Wide angle lenses - when do you use them?

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
21,126
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
In buying mode today and contemplating a wide angle.

Widest I have is the 24-70 and generally thats fine. Not into landscapes really, more portraits and planes. However, I like the odd bit of street stuff, like going round Cambridge or London and snapping the sites - buildings, landmarks etc... I think I have already decided to get a 35mm to compliment the 50mm as i like primes, the 28 is cheap but not that great (?) and you have 24mm or 20mm too, or a zoom like the Sigma 10-20.

So, for walking round towns what focal length (on a D300) would be right for me. As this would be an occasional lens would prefer to keep spend to £150 or less, and would consider a MF lens (not keen on those for portraits but happier for non people stuff).
 
UWAs are all about perspective. everything gets distorted but you can get brilliant results once you learn how to use those:

DSC00059.jpg


DSC00015.jpg


DSC00076.jpg
 
On a D300 24mm it a normal focal length much like a 50mm on a FF camera.
a 17 mm is equivalent to a FF 28mm wide angle. That is my most used focal length.
A 20mm is similar to a 35mm on full frame, which is a popular walk about length.

Wide angle lenses do tend to be fairly expensive.
 
depends on how wide you want. the standard kit lens 18-55mm (less than £100) at widest is considered standard wide angle at 28mm FF equivalent.

for wider, it'd need to be less than 14mm. they aren't cheap with cheapest being Tamron 10-24mm at just under £300.

i thought about the Sigma 10-20mm for a while (£350 but allows AF). but decided just use the kit lens, as above said, any wider than 28mm you are more likely to get distortion.
 
Distortion is where it's at IMHO for wide angle. Either barrel distortion as you tend toward fisheyes or perspective distortion if you go for a rectilinear lens.

Although more expensive than you suggest (at ~£240 new), what about a MF Samyang lens. Either 14mm (which is nearly rectilinear) or 8mm (fisheye) depending on the effect you want. I have a 7.5mm Samyang on my GX1 (so 15mm FF equivalent) and love the look it produces for the right subject.

P1000210-800.jpg


and

P1000250-800.jpg
 
Thanks - Thinking back to a portrait shoot at a college recently, at 24mm I could have done with being a bit wider, so 20mm could be the way forward. Leaning to a prime due to weight, size and cost (as looking at MF options).
 
I use a 14mm f/2.8 Sigma.... focusses down to about 5cm from the front element so great for wacky stuff. A bit prone to flare but swapped it on here for a £200 Tokina 12-24mm.... Bargain :)
 
specialman said:
I use a 14mm f/2.8 Sigma.... focusses down to about 5cm from the front element so great for wacky stuff. A bit prone to flare but swapped it on here for a £200 Tokina 12-24mm.... Bargain :)
Click to expand...

Prone to flare is an understatement, the one I had flared on overcast days. Fun lens to use though if you can live with the flare (and chromatic aberration if you're a pixel peeper or submit to Alamy).
 
I know you mentioned a prime lens, but have you thought about a Tamron 17-50 very light and compact for a zoom and decent image quality even at F2.8 and the non VC one sells for around £150.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Prone to flare is an understatement, the one I had flared on overcast days. Fun lens to use though if you can live with the flare (and chromatic aberration if you're a pixel peeper or submit to Alamy).
Click to expand...

Direct sunlight can be a nightmare, generally flaring in the bottom corners. Other than that, it's been a fantastic lens and to be fair, I've had my fair share of magazine covers out of it that have looked the nuts so no complaints from me.





 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top