Wide angle lens choices

[JDArt]

My eyes have opened recently to the joys of photography with wide angle lenses. I'll post some pics when I get back to the farm, where I have my "digital darkroom," but in the meantime I wanted to ask members to relate their experiences with wide angle lenses: which do you prefer? Zooms better idea than fixed lenses? 20mm vs 17mm?

The one I have is a Canon 20-35mm which, when used at the wide end, seems to do just fine when stopped down a bit. I wonder what additional benefit I'd gain by going even wider.

At what point does a wide angle become a "fisheye"?

Thanks.

[Uncle Frank]

Based on the current crop of wide angles, it's not yet possible to design a zoom that bends light at severe angles without incurring severe distortion.* I favor high IQ, so my WA solution is a time proven prime lens... the 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I may try a super WA zoom later on, but imho it'll be a few years before the 12-24s are ready for prime time.* *

I'm not going to become a wide angle specialist.* The primary reason I carry the 20/2.8 is for situations where I physically can't back up.* But it's fun playing with broader view occasionally, and even experimenting with creative perspective distortion.* Here's a few examples of the 20/2.8's performance.

[Neil V]

I have the Sigma 12-24 which is only the wide angle on the market (that I know of) that is full frame. I haven't used a fisheye lens before but I can say that the Sigma 12-24 definitely is not a fisheye nor does it give the effect. My photo's at 12mm, either on my digital (1.5x crop) or on my film camera show very little distortion unless the photo was taken at a very close distance to the subject. It has to be one of my favourite lenses, it's very fast focusing (HSM), quiet, really sharp and makes for an interesting point of view.

Sorry, I don't have any time right now to post examples but have a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1..._ex_dg_asp_hsm

Hope that helps!*

[Nikonfreak]

I had the Sigma 12-24 and agree it's probably one of the lenses out there that offers the least distortion.

The only down side, and why I ended up getting the NIkon 12-24, is that you can't use filters with it because of the big popeye lens element in the front.

Other than that, it's a fantastic lens.

Julio

[Neil V]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

I had the Sigma 12-24 and agree it's probably one of the lenses out there that offers the least distortion.

The only down side, and why I ended up getting the NIkon 12-24, is that you can't use filters with it because of the big popeye lens element in the front.

Other than that, it's a fantastic lens.

Julio

You can use filters with it, just now as easily, it has a spot for gel filters to be placed at the back of the lens. I am going to try putting a 82mm slim filter on the front 'lens cover' to see how much vignetting there is...

[cedric_r]

I use the Sigma 10-20 (for APS-C). I makes clear photos and I have no quality problems with it. It distorts visibly at 10mm but gets better when you move toward the long end. For landscape, I don't find the distortion to be a problem, e.g.:

But then maybe I have low standards. In any case, don't use the short end on people or in a city, unless you're looking for the effect:

[Mr. Pickles]

I agree with the fixed lens idea when you get this wide. But then zooms have a place in todays world. If you want the best picture, you need a prime, and Uncle Franks image is a good example of that. For the other crowd, Cedric has some nice shots there by the Sigma 12-24.

I like zooms better, but more so because I'm lazy and compositionally challenged. In using zooms, I know that my images aren't as good as they could be, but I got a Canon, so they aren't as good as they could be anyway

[cyclohexane]

The widest I have the 18mm on my 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX kit lens, and I don't seem to use it that much. I'm more of a tight shooter myself, but I probably say that because I can't afford anything wider. A constant aperture mid-range zoom and super telephoto are above that on my list of what to buy because I think I need it. =)

Looking at Uncle Frank's first picture (followed by a quick profile check), I just realized that he lives in the same area as I do.

[Uncle Frank]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Looking at Uncle Frank's first picture (followed by a quick profile check), I just realized that he lives in the same area as I do.

The pic was taken at Almaden Plaza, right outside Circuit City. Hi, neighbor!

[cedric_r]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I agree with the fixed lens idea when you get this wide. But then zooms have a place in todays world. If you want the best picture, you need a prime, and Uncle Franks image is a good example of that. For the other crowd, Cedric has some nice shots there by the Sigma 12-24.

Just a correction for accuracy: I'm using the 10-20mm, most of the time at 10mm or 11mm, not the 12-24mm. I'm not sure how different they are.

[JDArt]

Cedric, those are great pics.

[scoundrel1728]

For those with wide angle zooms, do you use the middle of the zoom range much or mainly just the extremes?

[Paul Shields]

Cedric, lovely examples of your wide-angle shots.

Scoundrel, re: using middle of zoom: I use an 11-22mm (22-44mm 35mm equiv.) Zuiko lens, and so far I've not found any drop in performance between one extreme or the other. I don't pixel-peep as a rule though, so there may be differences I haven't noticed. I don't intentionally aim to use the middle of the zoom. Just set it to cover whatever frame I'm looking to encompass.

[cedric_r]

Scoundrel, I use the lower end of the zoom. The longer end isn't wide enough for what I use the lens for. If I need to go to the longer end of the lens I switch to the 18-55 or the 28-300 depending on the situation.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

Scoundrel, re: using middle of zoom: I use an 11-22mm (22-44mm 35mm equiv.) Zuiko lens, and so far I've not found any drop in performance between one extreme or the other. I don't pixel-peep as a rule though, so there may be differences I haven't noticed. I don't intentionally aim to use the middle of the zoom. Just set it to cover whatever frame I'm looking to encompass.

I'm not really asking to determine if there is any falloff in quality at the ends. Rather, I asked to determine if suitably chosen primes would provide a similar functionality. If it happens that the wide angle zoom is consistently used at or near a particular focal length, then it would seem that a prime of that focal length would offer better performance for the price. In my own case, for example, I seldom operate with the zoom almost all the way at wide angle but either zoomed out completely or zoomed in a significant amount. This tells me that I would probably be better served by one or two wide-angle primes than by a wide-angle zoom.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

I'm not really asking to determine if there is any falloff in quality at the ends. Rather, I asked to determine if suitably chosen primes would provide a similar functionality. If it happens that the wide angle zoom is consistently used at or near a particular focal length, then it would seem that a prime of that focal length would offer better performance for the price. In my own case, for example, I seldom operate with the zoom almost all the way at wide angle but either zoomed out completely or zoomed in a significant amount. This tells me that I would probably be better served by one or two wide-angle primes than by a wide-angle zoom.

But if there is no drop-off in performance, why not have a zoom that covers both of the ranges you are trying to cover?

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

But if there is no drop-off in performance, why not have a zoom that covers both of the ranges you are trying to cover?

Several reasons, actually. Some of them are related to the fact that I would typically use such a lens to stitch together a panorama or a mosaic, and this requires that the lens be characterized before shooting. The field of view needs to be known. Geometrical distortions and light falloff must also be allowed for, both of which are focal length dependent in not necessarily simple ways in a zoom lens. This might be optimized "on the fly," but the operation is easier if they are known or at least can be approximated a priori.

When shooting a panorama with closely-approaching foreground objects, a panorama head is necessary to prevent parallax errors and subsequent stitching problems. For the panorama head to be set up properly, the position of the lens' nodal point must be known. This position is also dependent on the focal length of the lens, so this setting must be known before the panorama head can be set properly. This is easy enough to do with a prime lens or a zoom set to one extreme or the other; definitely more difficult for a zoom set to an intermediate setting.

Finally, one reason that does not have anything to do with a panorama: lens flare and ghosting. A prime lens, having fewer element groups, would be likely to have fewer problems in this regard and be less expensive as well. Excluding the effects offending light sources will be more difficult with a wide angle lens than a longer focal length. Ideally, a lens hood will include all light coming from the lens' field of view but exclude light from all other directions. The hood for a prime lens can be more effective because the hood's performance doesn't have to be compromised to allow its use with the widest field of view that a zoom lens is capable of.

I also tend to shoot a fair amount in low-light conditions, LV 4-6 (1/8-1/30 sec @ f/2.8 @ ISO 400) being typical. It is a lot easier to find a reasonably fast and inexpensive wideangle prime than a zoom. When shooting in such conditions, I am usually reasonably mobile and a small change in POV is often enough to correct the framing, as opposed to changing the lens' angle of view.

[Nikonfreak]

Scoundrel.

Why don't you create a thread, start to finish, of creating a pano. What software you use and why and all that. Profiling the lens you will use, which head you prefer and why and how you stitch the ultimate images together.

Why not give it a go?

[cameraguy21773]

Wide angle lense I own or have used often enough to recommend (in no particular order)
Sigma EX 12-24
Sigma EX 10-20
Sigma EX 20mm f1.8
Sigma EX 28mm f1.8
Sigma EX 15-30
Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AIS

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Why don't you create a thread, start to finish, of creating a pano. What software you use and why and all that. Profiling the lens you will use, which head you prefer and why and how you stitch the ultimate images together.

Why not give it a go?

Okay, but it's going to amount to a tutorial. I will probably give some links for background information. And, for whatever it's worth, I don't even have a pano head, though I have shot a fair number of panos.