Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Fess up! Are you one of these shooters who thinks everything looks much better when seen through a very wide lens? Why is that? Is it smart? Is it good? Is it . . . commercial? Why are you doing this? Perhaps it's a habit, like Marlboros or crystal meth? Are you not in fear of having your teeth fall out if you keep shooting everything with that ultra-wide? Okay, I confess to missing my own use of these things. With my Nikons in film days I had a 15mm and a 20mm. Okay, okay -- I had a 16mm full-frame fisheye, too. I've been shooting mostly with a view of 36mm for more than a year now, and I have a yearning to expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Ed, I think when the technique is used correctly, it can create a very compelling image. That being said, I rarely use the technique. This is my favorite image taken using a wide angle in 2013 - it was with the Fuji X-Pro 1 using an 18mm f/2 lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Ed, I'm not sure what "normal" is, but I like to go ultra-wide every now and then. I bought an inexpensive ultra-wide 0.75X converter for my Sony e-mount 16mm lens and have uploaded a number of "ultra" images to Alamy. The quality is surprisingly good. None has sold yet, though. This one shot in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, with a Vivitar super WA lens has leased elsewhere (travel guide and magazines). No luck with it on Alamy yet, though. I know, I know, you architectural purists don't like tilting buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I for one am not big on WIDE-WIDE glass. Right now I'm looking to replace a 12-24 DX with a 20-35 on FF. I prefer my 35-70 or 80-200 most of the time and I Love me 300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Fess up! Are you one of these shooters who thinks everything looks much better when seen through a very wide lens? Why is that? Is it smart? Is it good? Is it . . . commercial? Why are you doing this? Perhaps it's a habit, like Marlboros or crystal meth? Are you not in fear of having your teeth fall out if you keep shooting everything with that ultra-wide? Okay, I confess to missing my own use of these things. With my Nikons in film days I had a 15mm and a 20mm. Okay, okay -- I had a 16mm full-frame fisheye, too. I've been shooting mostly with a view of 36mm for more than a year now, and I have a yearning to expand. This had to have been one of the funniest photo posts I've read in 2014! :-) I've been guilty of an 8mm fisheye and wide angles. Sometimes it's just required but then I ask myself when I no longer own a wide lens why I really want one. Extreme wide is only interesting when something is in the foreground. I just bought the 14mm 2.8 Rokinon and it's sharper than the 17-40mm Canon I had though I need to get use to manual focus which I do not like when I am wearing my eyeglasses. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 "This had to have been one of the funniest photo posts I've read in 2014! :-)" -- Linda But, Linda -- 2014 is not yet a day old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 "This had to have been one of the funniest photo posts I've read in 2014! :-)" -- Linda But, Linda -- 2014 is not yet a day old. Well,it's in the running! Hopefully it could end up in the hall of fame in 364 more days! :-) L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I for one am not big on WIDE-WIDE glass. Right now I'm looking to replace a 12-24 DX with a 20-35 on FF. I prefer my 35-70 or 80-200 most of the time and I Love me 300. I have an old Nikon 20-35 2.8 and had a hard time getting anything I'd shot with it past QC. Too much CA and not all that sharp. First thing I did when I started actively submitting to Alamy was to dump it for a 20mm. If you really want a zoom I'd suggest renting the newer 17-35 2.8 for some test shots before you buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NielsVK Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I love ultra-wide and have about 100 images taken with my Sigma 10-20mm in my Alamy collection, but only one has been licensed, and that one was shot at the 'long' end (20mm). Here are some shots at 10mm that were zoomed recently: I would like to replace the Sigma with the new Sony 10-18mm NEX zoom. When using a standard zoom I use the wide end (16-18mm APS-C) a lot but I don't consider that ultra-wide. Of all my images licensed through Alamy, this is the widest, but it's actually stitched (a.k.a. the poor-man's ultra-wide!) from 7 images shot at 18mm APS-C: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I shoot a lot of interiors with a 17mm TSE on full frame, it's pretty much a standard for that work but also is perfect for large vistas for commercial stock. It's a PITA because of the lack of both filter thread and lens hood but makes up for that in being as sharp as you are going to get at that wide an angle. Took a couple of months to be in profit, so yes....well worth the investment. I'm a bit odd in that I think everything looks better through a TSE lens I either shoot with the wides or my favourite lens, the 90mm. Seriously though, wides are really usefull for commercial stock, especially where you want copyspace or plenty of room to allow for banner/skyscraper cropping by clients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I used to use a Tokina 11-16mm for APS-C - probably the best wide zoom ever made for that format only let down by too much CA (and I am not the only one saying that) http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_11 16_28_canon I sometimes use it as a 16mm prime with a 5:4 crop on full-frame. Stopped down to f5.6 or more it gives just a tiny bit of softness in the corners, but is otherwise super sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 To be a bit more serious (sorry, Linda ), I observe that the forum members who took the time to post on this thread are using their ultra-wides wisely, as the photographic tools they are, and not as an overall approach to every situation. I have a Nikon 20 f/2.8 AF which is great to use on my FF D700. I still own the 14-24, but I don't use that because it's like carrying around a bowling ball, and it scares people when you point it at them. fotoD, if you have Lightroom there's a box to select for no chromatic aberrations that should get rid of that color fringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Ed I still use the 14-24 2.8 but rarely use it for street shooting. Perhaps I should I don't know. I haven't taken a photo for quite a while now because the weather is abysmal. I also am not keen on converging verticals as you know. I can't post a wide one because I don't know how you do it. Happy New Years Ed and everyone btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I have a Sigma 12-24 for my Canon FF but I can't remember when I last used it, probably not at all in 2013. I did use a Canon 17-35 very occasionally during the year (before I started using Fuji X-E1 for lot of my photography). Don't think I have sold any pix from the Sigma, have sold odd ones from the Canon w/a I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 I think I shall get the Sony 10-18 for my NEX cameras. It is not a monster and weighs only 1/2 a pound. "I can't post a wide one because I don't know how you do it. Happy New Years Ed and everyone btw." -- Gervais Me neither! Everyone seems able to paste Alamy images into forum posts these days, but I just don't know how it's done. Maybe some kind techie will set us straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Me neither! Everyone seems able to paste Alamy images into forum posts these days, but I just don't know how it's done. Maybe some kind techie will set us straight? This sale might have been the Canon 17-35 or even the Sigma. To insert image: right click on the image (this was from my sales report) and select "copy image location". Then in the post: position cursor where you want image and click on the screen (image) icon in middle of second row of this editor and paste (ctrl-v on Windows) the location into the url box - job done. Should be possible with any online image where right-click is allowed and no other theft prevention is used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I think I shall get the Sony 10-18 for my NEX cameras. It is not a monster and weighs only 1/2 a pound. "I can't post a wide one because I don't know how you do it. Happy New Years Ed and everyone btw." -- Gervais Me neither! Everyone seems able to paste Alamy images into forum posts these days, but I just don't know how it's done. Maybe some kind techie will set us straight? Happy New Year to you too! And to everybody else on this Forum of course. Just drag the image you want to insert to the reply to this topic box. (This works if the image is anywhere on the web. Not just when it's on Alamy.) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 file:///Users/edwardprooney/Desktop/DN6X2Y.jpg I'm on an IMac. I have a newish mouse. Nothing happens when I right click. And this is what happens when I drag the image int the Reply box. file:///Users/edwardprooney/Desktop/DN6X2Y.jpg Ahh! Look on next page where it works! I'll try one here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I think it only works off the web, Ed, that one of yours is local to your computer,A thumbnail dragged straight off my Alamy homepage: Overlapped edit. Don't know about Macs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Yes it does need to be an image that is available on the web as you need a url: htpp://... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 Hey! There you go! For these I did an advanced search from the Alamy Home Page. I then did a drag&drop from a thumbnail and a blowup of it into the Reply box. Thank you, gentlemen. I don't put images on any of the Flickr-like sites. And by the way these were shot with at the 24mm end of the zoom on the new RX10. 24, I think, is where wide meets ultra-wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 As someone who has been involved with photography a loooonnnng time I am amused where the ultra-wide threshold has been perceived over that time. When I started (late 60s) 35mm was a proper wide angle and 28mm seriously wide, pretty much anything else was a fish-eye in those far-flung days. Now 35mm is a normal lens, 28mm a modest wide angle and 24mm the everyday w/a for most people and we have corrected w/a lenses down to around 12mm (on FF). I would not really want to go back to the state where a comprehensive outfit was 50mm, 35mm(maybe 28mm) and a 135mm but you could carry it in your pockets with the camera over a shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The old 20-35 f2.8 was a great lens. One version of the Tamron 20-40 f2.6-3.5 was also great. I don't know about other NIKKOR's (slower). I'm also looking at the 16-35 f4, but again on FF I don't like going wider than 20 and most use would be at 24-30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 Back in the '60s, many PJs had a 21mm with an attached view finder on their Leica M bodies. The question of which is/was 'normal' between the 35 and 50 has been kicked around for a very long time. I use the 35 (the 24 f/1.8 Zeiss Sony, view of 36 on NEX) as normal. What I no longer need is a long tele lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.