Ultra-Wide . . . Is It Normal?

[Martin P Wilson]

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. 

 

I could never hope to afford a Leica but I did wonder whether they had a wider angle lens when I wrote my post. Back in the 60s I aspired to Nikon or Canon slr equipment where very wide lenses were either unavailable or unaffordable for most; I remember 21mm coming into more regular use on slrs in the 70s. As a sports photographer for many years I tended to "see" in telephoto mode, my normal in those days was 135mm  although it has changed in recent years (24-100 covers 90% these days).

[David Kilpatrick]

Just done an audit. One-fifth of all sales taken on lenses sub-24mm equivalent, includes architectural interiors, caves, transport interiors, big sky scenes. Have used the Sigma 12-24mm since it was introduced and before that had 20mm on Leica/35mm Mamiya/SWC/Plaubel Makina 55W/40mm Hass/Pentax 67 45mm/Brooks Veriwide/50mm on 6x9 Mamiya/45mm on 5 x 4 - and so on.

 

I set out when work by Jeanloup Sieff, Pete Turner, Brandt, etc was fashionable but wides were rare. I got my first 17mm (Soligor) when I was 22 and just starting to freelance. I shot with the original 15mm Pentax SMC (incredible in 1975) but most liked the 21mm Rokkor MC f/2.8 - best lens I ever owned, used on Minolta XM then on XE-1. Phil Sayer was shooting a lot of stuff for Design Magazine on 21mm Super Angulon and a few other photojournalists used this lens, all b/w. Though it's not the widest angle it's a magic focal length. I'd say I earned more jobs and reputation through signature use of 17 to 24mm lenses between 1974 and 1984 than any other 'tool of the trade'.

 

Now - have sold 12-24mm but only because I've decided not to use DSLR FF for travel. Using A77 instead with 8-16mm, it's a slightly better lens all round than the 12-24mm. Still have a 17-35mm with my Alpha 900. Now have A7R, plus 10-18mm Sony which is under half the weight of most similar lenses. And tomorrow with luck a Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Skopar - Super Angulon f/4 copy - will arrive, aiming for a very light manual focus A7R config.

 

This is the first sale I see when I do a Last Year search to count u/w views:

 

 

12mm on 12-24mm Sigma. No polariser of course, I don't even carry one normally and prefer big skies to polarised sections of small skies.

 

David

[Martin P Wilson]

For travel I am grappling with the decision whether to buy the Fuji 10-24 (15-36 equiv), the 14mm (21mm) or get by with 18-55mm that I already have for my X-E1. I could just save the money to update the body when they upgrade the AF. Perhaps ought to sell the Sigma 12-24 EF!

[John Mitchell]

Just done an audit. One-fifth of all sales taken on lenses sub-24mm equivalent, includes architectural interiors, caves, transport interiors, big sky scenes. Have used the Sigma 12-24mm since it was introduced and before that had 20mm on Leica/35mm Mamiya/SWC/Plaubel Makina 55W/40mm Hass/Pentax 67 45mm/Brooks Veriwide/50mm on 6x9 Mamiya/45mm on 5 x 4 - and so on.

 

I set out when work by Jeanloup Sieff, Pete Turner, Brandt, etc was fashionable but wides were rare. I got my first 17mm (Soligor) when I was 22 and just starting to freelance. I shot with the original 15mm Pentax SMC (incredible in 1975) but most liked the 21mm Rokkor MC f/2.8 - best lens I ever owned, used on Minolta XM then on XE-1. Phil Sayer was shooting a lot of stuff for Design Magazine on 21mm Super Angulon and a few other photojournalists used this lens, all b/w. Though it's not the widest angle it's a magic focal length. I'd say I earned more jobs and reputation through signature use of 17 to 24mm lenses between 1974 and 1984 than any other 'tool of the trade'.

 

Now - have sold 12-24mm but only because I've decided not to use DSLR FF for travel. Using A77 instead with 8-16mm, it's a slightly better lens all round than the 12-24mm. Still have a 17-35mm with my Alpha 900. Now have A7R, plus 10-18mm Sony which is under half the weight of most similar lenses. And tomorrow with luck a Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Skopar - Super Angulon f/4 copy - will arrive, aiming for a very light manual focus A7R config.

 

This is the first sale I see when I do a Last Year search to count u/w views:

 

 

12mm on 12-24mm Sigma. No polariser of course, I don't even carry one normally and prefer big skies to polarised sections of small skies.

 

David

Nice view of the off-limits (thankfully) sea turtle nesting beach at Tulum. I first visited Tulum in the 1980's when there were almost no fellow tourists, no hustlers, and no fences. It was wonderful, you could explore the ruins at will and not have to worry about being trampled by hordes of cruise ship day-trippers. Congratulations on the sale. Tulum is a tough one since there are so many images out there.

[Chuck Nacke]

As I have written previously,  I used the Leitz 21mm f3.4 for many years and it was one

of my favorite lenses, but that was back when there were no really great zooms.  My NIKKOR

12-24 f4 is a really good piece of glass on an DX body, but won't work on FF

[Ed Rooney]

Yeah, the zooms were terrible back than. Nikon had a couple of good 80-200 but everything was front-heavy and slow.

[cbimages]

I use a Canon 15mm fisheye for underwater. Great for big stuff like manta rays which come in nice and close. A bit more "iffy" for sharks! I prefer a 24mm 1.4 for them...and like hubby to toss a hunk of fish right in front of the camera to get them reasonably close!

[fotoDogue]

Just done an audit. One-fifth of all sales taken on lenses sub-24mm equivalent, includes architectural interiors, caves, transport interiors, big sky scenes. 

 

David

 

Interesting analysis. I just took a quick look and nearly half of my Alamy sales were of images shot with a sub 24mm lens. That might not be too suprising though since I tend to use wide angle lenses as my primary lens. 

[fotoDogue]

fotoD, if you have Lightroom there's a box to select for no chromatic aberrations that should get rid of that color fringing. 

Thanks for the tip! The old Nikon 20-35 was fine for magazine and newsprint but now that I'm looking at these scans at 100% there's a lot to be desired. I've only started processing images with Lightroom in the past year or so but I'll have to go back over those old slides now that we're in the dreary days of winter.

[Linda]

 

Just done an audit. One-fifth of all sales taken on lenses sub-24mm equivalent, includes architectural interiors, caves, transport interiors, big sky scenes. Have used the Sigma 12-24mm since it was introduced and before that had 20mm on Leica/35mm Mamiya/SWC/Plaubel Makina 55W/40mm Hass/Pentax 67 45mm/Brooks Veriwide/50mm on 6x9 Mamiya/45mm on 5 x 4 - and so on.

 

I set out when work by Jeanloup Sieff, Pete Turner, Brandt, etc was fashionable but wides were rare. I got my first 17mm (Soligor) when I was 22 and just starting to freelance. I shot with the original 15mm Pentax SMC (incredible in 1975) but most liked the 21mm Rokkor MC f/2.8 - best lens I ever owned, used on Minolta XM then on XE-1. Phil Sayer was shooting a lot of stuff for Design Magazine on 21mm Super Angulon and a few other photojournalists used this lens, all b/w. Though it's not the widest angle it's a magic focal length. I'd say I earned more jobs and reputation through signature use of 17 to 24mm lenses between 1974 and 1984 than any other 'tool of the trade'.

 

Now - have sold 12-24mm but only because I've decided not to use DSLR FF for travel. Using A77 instead with 8-16mm, it's a slightly better lens all round than the 12-24mm. Still have a 17-35mm with my Alpha 900. Now have A7R, plus 10-18mm Sony which is under half the weight of most similar lenses. And tomorrow with luck a Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Skopar - Super Angulon f/4 copy - will arrive, aiming for a very light manual focus A7R config.

 

This is the first sale I see when I do a Last Year search to count u/w views:

 

 

12mm on 12-24mm Sigma. No polariser of course, I don't even carry one normally and prefer big skies to polarised sections of small skies.

 

David

Nice view of the off-limits (thankfully) sea turtle nesting beach at Tulum. I first visited Tulum in the 1980's when there were almost no fellow tourists, no hustlers, and no fences. It was wonderful, you could explore the ruins at will and not have to worry about being trampled by hordes of cruise ship day-trippers. Congratulations on the sale. Tulum is a tough one since there are so many images out there.

 

Yes,very cool shot. I was at that same location.I got sent on a photo assignment there in appx 1990. Cancun and the Ruins of Tulum. Deluxe hotel and meals all the way.We had so much fun but it was soooo hot on the bus ride to get there from Cancun. I shot film,digital was not around yet.I had my first 3rd party lens.Could have been something like a 28-85mm,Tokina or Tamron.I found it hard to focus and preferred primes. I thought 28 was quite wide at the time. My 14mm next to me just laughed!   L

[Arletta]

... 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. 

 

Thanks, you made my day!

Maybe you should turn away the situation and take some photos of man taking photo with that scary ball?

 

I have D700 + 24-70 and there are situations I wish it to be wider.... about 16mm. But really rarely and mostly for some funny, creative shots to play with crazy perspective. I miss that a little

[Ed Rooney]

 

fotoD, if you have Lightroom there's a box to select for no chromatic aberrations that should get rid of that color fringing. 

Thanks for the tip! The old Nikon 20-35 was fine for magazine and newsprint but now that I'm looking at these scans at 100% there's a lot to be desired. I've only started processing images with Lightroom in the past year or so but I'll have to go back over those old slides now that we're in the dreary days of winter.

 

 

My pleasure. The first thing I do when I take the image into Develop is click that box near the bottom. And if you shoot a lot of ultra-wide you might want to click the auto-perspective just below that in Basic. Sometimes you'll want that fix, often you won't, but it's much quicker than using DxO Perspective. 

 

Be careful on the street today.  

[John Mitchell]

 

 

fotoD, if you have Lightroom there's a box to select for no chromatic aberrations that should get rid of that color fringing. 

Thanks for the tip! The old Nikon 20-35 was fine for magazine and newsprint but now that I'm looking at these scans at 100% there's a lot to be desired. I've only started processing images with Lightroom in the past year or so but I'll have to go back over those old slides now that we're in the dreary days of winter.

 

 

My pleasure. The first thing I do when I take the image into Develop is click that box near the bottom. And if you shoot a lot of ultra-wide you might want to click the auto-perspective just below that in Basic. Sometimes you'll want that fix, often you won't, but it's much quicker than using DxO Perspective. 

 

Be careful on the street today.  

 

Ed, I've been shooting RAW+JPEG with the NEX-6, and I'm quite impressed so far with the in-camera fixes for CA and distortion, so much so that I haven't seen the necessity of fiddling with the RAW files (yet). It looks as if there might actually be a couple of days of semi-sunshine in Vancouver, so I'm hoping to get out and experiment with some "ultra wide" shots.

[Bill Brooks]

 

Lens choice is about the relation between foreground and background. What do you want to emphasize?

 

Wide angle close up emphasizes foreground and diminishes background. Tele from farther back does the opposite. Is your main subject in the foreground or background?

 

Wide angle good for ocean prairie or sky. Tele great for mountains, but wide angle diminishes height of mountains.

 

It is all about what your subject is, and giving that subject maximum emphases.

 

On full frame I have 18, 28, 50, 70-200, 400.

 

My frequency of usage is 28, 200, 50, 18, 400.

 

CWX9FK 200 mm emphasizes the rolling nature of subject farmland. The foreground non subject cattle add some sense of depth. Move up to cattle with a wide angle, and the subject becomes cattle and rolling farmland gets lost in distance.

Same with CR46N6. 200mm causes the skyline main subject to loom large with foreground, not subject boat, only for depth.

D0BC3E 18mm. Subject is the sky and water. Want to take it all in, and nothing important on the horizon. My widest angle

D5GYRK 28mm moderate wide angle. My favourite wide angle trying to balance waterfall and foreground vegetation. partial fail. Viewer not sure what is important

D5GYW8 50mm normal. Better balance between foreground vegetation and background waterfall

[Pakodominguez]

 

fotoD, if you have Lightroom there's a box to select for no chromatic aberrations that should get rid of that color fringing. 

Thanks for the tip! The old Nikon 20-35 was fine for magazine and newsprint but now that I'm looking at these scans at 100% there's a lot to be desired. I've only started processing images with Lightroom in the past year or so but I'll have to go back over those old slides now that we're in the dreary days of winter.

 

Hi,

Keep in mind that the quality of the scanner is the limit of what you are seen on the screen -probably the lens perform better on a digital body, you'll need to give it a try.

regards

Pako

[fotoDogue]

Hi,

Keep in mind that the quality of the scanner is the limit of what you are seen on the screen -probably the lens perform better on a digital body, you'll need to give it a try.

regards

Pako

 

 

The scanner is a Nikon LS 5000 ED and transparencies shot with my other Nikon lenses are sharp, so I don't think the scanner is the issue. Lightroom did wonders for removing CA. When I upgraded to PhotoShop CS 6 I couldn't find a way to adjust non-raw images in ACR but Lightroom doesn't seem to have that limitation.

 

If anyone really believes the Nikon 20-35 2.8 is a spectacular piece of glass I'd be happy to sell it to you for half of what I paid for it.

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm shooting with - or not, more testing than shooting as the conditions are so mediocre here, not even any storms or floods just wet days and wind - the Sony A7R and of course I have been trying all sorts of lenses. At the same time I've been looking at some scans. I am sure, now, that wide-angle lenses were rarely even vaguely accurately focused on manual or indeed AF SLRs. The film probably wasn't flat, the cameras had inaccurate screen position or badly calibrated AF without any adjustment possible, and you couldn't begin to tell where to focus within an inch or so on the screen.

 

Now I can focus any lens with absolute 100% precision and also see the full field of view, I realise my slides were usually very poor by today's standards, and lenses which I thought were poor are often much better than imagined - especially when comparing older manual focus prime lenses with modern AF zooms.

 

David

[Pakodominguez]

 

Hi,

Keep in mind that the quality of the scanner is the limit of what you are seen on the screen -probably the lens perform better on a digital body, you'll need to give it a try.

regards

Pako

 

 

The scanner is a Nikon LS 5000 ED and transparencies shot with my other Nikon lenses are sharp, so I don't think the scanner is the issue. Lightroom did wonders for removing CA. When I upgraded to PhotoShop CS 6 I couldn't find a way to adjust non-raw images in ACR but Lightroom doesn't seem to have that limitation.

 

If anyone really believes the Nikon 20-35 2.8 is a spectacular piece of glass I'd be happy to sell it to you for half of what I paid for it.

 

I'm not defending the lens (I don't really know it, I haven't use Nikon equipment for a while) and, if it is an old design, it is probably weak. But even if you have a good scanner (like your Nikon LE 5000), you are loosing quality on the scanning step.

 

Lens profiles on LR 5.x can do miracles on lenses that you are ready to download ;-)

[Chuck Nacke]

foto,

 

What did you pay for the 20-35 f2.8?

 

FYI, the one problem I've had with newer (since 1990) NIKKOR's it that the elements come out of

alignment easly.  The first 20-35 AFD f2.8 NIKKOR that I used for years was a wonderful lens,

unfortunately it was stolen and I replaced it with a Tamron 20-40 f2.6-3.5 that was also a wonderful

lens.  Again, unfortunately Tamron does not support that lens any longer.

 

Seriously, if you really want to sell yours?  Please drop me a note directly.

[fotoDogue]

 

Seriously, if you really want to sell yours?  Please drop me a note directly.

 

Private message sent.