How wide is wide enough - and why?

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by pb_red

so i guess the answer for me was 15mm. your results may vary...

Yeah, nice lens, but crap for landscapes.

[Andi Lo]

Originally Posted by rparmar

Yeah, nice lens, but crap for landscapes.

Huh? What's the point on having a 15mm then?

[ivoire]

12mm works for me. The Da 12-24mm is a very good lens and has made me quite a bit 'o cash. However, if it was available in k-mount, i'd get a Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX. so i'm voting wider

[kthung]

I have the sigma 10-20 and I voted for 12mm. I find that I usually don't need to go as wide as the lens allows and even if I did distortion becomes noticable. I'm tempted to trade for a DA 12-24

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by Andi Lo

Huh? What's the point on having a 15mm then?

I made a joke since the poster I was responding to said:

for the most part as soon as i mention landscape photography someone always says "no! wide angles are not for lanscape shots! you get too much crap in the frame! they are for interiors only and that's the end of it!"

That's what the emoticon was indicating.

[pb_red]

Originally Posted by rparmar

I made a joke since the poster I was responding to said:



That's what the emoticon was indicating.

my lens should arrive on monday so i'll just have to wait until then to see how much it sucks for landscapes hehehe

seriously though, i'll probably play with distortion first, maybe try out the whole "get really close and go wide" portrait style (although 15mm might be a little too wide), etc...

[Andi Lo]

Originally Posted by rparmar

I made a joke since the poster I was responding to said:

That's what the emoticon was indicating.

Sorry for the misunderstanding