How wide is wide enough - and why? - Page 2

melander · 07-04-2009, 10:59 AM

If I could get a 1mm I would be happy, but I guess 10mm is wide enough

*emr* · 07-04-2009, 11:05 AM

I just realized the poll is faulty - as they tend to be. I'm talking about focal length on a 1.5 crop factor APS-C. I wonder if any voters or posters are film shooters.

tim71 · 07-04-2009, 11:11 AM

This is an interesting question....

I had DA12-24 for a week to do some testing and I am still not sure about it. Maybe it is because of the CA and sharpness issues on the edges that I do not want to get this lens. Maybe I just do not need anything wider than 17 mm so often that it would be worth it (12-24 is not one of the cheapest lenses around). I probably have to test something like Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 10-17 fisheye to really find out.

On the other hand, probably something like DA14 or DA15 Limited would be good option for occasional needs to go "just a little wider" indoor...

*kristoffon* · 07-04-2009, 11:31 AM

I think the wide angle that really takes the cake is the sigma 12-24. Useing in in full frame it has the aps-c equivalent FOV of 8-16mm. (where's the drooling emoticon?)

*jmc7104* · 07-04-2009, 11:54 AM

Just got the 16/45 DA f4 and getting use to it. Done a few close ups with it but havn't had a chance to shoot any landscape yet. jim

*gofour3* · 07-04-2009, 12:44 PM

I shoot film only and have a 15mm, 18mm, 20mm & 24mm ultra wide angle lenses.
I find if you use a wide angle lens, 90% of the time 20mm is as wide as you need.
Anything under 20mm usually leaves you with a lot of wasted foreground, in the bottom half of the picture.

The 15mm is a specialty lens like a 1000mm telephoto; you will only use it once in a while.

simonkit · 07-04-2009, 12:51 PM

A few months ago I thought that I needed much more than the 17mm of my Sigma 17-70 so I bought the Sigma 10-20, unfortunately after a few months of using it I realised that it wasn't for me.
I voted for 15mm as the 17mm has been slightly restricting once or twice, not enough for me to keep the 10-20 though as I've just sold it. I've just bought the Pentax 17-70 so currently own both Sigma & Pentax, the colour/contrast of the Pentax together with the SDM mean I'll be selling the Sigma shortly - 17mm is probably as wide as I'll be going in future

simon

GeneV · 07-04-2009, 02:49 PM

I might use a 15mm (or a superwide zoom) now, but I shot film for decades with nothing wider than 28mm. I always felt that the superwides distorted reality too much, but I'm more open to distorting reality than I was.

GerryL · 07-04-2009, 02:55 PM

18mm was a good wide for me in film.
That would translate to 12mm in a 1.5 crop or APS-C.

*Nick Siebers* · 07-04-2009, 02:58 PM

When I want wide I go to the FA 20-24mm. In fact I mostly use it at 24mm or longer, on APS-C. I also have an F 24-50 that is a nice usual range for me for almost every purpose I can think of. I have a kit lens too, but I rarely pull it out for the extra few millimeters. I am tempted by the DA 21mm, but it won't happen any time soon.

On film, 20-24mm seems very wide, and is tricky for me.

*cbaytan* · 07-04-2009, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by melander

If I could get a 1mm I would be happy, but I guess 10mm is wide enough

I'll second that.

Best wishes.
Can.

rparmar · 07-04-2009, 05:44 PM

Of course it depends on what you shoot, but I have run across many thread where people have the wrong idea about even that. To the question is "what super-wide should I get to shoot landscapes?" I answer "none". A wide angle makes objects recede into the background, pushing everything away from you. This has the effect of turning a mountain into a mole-hill, which is generally not the desired effect. Many great landscape photos have been shot with normal lenses or even short telephotos, since these compress perspective and emphasise the shape of the landscape very well. (If you want more width, stitch yourself a panorama.)

I have had great luck with the DA16-45 at both ends of the focal length, but generally not as wide as 16mm for landscapes. I recommend it over the kit lens for the better resolution at the edges.

There are those who love super-wides for the "one big thing in the foreground and everything else in the background" type shots. Those do win contests but get a bit boring after a while.

Super-wides are very useful for interiors so you can fit everything in. Here in Europe they are a necessity for streets as well. But I find they take careful composition.

I am not impressed with the IQ of the wide end of the Sigma 10-20mm, nor its plasticky build, and so instead got the DA 12-24mm which has great IQ everywhere. Mind you, there is inevitable loss of quality when so much information has to get into such a small piece of glass. This lens also has the distinct advantage of going up to 24mm, which I find to be a great focal length for general street photography. (After all, it equates to film 35mm.)

Here is a set of shots I just posted from this lens.

So my answer, based on the available technology, is 12mm.

Pentaxor · 07-04-2009, 09:48 PM

12-24 is the one I need for wide-angled shots.

Oblique · 07-04-2009, 09:56 PM

I find at times I am cranking down my 16-50mm and wishing it would go a little wider. I do not want the fish eye effect.

Pentaxor · 07-04-2009, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Oblique

I find at times I am cranking down my 16-50mm and wishing it would go a little wider. I do not want the fish eye effect.

that's the reason that I will no longer buy that lens. only a wider angled lens is missing from that range.