[Oakland Rob]

I've got a 35mm prime, and a 18-55mm kit lens (which shows as 20mm at it's extreme in Lightroom's exif info, for some reason). On a K-50.

I occasionally find myself in a position where I wanna take a panorama-type landscape shot; usually there is much more I wanna capture horizontally than vertically, unless there are some nice clouds working.

The question is whether to upgrade from the kit lens. And whether software can compensate using the 35 and panorama stitching in software (usually PS, but now Lightroom does it as well, although I assume there'd be similar results).

I would have dismissed software solutions out of hand in the past, but now, not so sure. Just as sometimes a crop from a shot with a good lens can beat a non-crop from a lesser, but longer lens, does a stitch with two good 35mm prime shots trump a budget prime one-shot? Would a stitch of two 35mm shots be better than one Samyang 14, for instance? I would guess so, since there are so many compromises with lenses in that size. Even if you get a decent distortion fix (which means software is doing some of the heavy lifting anyway), you've got other issues, like flare (anywhere near towards light), lack of filters, etc. Not to mention I'd have to fork out mo' money.

There are, of course, inherent limitations with stitching. A big one is that it can be impossible with moving stuff, like surf at a beach, let alone moving people. Stitching can use photos with more bokeh, while wide angle shots often have none with everything in focus, which can be a plus or minus, depending. Sometimes the distortion in a wide angle shot can be very desirable.

And aside from stitching, is a budget 14mm like the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower worth it over the 18-55mm kit lens?

[FantasticMrFox]

And aside from stitching, is a budget 14mm like the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower worth it over the 18-55mm kit lens?

Well, it gives you a totally different perspective - 14 mm vs. 18 mm is a pretty significant difference. The Samyang is generally rather highly regarded, it seems to be sharp and contrasty with a really weird moustache distortion that is easily controlled in PP. And then there is the added advantage of f/2.8 for night sky work, in case you're into that.

[Wingincamera]

I have the Pentax 15 and Bower 14mm, both take great photos but the wider lens can give distortions. I have made pano's with my DA 350-200mm up to 70-200mm at 200mm with good results. Here is one example of a pano with a 70-200 at 200mm. This was taken with a Canon 5Dc and Canon 70-200 lens. Raw files were processed first in LR and the pano made in PS.

[Na Horuk]

Would a stitch of two 35mm shots be better than one Samyang 14, for instance? I would guess so,

Well, yes. You would get even more detail if you use 50mm, at f8, with a good tripod, low ISO, timers, triggers, and HDR bracketing and pixel shift bracketing for each frame. But things get impractical. Sometimes even getting two photos to stitch can be impossible or at least challenging. Even clouds, stars, sun moves, and tree branches, waves, birds and animals,... And often stitching/panorama software can cause odd mistakes and take a lot of work, time and skill to get what you want.
Basically, using a wide angle lens is much faster and hassle-free - and it has some other benefits. It doesn't mind moving subjects. And with an UWA you can get closer. Much closer. With 14mm you can be very very near to the subject and still get something in the rest of the frame - such a shot cannot be faked with stitching, because the positioning, compression/distortion will be different, or maybe the space is limited around the subject. This used to be the main use of UWA lenses - to get closer, not just "to get more in frame"

And aside from stitching, is a budget 14mm like the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower worth it over the 18-55mm kit lens?

Yes, definitely. Samyang primes are much, much sharper than the kit lens, and also give better colours, and significantly faster aperture. They generally are decent with flare control. Main downsides are quality control (there is a chance you get an uncalibrated or decentered lens) and manual focus (not a very big deal once you learn zone focusing with your particular lens and camera). Anyway, I would recommend the Samyang 16mm f2.0 - fast aperture, sharp, not as awkwardly wide as the 10mm or 14mm, less distortion, and I think it has detachable hood plus actual filter threads (14mm doesn't, not sure about 10mm).. look at the Samyang lens club thread on these forums to see how good these lenses are.

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 05-03-2015 at 05:01 PM.

[btnapa]

I've got a 35mm prime, and a 18-55mm kit lens (which shows as 20mm at it's extreme in Lightroom's exif info, for some reason). On a K-50.

I occasionally find myself in a position where I wanna take a panorama-type landscape shot; usually there is much more I wanna capture horizontally than vertically, unless there are some nice clouds working.

The question is whether to upgrade from the kit lens. And whether software can compensate using the 35 and panorama stitching in software (usually PS, but now Lightroom does it as well, although I assume there'd be similar results).

I would have dismissed software solutions out of hand in the past, but now, not so sure. Just as sometimes a crop from a shot with a good lens can beat a non-crop from a lesser, but longer lens, does a stitch with two good 35mm prime shots trump a budget prime one-shot? Would a stitch of two 35mm shots be better than one Samyang 14, for instance? I would guess so, since there are so many compromises with lenses in that size. Even if you get a decent distortion fix (which means software is doing some of the heavy lifting anyway), you've got other issues, like flare (anywhere near towards light), lack of filters, etc. Not to mention I'd have to fork out mo' money.

There are, of course, inherent limitations with stitching. A big one is that it can be impossible with moving stuff, like surf at a beach, let alone moving people. Stitching can use photos with more bokeh, while wide angle shots often have none with everything in focus, which can be a plus or minus, depending. Sometimes the distortion in a wide angle shot can be very desirable.

And aside from stitching, is a budget 14mm like the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower worth it over the 18-55mm kit lens?

I shoot panos too but rarely with a wide angle. Most of my keepers have been shot in focal lengths of 70mm or longer. I use long zooms to allow me to go with longer focal lengths. Using a longer lens also eliminates some of the wide focal length distortion issue. "Wingincamera" has got it. I have shot a lot of 200mm or close to it focal lengths.

[Oakland Rob]

Ouch. I was hoping to get talked out of it, but I see the point. I had forgotten about night work; even though I'm learned how to stack images in that case I WANT more vertical.

How do the different Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm's compare? different prices although I understand they are just rebranded. Or older ones; I have no problem with manual focus, I have several lenses I use that way. Pretty great with in-body stabilization. I'll check out that 16 too.

[Na Horuk]

How do the different Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm's compare? different prices although I understand they are just rebranded.

I think they are optically all the same. Most are even the same in the appearance. Vivitar versions sometimes have a different focusing ring and stuff, but the same glass. Samyang makes them, but they get sold as Walimex, ProOptic, Falcon, Rokinon, Bower, Vivitar, and possibly others. This depends on your location, for example Walimex is in Germany, but I think it is difficult to find outside EU. And yes, sometimes the same store has a certain lens in two of these brands at different prices. Just get the cheaper one, as far as we know, they are all the same. The only Samyang you should avoid are the big tele lenses (500mm, 800mm, mirror lenses) and older lenses (Samyang has been around for a while, only in the past few years have they made such great glass). If you buy Samyang, make sure it is "for Pentax" because they make lenses for a variety of mounts, and others won't fit your camera.
When you said "older".. there is actually an older version of the 14mm, with slightly different characteristics, but you should only worry about that if you buy used. Or if you meant legacy older lenses that you might find, you won't have much luck with UWA. In the past, 24mm was really wide, and 20mm was extreme! On APSC, 20mm is that that wide. And often the quality of those old lenses is not as good as modern UWA, because UWA is complex and modern computer technology and robotic machines help out a lot. And lens coatings with flare. So old UWA lenses will either be expensive or not that good, at least ones wider than 20mm. This is why Samyang is usually the best, most affordable choice. Sigma makes 10-20mm zoom and Tamron makes 12-24mm, which are also good for UWA beginners, because they have a comfortable range and don't cost an arm and a leg. I've seen some great photos taken with these, but I don't think they are as contrasty and sharp as Samyang. But they do have AF!

Sorry I can't talk you out of it But you know your needs. For just panorama, you might enjoy stitching, and you can get away with DA 50mm f1.8 (or even Pentax M 50mm f1.7 for $60. Its sharp enough, add a tight hood and its really top notch). Thing is, I rather enjoy my Samyang 14mm, even though I had to replace it once and the second copy is still a little decentered. I have a lens profile for it, but I don't use it very often. Distortion can often be handled even as you take shots, if you angle the camera right

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 05-03-2015 at 05:55 PM.

[kh1234567890]

There are, of course, inherent limitations with stitching. A big one is that it can be impossible with moving stuff, like surf at a beach, let alone moving people. Stitching can use photos with more bokeh, while wide angle shots often have none with everything in focus, which can be a plus or minus, depending. Sometimes the distortion in a wide angle shot can be very desirable.

It all depends on what software you use to stitch. This was done in Autopano Giga from five quick handheld shots taken with the DA18-55WR at 18mm. The actual stitch setup and rendering took only a couple of minutes. FoV is the same as that of a 14 mm lens.

[WPRESTO]

For a wide angle lens, seriously consider a SIgma 10-20, sometimes available used at very attractive prices. I've done hand-held pans with a SIgma 17-70, stitched with Microsoft ICE (free download) and found them flawless and amazingly detailed. After stitching I usually use some pincushion distortion to expand the outer ends of the image into a psychologically normal appearance, and also to the straighten horizon curvature. Sometimes I use the clone tool to fill in sky in the far upper right/left corners to avoid crowding down too much on tall items near the center when cropping to eliminate those black corners.

[WPRESTO]

This is a panorama from, as I remember, eight hand-held exposures of the Charles Bridge in Prague (started 1357, original bridge completed 1402, following some repairs, the present bridge has stood since about 1503). It was late afternoon with dull, low overcast, hence the featureless sky. The 8-image stitch, a crop from the lower left corner, from near the center, and from the lower right corner. Images taken with a Sigma 18-250 travel lens, hardly an optic with a reputation of astounding IQ. Sorry, do not remember what FL was used. Stitched with Microsft ICE, post-processing with both LS & PS. Did you spot the swans in lower left in the full panorama? You can barely see that the truck at lower right is an "IVECO," but the license plate is not resolved. A doubt that a crop from a single image file taken with any wide angle would provide this level of detail. Numerals on the clock tower at left are easily read, as is the construction date (1880). Panoramic stitches can give satisfactory results even without nodal-point centering on a tripod.

[Fat Albert]

Ouch. I was hoping to get talked out of it, but I see the point.

Talked OUT OF buying a lens? My friend, you've come to the wrong place

[pathdoc]

FoV is the same as that of a 14 mm lens.

I notice that the arch has a very peculiar, asymmetrical shape. Am I right in guessing that it's the actual arc of the bridge, rather than a defect in the stitching software?

[Oakland Rob]

I notice that the arch has a very peculiar, asymmetrical shape. Am I right in guessing that it's the actual arc of the bridge, rather than a defect in the stitching software?

I wonder if that's an illusion; seems like it's all curved a bit. The hills behind, and a gentle rise in the bridge, if there is one, might contribute.

Thanks guys for all the advice. Since I already can do stitching (and it's amazing stuff; consider that some of these shots had moving water) I decided to get a lens. Maybe you all should get a commission from B&H. I found a used Samyang 16mm there (it was in the wrong section, but a better price than I could find anywhere else used). It fits my needs because I use ND filters a lot, and it can take them unlike the 14mm's. And it cost less than them as well. I'll still do a lot of panorama stuff with software, but this does give me more choices. I also went back and tried to stitch some shots I took with a 28mm equiv lens in a redwood forest, and given the proximity of the trees the distortion was rather nausea inducing. My friend's similar shots with his wider lens just looked better. I guess that might have to do with focusing, since it was low light, and with a pan you get different distances in each separate shot that can be different than what one lens sees, and only so much of that can be corrected.

And I've also learned to stop asking "should I get..." type questions

[WPRESTO]

As to the arch in the bridge, you can see in the first image below, taken from near the tower at the left end of the bridge in the panorama, that there is a slight rise or arch to the span. The second image, taken from a tower out of view at the right end of the bridge. doesn't seem to show the arch as clearly.

[kh1234567890]

I notice that the arch has a very peculiar, asymmetrical shape. Am I right in guessing that it's the actual arc of the bridge, rather than a defect in the stitching software?

That's how it is. The road crosses the canal at an angle. At the time the curve and the shadow looked interesting ...