Wide angle lens :(

Bletch

Bletch

Messages
481
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys.
So I stumbled across Ken Rockwell's site (again) whilst searching info/reviews on a wide angle lens for my D5100.
I think he just saved me £450. I really wanted one for my trip & now not sure :(
Apparently I'm one of quite a lot of people, who think that a wide angle lens allows you to see more - pulling more info in from the side. And a few of the pictures he posted proved that I've got it totally wrong (the car photo comparison examples are horrible). Can't I do this awful 'effect' in Photoshop?
I just don't know now :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Can you provide the link to the article please?

I have just got the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 for my holiday in a few weeks and I've found it captures a lot more than my other lenses. (Or have I missed the point here?!)
 
I think the point Ken is making is that the extra width should not be used just to "get it all in" but you actually take a different approach to ultra wide angle photography.
 
Yes that's the link Richard. So If Mr Rockwell is making sense, perhaps the wide angle lens isn't really suitable for a newbie?

Scott - I had my eye on that sigma lens of yours, I've just got enough money for it. I was hoping to take some nice photos of the Pushkar desert area from the air (balloon).

Thank you Kevin too :)
 
Last edited:
My gods, an article from KR (who is often but it seems not always) full of brown, smelly stuff that makes good sense! I'm by no means a pro - I'm an amateur in that I love the hobby in every respect, from gear to getting out there with a camera, although PP leaves me cold (and bored brown, smelly stuff less!) I'm also bt even fewer means a newby, having started SLR photography well before many of you were born, back in the late '70s.

I love ultra-ultra wide angles and use my 12-24 sigma a lot on my D700 body. back into a corner and you can get both walls you're touching into shot just a couple of feet in front of you. Perspective is obviously exagerated but (on the Sigma 12-24), rectilinear distortion is barely there. On a crop sensor (I'm talking Canons with the 1.6x crop factor), the Sigma 10-20 gives the FoV of a 16-32mm on 35mm/FF. Not that much wider than an 18mm, although those 2mm do make a difference that wide!

They're not that easy to use well but when they are, the results aren't really replicatable in PP using stitched shots - and fisheyes are all but impossible to replicate (yup, I enjoy using that as well!).

Shooting from a moving vehicle (I'm including a non tethered balloon in that description) makes shooting for a stitched shot even harder - any movement between shots will make alignment for the stitch difficult, if not impossible.

Finally, enjoy your trip and keep your eyes open for a good 2nd hand UWA - get one cheap enough and you should be able to get shot if you don't get on with it for a minimal loss.
 
Ken Rockwell said:
The hardest part with ultra-wides is getting close enough.
Click to expand...
There's been a few occasions when I've (very softly) nudged my subject with my Sigma 10-20 :D

Edit: and I agree with comments above about the rarity of such a sensible article from KR
 
Last edited:
Adrian, Devon, thank you for your thoughts. I'm going to give it a go! The Sigma 10-20 is going to be my purchase :)
 
I would deffo recommend a wide angle lens. I have a Sigma 10 20 and love it (when I use my digital camera that is). Some of my favourite digital photos were taken with my 10-20 and I got it when I was just starting out.

10mm is a bit too wide for me personally even on a cropped sensor and you may need a wide angle filter holder if you use filters to avoid it showing in the image.

Also off topic, that is a great avatar, Meet the Feebles is superb!
 
Last edited:
Nguss said:
Meet the Feebles is superb!
Click to expand...
It most certainly is :thumbs:

Nguss - your landscape shots over at your Flickr account,using the Sigma lens are very cool...especially 'Sunrise at the Coast - D200'.

Think I've more or less been sold on the idea of buying the Sigma lens :)

I've still one or two dilemmas though... but s*d it, it's probably worth starting another thread :)

Cheers everyone
 
Last edited:
Wide angle lenses are all about how you use them. When you start paying attention to the exaggeration of leading lines and perspective, even the 18mm end of your kit lens takes on a new lease of life.

And then you start wanting wider. And wider.

Used in landscape photography, it'll show more of the ground right infront of you, and if you get low, that ground will go swooosh off into the distance. You can also use them for bringing attention to items of interest in the foreground.

A friend of mine (who is actually a great fashion and portrait photographer) posted a quote the other day that said "The best wide angle lens? Take two steps back", which is the wrong way to approach using a wide angle lens.

You can get more in by stepping back with a 50mm lens, but it won't make it a wide angle lens. The perspective and angle of view is different. Using a wide angle - and particularly an ultra-wide or super-wide - makes things jump out at you, or zoom off into the distance away from you. It imitates something that's nanoseconds away from poking you in the eye.
 
Foot zoom isn't always an option (he repeats!). I'm often in situations where my back's against a wall or my feey are overhanging a harbour wall. I'm not a ghost, so can't go further back, neither am I a fakir who can do the Jesus trick!
 
While the D700 is weather sealed, I'm not sure a dunking in the Med would do it too much good! I'll save my Canon for that kind of abuse (it's a D10, so intended to be waterproof.)

My user name is Nod, not god, so I tend to sink, although my plentiful adipose tissue stops me from hitting the bottom - most inconvenient when snorkelling! (I'm fat, so I float!)
 
7999872484_93d3e9a918.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

To give you an idea of how the Sigma 10-20mm performs. This shot was actually taken with a full frame camera (D3) and I cropped this image from the circle you get from shooting full frame with a DX lens. I normally use it on a D300 with excellent results. This was an experimental shot.
My version is the f4-5.6 which is cheaper than the f3.5.
You should save a few pennies and buy the cheaper one.
 
Jack Flash said:
7999872484_93d3e9a918.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

To give you an idea of how the Sigma 10-20mm performs. This shot was actually taken with a full frame camera (D3) and I cropped this image from the circle you get from shooting full frame with a DX lens. I normally use it on a D300 with excellent results. This was an experimental shot.
My version is the f4-5.6 which is cheaper than the f3.5.
You should save a few pennies and buy the cheaper one.
Click to expand...

You missed a bit, top right ;)

Looks very good though.
 
To echo the bit about how it changes the view of things, here's a building shot with a relatively tame focal length somewhere around the 35mm mark. It gives a fairly accurate idea of the buildings proportions.

320254_4420091751008_989810417_n.jpg


Now, when I stand right up by the corner, and get in close with a 15mm focal length....

378720_4420054750083_382198786_n.jpg


Far greater exaggeration of its proportions. I could have gotten closer but the canopy would have obscured too much of the tower. At this distance, the smallest step forward makes things leap toward you.
The extreme curvature of the lenses front element is what causes the clouds to bend into a fan shape.
 
For me, this is where UWAs excel:


Setting the trap... by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Like KR says, it's about putting the viewer right into the scene. Personally, I love the fact that you can exaggerate DoF at aperture of around f/4, really going to town on giving seperation between the focal point and anything in front to throw it out of focus. I rarely use an UWA for scenics, much preferring the 17mm end of the 17-55mm.
 
I can't believe I'm agreeing with something Ken says... but I don't think he's really touched on another very real problem, mostly to do with wide angles and landscape shots.

Like you said in your first post, you want more of the sides to come in.

With a wide angle you get those sides, but you also get a ton of unwanted top and bottom.

My way of thinking with this is that it's not so much an issue with wide angles, but the 3:2 ratio on DSLRs. Panoramic cameras such as the X-Pan or the Fuji 617 existed for a reason. Thus my approach is to use a wide angle but then crop it to a different ratio, thus making it 'panoramic' and getting rid of the boring extra top and bottom.

With today's higher MP counts I don't think that's a bad approach either. Unless you love stitching...
 
My goodness, this'll be twice in one day I'm agreeing with Pat! I'm another who rarely uses my UWA for landscapes - I'll sometimes shoot with it but usually with the intention of cropping to give a panoramic. I'll sometimes do the same with fisheye shots but the horizon needs to be slap bang across the middle of the frame to avoid curvature. The built in level on my D700 is a great reference plane for this purpose.
 
True but to use a UWA on an SLR underwater, you need to spend a medium sized fortune on a waterproof housing for the camera and a slightly smaller one on a port for the lens!
 
I love the examples above, expecially the Co-op photo with the 15mm focal length. :)
I am so looking forward to trying different things then I go on holiday in a few weeks time. It's a shame I can't practice tonight at the Blackpool meet, my lens won't be arriving till Monday, but nevermind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top