping to take half as decent ages as these two.

Would I always need to use PP to achieve pictures like these?

Thank you

Mani
 
redddraggon said:
I was largely happy for Landscapes on crop with my 17-55, never felt I really need to go wider, on FX I seem to be around 23-28mm on my 18-35.
Click to expand...

I am a beginner and have a 17-55. I was thinking about a wide lens for the scenic shoots of the beach and surrounding mountains. How much of a difference would a 10-22 of a prime lens be over what I'm using now.
I'm shooting with Canon t3i crop.
 
shaylou said:
I am a beginner and have a 17-55. I was thinking about a wide lens for the scenic shoots of the beach and surrounding mountains. How much of a difference would a 10-22 of a prime lens be over what I'm using now.
I'm shooting with Canon t3i crop.
Click to expand...

The difference between 10mm and 17mm is huge. Superwide angle lens aren't that easy to use well. The 10-22 range on crop is pretty useful for landscapes.
 
redddraggon said:
The difference between 10mm and 17mm is huge. Superwide angle lens aren't that easy to use well. The 10-22 range on crop is pretty useful for landscapes.
Click to expand...

I was also thinking about a wide prime but they are expensive. I need to decide what I will get more use out of right now (can't buy two lenses close together) either a wide or a 70-200 f2.8.
 
personally, i find the difference between my 24mm (on the 24-105) and the 17mm (on 17-40) massive. for landscapes the 17-40 rarly comes off the 5d mk2. for portraits the 70-200 or 24-105 is then lens of choice
 
5dmkii and 17-40 has been my staple for some time now. However I just invested in a 24 prime last week which will probably rarely leave the 5d... But I will be experimenting with stitching panoramic shots.
 
I just view the world visualising it in wideangle these days.

My 19-35 is pretty much all I use (on a 35mm film body).

I love the way you can get in close to the foreground detail and the way you can play with perspective and leading lines in an image.

I shoot a 24mm prime on occasion, but usually because my wideangle filter-holder can only have 1 filter (at 19mm) and on 24 I can use a holder for up to 3.

Wideangle is also best for street photography imho 24 mm is a great focal length for good up0 close portraits - I find it better to be upfront and in close than to pap them from a distance with a telephoto.
 
Perspective is down to view point alone..

Stitched images or a super wide shots give the same perspective as a telephoto shot. How the shots look depend how much of the view you chose to get in. ( especially foreground objects.
Non rectilinear lenses like fisheyes do distort.

What people call super wide distortion is no such thing, it is simply that perspective geometry looks strange on very close objects.

One advantage of stitched photographs is that you can use different geometric projections to output the finished result, which can alter the result to suit our perceptions.
 
I use a Sigma 10-20mm on cropped sensor, i love that wide angle look for landscapes.
 
I looked at the Sigma 10-20mm long and hard and also the Tokina 12-24mm and opted for the latter. TBH it rarely comes off the body. I love the drama that this can produce
IMG_9509Small.jpg

Not my best shot but maybe my favourite type of shot.
 
Last edited:
Leathertramp said:
I looked at the Sigma 10-20mm long and hard and also the Tokina 12-24mm and opted for the latter. TBH it rarely comes off the body. I love the drama that this can produce

Not my best shot but maybe my favourite type of shot.
Click to expand...

That is a really cool effect, nice shot. Did it take you very long to get use to the lens in regards to the rounding effect?
 
shaylou said:
That is a really cool effect, nice shot. Did it take you very long to get use to the lens in regards to the rounding effect?
Click to expand...

It helps that the front of the Aston is a fairly rounded shape anyway so it just highlights this a little more but I think it gives a very dramatic effect.... if not strictly speaking realistic :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top