Wide angle lenses - fallen into the trap

justa1972

justa1972

Messages
2,127
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Ever since Photgraphy became my main hobby I have always longed for a 'proper' wide angle lens.

The thing that put me off was that I was wary of all my images looking the same...rock in front of epic view etc

So I purchased a 10-24 for my X-T3 and i really love using it - not too big, not too heavy, nice and sharp and I love the internal zoom. Before this I just tended to use a kit zoom 16-50 ish equivalent.

Well I've just got back from a 2 week Road trip in Scotland (with family so I had to fit the Photography arond them) and I've fallen into the trap I was trying to avoid - far too many boring, similar wide angle shots in poor light with poor composition !

This is despite telling myself to point the lens down and find some foreground interest. I seem to have some sort of FOMO if I am not using the 10-24 (like the next shot will be the one and I'll miss it if I'm using a narrower lens)

Its my most expensive lens and I think that may also subconsciously persuade me to the leave the lens more or less permanently attached to my camera....

So I figure I can't be the only one who has suffered with this ? Has anyone experienced similar and how did you solve your addiction to a wide angle lens ?!

cheers
 
Not really.

The widest lens I have now is 17mm on FF but back when I had DSLR's my Sigma 12-24mm was for a while my most used lens.

I think with any kit things can get a bit repetitive, for example just look at all those zero DoF shots people are taking with f1.x lenses these days, but as long as you see it if things are getting a bit repetitive and have the discipline to change things and try something else then a wide angle is just another tool in the box.

With wide angles you can play with perspective and you can use them to get it all in... which I've seen frowned upon by bloggers but I do think it's a valid use as is creating distortions. When used well wide angles can IMO give you striking results. They can however IMO be difficult lenses to use well.

Maybe taking a look at the more unusual or unexpected things other people are doing with wide angle lenses might help... I remember a guy who used to take portraits with them but I can't remember his name.

Anyway, hope you get to a happier place with WA's soon.
 
Years ago I had a love hate relationshio, with the sigma 10-20 (went through 3, buying, selling, and buying again). Then tried the tamron 15-30, that broke on day one, so went back. Tried the sigma 20mm art, then swapped all my Nikon stuff for Fuji, so that went. Now pretty happy with the Fuji 14mm. Although my mind set is to use it mainly for architecture, and looking up at stuff in general (trees etc).
So you`re not alone ;)
 
I went for a week in Berlin and only took the Fuji 10-24, didn't hardly miss anything longer at all.
Now use m4/3 and most of my photos are taken at the wide end of a 12-40.
Did have a 12mm, but found the zoom more practical for travelling.

How about wait until Fuji bring out the 16-80 f/4 IS, buy that and sell the 10-24, best of both worlds then.
 
Last edited:
justa1972 said:
Ever since Photgraphy became my main hobby I have always longed for a 'proper' wide angle lens.

The thing that put me off was that I was wary of all my images looking the same...rock in front of epic view etc

So I purchased a 10-24 for my X-T3 and i really love using it - not too big, not too heavy, nice and sharp and I love the internal zoom. Before this I just tended to use a kit zoom 16-50 ish equivalent.

Well I've just got back from a 2 week Road trip in Scotland (with family so I had to fit the Photography arond them) and I've fallen into the trap I was trying to avoid - far too many boring, similar wide angle shots in poor light with poor composition !

This is despite telling myself to point the lens down and find some foreground interest. I seem to have some sort of FOMO if I am not using the 10-24 (like the next shot will be the one and I'll miss it if I'm using a narrower lens)

Its my most expensive lens and I think that may also subconsciously persuade me to the leave the lens more or less permanently attached to my camera....

So I figure I can't be the only one who has suffered with this ? Has anyone experienced similar and how did you solve your addiction to a wide angle lens ?!

cheers
Click to expand...
I've just ordered a 10-24 for my XT-3 so will probably be experiencing this myself in a week or so! Have you got some examples of your shots to share?
 
When I had a Nikon D750, I had the 18-35 and the 24-85mm. I purposely used to generally take on or the other, not both, and have a few days or even a weekend with one or the other, just so I didn’t get caught like you say. It used to make me not as dependant, and stop the over wide shop routine.
Now having bought a Fuji X-t3, I have put the wide 10-24 to the bottom of my want list. And have even thought I may go for the 14mm prime instead.
 
They are certainly very useful and when the novelty wears off it will be just out when its needed. Remember they always require a very strong foreground and a filled frame to work. There are other uses for them than just the landscapes.
 
Ultrawides are inherently difficult to use effectively and they should only be brought out of the bag for "that effect", it's not a general walkabout lens by any means.

I find my 12-40 on M43 (EFL 24 - 80) is a far better bet than an ultra wide, in fact I don't own one for the Olympus yet but do have a Samyang fisheye for when the situation calls for it.
 
justa1972 said:
how did you solve your addiction to a wide angle lens ?!
Click to expand...


3 bodies - one for the 10-24, one for the 18-135 and one for the 100-400. Swapping cameras is far easier (and less likely to introduce dust) than switching lenses, so while the UWA still gets a reasonable amount of use, I can swap it for the X-T1 with the walkabout or the 3 with the telephoto as and when I feel the need for a change of FoV.
 
I feel like I'm a rare breed, WA lenses don't entice me at all. Every time I buy one I try to make it work, but I feel I'm trying just for the sake of it. I do not 'need' anything wider than a 35mm for my style of shooting. But I see so many people enjoy their WA lenses and produce some lovely imagery and I feel I should have one. I buy one, force myself to use it, sell it on ... rinse repeat.
 
I like ultra-wides, but they do need care. I have Sigma 21-35 and 12-24 zooms, and while the 21-35 is very much a walk-about lens, therefore so would your 10-24 (=15-36 on FX) be, the 12-24 is not at all because 24mm is too wide for general use and only gets brought out for 'those' shots.

Now I have a 24-105 instead of 28-105 for general use I expect my use of the 12-24 will drop even more, while the 21-35 will remain on my IR converted D70.

As said already, you need to pay special attention to the foreground, and because of the way wide angles work, moving just a couple of inches can make the differences between a usable photo and one that isn't. Keep practicing.
 
Last edited:
I mainly use one of 3 lenses 24-105mm, 12-24mm and 70-200mm in the following proportions:

Subject Landscape All Photography
Lens
12-24 26% 15%
24-105 69% 62%
70-200 5% 23%

All photography in my case includes, Landscape, Architecture, street, sport, nature, creative, still life, portraits, travel (e.g. anything). It is best to choose the lens to suit but sometimes I just have to use the lens I am carrying as I cannot take many lenses on shoots now and only one camera. There no point in being too rigid with choices, if you want to create something a little different. I know an excellent photographer who almost always uses super wides for portraits and others who only want to use long lenses for portraits.

Dave
 
tijuana taxi said:
I went for a week in Berlin and only took the Fuji 10-24, didn't hardly miss anything longer at all.
Now use m4/3 and most of my photos are taken at the wide end of a 12-40.
Did have a 12mm, but found the zoom more practical for travelling.

How about wait until Fuji bring out the 16-80 f/4 IS, buy that and sell the 10-24, best of both worlds then.
Click to expand...

I’ve been thinking about the 16-80 but would probably buy it and keep the 10-24....
 
I've never been a super wide fan. I borrowed a Sigma 10-20mm about 10 years ago when on Canon 450D & the novelty wore off over the weekend I had it..... I did have a 17-40L for a while in my 5D2 days but that was mainly during my urban exploring phase & used for interior stuff. I then had 28mm as my widest prime after selling the 17-40L in early 2014.

I then went Sony A7 & again 28mm manual prime was my widest. I've just recently (6 months ago) picked up the Voigtlander 21mm & I find that just at about my limit for wide & what I can visualise.

You really do need a strong foreground for wide angle. Maybe if I lived in a different area & had different scenery locally it might be different. I actually shot most of my stuff at 40mm ;)
 
Dave Canon said:
I mainly use one of 3 lenses 24-105mm, 12-24mm and 70-200mm in the following proportions:

Subject Landscape All Photography
Lens
12-24 26% 15%
24-105 69% 62%
70-200 5% 23%

All photography in my case includes, Landscape, Architecture, street, sport, nature, creative, still life, portraits, travel (e.g. anything). It is best to choose the lens to suit but sometimes I just have to use the lens I am carrying as I cannot take many lenses on shoots now and only one camera. There no point in being too rigid with choices, if you want to create something a little different. I know an excellent photographer who almost always uses super wides for portraits and others who only want to use long lenses for portraits.

Dave
Click to expand...
I have the Fuji equivalents of those lenses and my stats match yours pretty much, Dave. I do miss the 24-105 which was my default lens in my Canon days, so am waiting for the Fuji 16-80 which is coming very soon, to replace my 18-55.
 
Cagey75 said:
WA lenses don't entice me at all. Every time I buy one I try to make it work
Click to expand...
They don't entice you but you've bought multiple wide angle lens. lol.:p
 
redsnappa said:
They don't entice you but you've bought multiple wide angle lens. lol.:p
Click to expand...

I've bought about 3 in the last 10 years - I was exaggerating on the buy-re-sell bit but it is what I would end up doing. Like I said, I buy them because I see what others do with them but don't put the effort in myself.
 
I think most people fall into the same trap initially... for me wide angles for landscapes are more a speciality lens, handy to have but only used when the subject matter suits, it's certainly not something I'd leave on the camera all the time.

The problem is that by eye we see things at the equivalent of around 40mm full frame so taking photos of mountains at say 20mm means they often lose impact, they're now 1/2 of the size. To compensate the tempation is to find some strong foreground to fill the frame with, which fills the space but the photo then becomes a shot mainly of foreground and the mountains that initially caught your interest disappear into the distance... if you're not careful wide angles completely change the balance of a scene so you don't get the photo you envisaged.

Panos are often a way of avoiding this, you can still shoot at a longer focal length so don't lose the impact of the scenery and stitch the images in photoshop to still produce that wide viewpoint... worth trying if you haven't already.

Simon
 
simonkit said:
I think most people fall into the same trap initially... for me wide angles for landscapes are more a speciality lens, handy to have but only used when the subject matter suits, it's certainly not something I'd leave on the camera all the time.

The problem is that by eye we see things at the equivalent of around 40mm full frame so taking photos of mountains at say 20mm means they often lose impact, they're now 1/2 of the size. To compensate the tempation is to find some strong foreground to fill the frame with, which fills the space but the photo then becomes a shot mainly of foreground and the mountains that initially caught your interest disappear into the distance... if you're not careful wide angles completely change the balance of a scene so you don't get the photo you envisaged.

Panos are often a way of avoiding this, you can still shoot at a longer focal length so don't lose the impact of the scenery and stitch the images in photoshop to still produce that wide viewpoint... worth trying if you haven't already.

Simon
Click to expand...
That’s really good advice - thanks :)
 
I never have liked Ultra wide lenses and have never owned wider than the equivalent of a 27MM on FF. Even when using large format most of the time.
Today If I need wider I do a stitch. the most recent was when shooting the Organ for my church they wanted it all in but there was no space, so an exposure fuse and stitch was the only option

.Organ pan web.jpg
 
The Sigma 8mm fisheye is as wide and has AF and automatic/body controlled aperture.
 
The thing about shooting overlapping panorama shots for stitching is that it's not much different (in perms of perspective) than shooting with a wideangle and cropping - the biggest difference is that resolution is higher and you don't think that you need to worry about the foreground.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The thing about shooting overlapping panorama shots for stitching is that it's not much different (in perms of perspective) than shooting with a wideangle and cropping - the biggest difference is that resolution is higher and you don't think that you need to worry about the foreground.
Click to expand...

The perspective of a stitched image is the same as a wide angle one. Since perspective depends only on viewpoint.
However the process of stitching allows different projections to be used, which in turn can create improved drawing of images. It also mitigates the effect of cornerstoning if the camera is other than horizontal.
The two images used in the picture of the organ, were taken at 2 1/2 degrees down annd 30 degrees up using a 17mm lens on a crop camera. But the stitching has allowed the verticals to remain vertical, and with few other distortions.
this would be difficult to achieve with a wide angle lens.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that is that the brain knows that there should be perspective so it appears that the organ pipes are diverging as they go upwards, away from the PoV. Something like the Sigma 12-24 on full frame would get the whole shebang in one frame and would look more natural in terms of perspective.
 
I've also had difficulties getting pleasing shots with ultra wide lenses, but the few good results I've achieved keep me trying.
I think when I've had good results its been by getting really close to the 'foreground interest' or having that be pretty big.
A couple with the fisheye at the weekend with my full spectrum camera worked out OK:

P1170243a small.JPG

P1170247a small.JPGP1170235a small.JPG

Probably all would have worked out better without the IR, but I can't fit a filter with this lens :(
 
Petrochemist said:
but I can't fit a filter with this lens
Click to expand...


Is there no way to slide a gel filter behind the rear element? Both my Sigma silly-wides (12-24 and 8mm fisheye) have a holder there for one.
 
Nod said:
Is there no way to slide a gel filter behind the rear element? Both my Sigma silly-wides (12-24 and 8mm fisheye) have a holder there for one.
Click to expand...
No holder for one but it 's probably possible to jury rig something.
It's definitely an option for IR only, but I've never come across a gel that blocks IR more than visible.
There are 'clip in' hot mirrors for a few Sony cameras that go behind the lens, definitely on my to buy list when I upgrade my camera, in the meantime keeping the fisheye for the standard body is probably a wise move.
 
the one i am trying to break as a habit is using lakes in landscapes, i still love them and still think they look great especially with reflections etc but it gets boring when every landscape shot has water in it and it also feels like a cop out because they make things easy (rivers for leading lines, rocks for foreground as you mentioned etc).
 
I got into that trap several years ago. My default now is a 24-70mm on full frame, this generally works very well being such a versatile lens but when I do need extra width the ultra wide 16-35mm comes out, or the 70-200mm for extra length. It’s just a case of knowing when to use each lens for best effect, rather than using it only because you’ve paid big bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top