Originally posted by rrstuff ... I think 8-16 looks very appealing, but if I remember correctly, it does not take filters. I would like to put a big stopper on the lens some times. That's what drew me to DA 14mm. I am wondering though, specifically, what would I be missing out by not having a 12mm or 10mm focal length.
I did look at a number of examples, but I am not sure if the same images could be taken by stepping up one foot and using a 14mm instead of 12mm.
For example, a really nice shot with a prominent foreground done 35mm:
500px / The Last Ent by WK Cheoh
Here for example:
500px / Lost in the daily by Carlos M. Almagro and here a shot at 21mm (full frame)
500px / A cold autumn morning by Daniel PARAVISINI, gives a similar perspective and a similar prominent foreground. For me technically these pictures differ a lot (relative size of foreground and background), but qualitatively, for a viewer, they vary just a little.
The 8-16 does not really take a filter, for a couple of reasons. First the curvature of the front element is very extreme, which leads to the second - which is the field of view is extremely wide. Thus a filter would just wind up vignetting.
I find that the focal length is not a very good indication of what you are going to get in terms of composing shot using a UWA lens. The bottom line - the one, single measure end that this comes down to is the Angle of View that the lens provides you. So, here is a quick table. Also, with the examples that you have provided, you are essentially mixing apples and oranges - since they are images from a combination of cropped sensors and full frame. For instance 20mm on full frame is much different than 20mm on an APS sensor. You are looking at a mixture of lenses here - some full frame, while others are APS only.
FL (mm) - angle (ASP) - angle (FF)
8 - 112.6
9 - 106.3
10 - 100.4
11 - 95
12 - 90
13 - 85.4
14 - 81.2 - 104.3
15 - 77.3 - 100.4
I only provided the AoV for FF for 14 and 15mm because no one really makes a FF UWA rectilinear lens that is any wider. Fisheye lenses go to 180 degrees.
So, when you start to link to images for comparisons, sensor size matters a lot when dealing with UWA. Its just not a matter of a step back or forward - because you will probably destroy your composition using the foreground object. The entire point of UWA lenses is the breath of view that you are getting. How you apply that additional width is up to you the photographer. The lens is pulling in the additional view from around the edges - both sides and top / bottom as well as the corners, and essentially pushes the center farther back in to the background (to make room), thereby making the foreground much more important in the composition. You need to take all of this into consideration.
There is also a fundamental trade going on here. The trade that you are making is versatility of a zoom (a cross a range of focal lengths) against a single focal length with the potential faster aperture. That boils down to adding a degree of freedom in composition vs gathering more light faster for night sky images. If it was not for the star images, you could just leave your shutter open longer and you would get the same result - and you would be asking about tripods and heads.
Originally posted by reeftool I have the DA 15 and while it does good landscapes, I find it a little too wide at times and I end up cropping. That's not bad as the lens is good enough but the 12-24 at the long end might be a good choice. A lot of people claim it's as sharp as a prime. It's also large and quite a bit heavier than the DA 15. One of the difficult things I found in choosing a wide lens is that all of the lenses you list are good. You can look through samples throughout the forum and find stunning shots from all of them. I went with the DA 15 for it's small size and light weight over the DA 12–24.
I have a couple of UWA lenses, 10-17FE, 8-16, 12-24, 16-45, 20, 25, 28. They are all very sharp
for what they are. What do I mean by saying this. I believe that this is lost on a lot of folks when they start talking about UWA lenses. The sensor size stays the same. It does not get any larger. Of course you say. But stop and think about it for a minute. As you go wider, you are stuffing / cramming more view on to the same sensor. That means that every pixel on the sensor, now needs to represent a larger area (combination of width x height). Effectively what that is going to do, is to reduce sharpness. As you go wider, it is very occurs very slowly, but its there.
I was out shooting with my 12-24 and VERY happy with it. Just for grins - I put on my 31Ltd and took the same view and
stitched them together. The difference in sharpness was startling. However, does that make the 12-24 any less sharp - NO!!! The reason why, is that the 12-24 crams view into a fixed size sensor, while stitching with the 31Ltd ADDs additional pixels to the resulting image. So, the comparison is essentially apples to oranges. But, when you compare images of the same scene from one focal length to another focal length, you will start to see the difference, along with the effects of the distortion.
Originally posted by thechumpen Right yeah, that is the drawback with it. I've seen various things saying that you wouldn't want to use CPL filters with something so wide but I can see why you may want to use ND filters. There are sites where people have created something but seems easier to just buy a lens that can take them in the first place if the price is OK for you. That's one of the reasons I like the sound of a collection of LTD lenses as I think they all take the same filter size from what I've seen.
I know that you are looking to use a ND filter, but just wanted to add that beyond about 24mm a CPL only applies the polarization to PART of the scene. This is most apparent in the sky. Wider than about 24mm, the scene is too wide for the polarization to really be effective. Some folks like the effect, other don't.
Last edited by interested_observer; 11-16-2013 at 04:07 AM.