How wide is wide enough - and why?

DavidWasch · 11-24-2009, 11:36 AM

Similar to Just1Dave, I don't care to go wider than 12mm because of the distortion.

Recercare · 11-24-2009, 02:48 PM

I have never felt the need to go wider than 40mm on APS-C ...

Kind regards
.lars

**xs400** · 11-24-2009, 05:18 PM

I am generally happy with the 16-45mm. I am thinking of getting the DA15mm, just for it's small size.

Itai · 11-24-2009, 10:34 PM

Well, my favorite lens is the 16-50mm F2.8. I use it often at 16 or so. I also have the 12-24 F4 which is fantastic. The extra 12-16mm coverage is not used very often but when I need it, I am really glad to have it.

I considered the Sigma 10-22 and couldn't handle its poor image quality, so I although I would like to go wider than 12 occasionally, I won't compromise on quality. I was lucky enough to have a loaned Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 on a full-frame D3 and really got creative with it. I wish we could cover the same field of view with a high-quality Pentax lens. On the a K-series, we would need to go as wide as 9.5mm.

Interestingly, the Four-Thirds format (and now its Micro version) covers the same field-of-view with the Zuiko 7-14mm F4, which is a superb lens as well.

I'm really looking forwards to a DA* 9-16 F2.8 some day

- Itai
Neocamera

**Digitalis** · 11-27-2009, 06:46 AM

the widest lens I have ever used in my 35mm Rangefinder photgraphy would be the voigtlander Heliar 12mm f/5.6 - and I only used that lens for eight successful images, but for the most part the lens is useless for me. so on a full frame SLR 18 mm rectilinear is as wide as I'll ever go, I find it REALLY hard to compose with lenses that are really wide. I recently got a Leica-M 21mm f/1.4 and I've had more success with it than the heliar 12mm - but that is probably tied into the differential in lens speed...I love fast glass.

lesmore49 · 11-28-2009, 11:23 PM

I've got the 16-45 and the 10-17 Fish eye. I've tried the 10-20 Sigma...it's fine, I like the extreme wide angle especially for landscapes.

My 16 mm of the 16-45 is great for non distortion vintage car photos...but I like the creativity of the 10-17 fish eye.

**Lowell Goudge** · 11-30-2009, 06:35 AM

I put no wider than 10mm, even though today with my sigma 10-20 which I use for 20% of all shots, and for shots with that lens, 60% are at 10mm I think 10mm is sufficient.

This is a primary walk around lens on one body when travelling in other cities, the other being my Tamron 28-75.

The reason I think this lens and in general all the ultra wide zooms are a necessity are that when I shot film, I was frustrated while I lived in europe that my 24mm was simply not wide enough to photograph what I want in those situations. With the cropped sensor, 24mm on film equates to 16mm on ASP-C.

I got a taste for something wider when I bouthg my *istD. It came with an FA-J 18-35, which was not even as wide on th e*istD as my 24mm was on my PZ-1, BUT when I put the 18-35 on my PZ-1 I started to see the field of view I was looking for. Until I bought my sigma 10-20, I shot film using the 18-35 on my PZ-1 for all the wide angle shots.

brecklundin · 11-30-2009, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Itai

Well, my favorite lens is the 16-50mm F2.8. I use it often at 16 or so. I also have the 12-24 F4 which is fantastic. The extra 12-16mm coverage is not used very often but when I need it, I am really glad to have it.
I considered the Sigma 10-22 and couldn't handle its poor image quality, so I although I would like to go wider than 12 occasionally, I won't compromise on quality. I was lucky enough to have a loaned Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 on a full-frame D3 and really got creative with it. I wish we could cover the same field of view with a high-quality Pentax lens. On the a K-series, we would need to go as wide as 9.5mm.
Interestingly, the Four-Thirds format (and now its Micro version) covers the same field-of-view with the Zuiko 7-14mm F4, which is a superb lens as well.
I'm really looking forwards to a DA* 9-16 F2.8 some day

- Itai
Neocamera

Just curious why you make that claim? And fyi, Canon makes a 10-22 not Sigma...

There were a few of the shots taken with my 10-20, all shot at 10mm:

One of the many murals we have painted around our town:

On this one I added the slight vignetting

And here I walked across the street to get a closer shot

I kinda like the IQ from the copy of the 10-20 I owned. My neighbor now owns it and she earns her living from photography.

MoiVous · 11-30-2009, 05:28 PM

To add to the discussion a little - I use my Sigma 10-20 about 30-40% of the time, and my 28-70mm for about 30% to bring out details.
Ultimately, how wide you go depends on what your trying to capture.
Landscapes benefit from a short telephoto treatment IMHO - try and accentuate on a detail that draws the eye (eg a lone tree or mountain).
The wide end (like 10mm) is very good indoors when you want to give a sense of the space, or accentuate a foreground detail. Its also useful to get a sense of place - like a large building that dominates you.
One of the tricks I've learned to minimise the 10mm distortion is to shoot in portrait or ensure that the centre of the frame is the "horizon" (eg a floor or land horizon) - the distortion is then at the top and bottom of the frame and less obvious.
The two images below illustrate my point - both at 10mm (note - not a lot of PP - these are straight off the laptop)

MikePerham · 12-02-2009, 09:33 AM

I wish Pentax would produce a prime wider than the DA 14mm f/2.8 ...I have the DA* 16-50 as well as the DA 15 limited. The Limited, however, is part of my travel kit mated with the DA 35 macro and FA 77 limiteds. I was looking at the 12-24 but only for the 12 focal length, so why not a prime.

brecklundin · 12-02-2009, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by HermanLee

I want Pentax DA* 10mm/4 LimitedPancake :P...so I can go
- ULTRA WIDE
- WEATHER SEALED
- NO DISTORTION

And w/o SDM right?

Still it sounds great to me. Maybe they could add an MFD of around 12"?

Pentaxor · 12-02-2009, 11:11 PM

I believe 12mm is enough for me. easily manouverable for composition, even in close corners. although the Sigma and Tammy have a 10mm, the soft corners doomed it, thereby making the 10mm not that appealing for architectures.

sajah · 12-03-2009, 10:22 AM

I have to confess I used my 12-24 too much and my two 28mm are rarely used

I agree that sometimes even landscape would benefit from a little short telephoto treatment (as MoiVous said). So, I'm thinking to use 28mm more often for landscape because I feel my pics with 12mm (or 18mm APS), most of them are taken too wide (i.e. trying to include too many things to the frame)

But indoor, I found 12mm is very good, as a plus I could go up to 24mm if I want to. It's only F4 max and I have 28mm F2 but still I used 12-24mm more for indoor. F4 is good enough to get unshaken pics indoor most of the time.

So, back to the thread subject, 12mm (APS-C) is wide enough for me, and in fact sometimes too wide, need to use something less wide.. thinking of 21mm ltd (argh LBA strikes again :ugh

jogiba · 12-03-2009, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Recercare

I have never felt the need to go wider than 40mm on APS-C ...

Kind regards
.lars

You must be kidding, why get a DSLR if you don't use any lens wider than 40mm that is equal to a 60mm on a FF film SLR. I use my 6.5mm Opteka and 10-24mm Tamron more than any lens of 40mm or more .

**SA Photo** · 12-03-2009, 05:46 PM

I'm good with my DA* 16-50mm f/2.8. Anything wider than that I go with my 10-17FE

View Poll Results: What focal length is wide enough for you?
I want a lens as wide as reasonably achievable	44	20.47%
Not longer than 10mm	39	18.14%
Not longer than 12mm	49	22.79%
Not longer than 15mm	46	21.40%
Not longer than 18mm	18	8.37%
20mm or more is fine by me	19	8.84%
Voters: 215. You may not vote on this poll

11-24-2009, 10:34 PM	#64
Itai Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 209	9mm would be awesome Well, my favorite lens is the 16-50mm F2.8. I use it often at 16 or so. I also have the 12-24 F4 which is fantastic. The extra 12-16mm coverage is not used very often but when I need it, I am really glad to have it. I considered the Sigma 10-22 and couldn't handle its poor image quality, so I although I would like to go wider than 12 occasionally, I won't compromise on quality. I was lucky enough to have a loaned Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 on a full-frame D3 and really got creative with it. I wish we could cover the same field of view with a high-quality Pentax lens. On the a K-series, we would need to go as wide as 9.5mm. Interestingly, the Four-Thirds format (and now its Micro version) covers the same field-of-view with the Zuiko 7-14mm F4, which is a superb lens as well. I'm really looking forwards to a DA* 9-16 F2.8 some day - Itai Neocamera

11-30-2009, 05:28 PM	#69
MoiVous Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 677	To add to the discussion a little - I use my Sigma 10-20 about 30-40% of the time, and my 28-70mm for about 30% to bring out details. Ultimately, how wide you go depends on what your trying to capture. Landscapes benefit from a short telephoto treatment IMHO - try and accentuate on a detail that draws the eye (eg a lone tree or mountain). The wide end (like 10mm) is very good indoors when you want to give a sense of the space, or accentuate a foreground detail. Its also useful to get a sense of place - like a large building that dominates you. One of the tricks I've learned to minimise the 10mm distortion is to shoot in portrait or ensure that the centre of the frame is the "horizon" (eg a floor or land horizon) - the distortion is then at the top and bottom of the frame and less obvious. The two images below illustrate my point - both at 10mm (note - not a lot of PP - these are straight off the laptop) Attached Images

12-02-2009, 09:33 AM	#70
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	Wide prime please.... I wish Pentax would produce a prime wider than the DA 14mm f/2.8 ...I have the DA* 16-50 as well as the DA 15 limited. The Limited, however, is part of my travel kit mated with the DA 35 macro and FA 77 limiteds. I was looking at the 12-24 but only for the 12 focal length, so why not a prime.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FF and Wide Angles	paperbag846	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	08-11-2010 12:01 AM
Which Wide lens	Alex00	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	02-22-2010 12:32 PM
Wide, wide Sweden (DA18-55 on an ME Super)	brkl	Post Your Photos!	10	06-08-2009 08:11 PM
what wide??	redpigeons	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	02-06-2009 10:12 AM
Wide Zoom or Wide Prime....Planning Ahead	joelovotti	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	12-21-2008 12:46 PM

11-24-2009, 11:36 AM	#61
DavidWasch Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Connecticut, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 167	Similar to Just1Dave, I don't care to go wider than 12mm because of the distortion.

11-24-2009, 02:48 PM	#62
Recercare Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 359	I have never felt the need to go wider than 40mm on APS-C ... Kind regards .lars

11-24-2009, 05:18 PM	#63
xs400 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,929	I am generally happy with the 16-45mm. I am thinking of getting the DA15mm, just for it's small size.

11-27-2009, 06:46 AM	#65
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	the widest lens I have ever used in my 35mm Rangefinder photgraphy would be the voigtlander Heliar 12mm f/5.6 - and I only used that lens for eight successful images, but for the most part the lens is useless for me. so on a full frame SLR 18 mm rectilinear is as wide as I'll ever go, I find it REALLY hard to compose with lenses that are really wide. I recently got a Leica-M 21mm f/1.4 and I've had more success with it than the heliar 12mm - but that is probably tied into the differential in lens speed...I love fast glass.

11-28-2009, 11:23 PM	#66
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,343	I've got the 16-45 and the 10-17 Fish eye. I've tried the 10-20 Sigma...it's fine, I like the extreme wide angle especially for landscapes. My 16 mm of the 16-45 is great for non distortion vintage car photos...but I like the creativity of the 10-17 fish eye.

11-30-2009, 06:35 AM	#67
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	I put no wider than 10mm, even though today with my sigma 10-20 which I use for 20% of all shots, and for shots with that lens, 60% are at 10mm I think 10mm is sufficient. This is a primary walk around lens on one body when travelling in other cities, the other being my Tamron 28-75. The reason I think this lens and in general all the ultra wide zooms are a necessity are that when I shot film, I was frustrated while I lived in europe that my 24mm was simply not wide enough to photograph what I want in those situations. With the cropped sensor, 24mm on film equates to 16mm on ASP-C. I got a taste for something wider when I bouthg my istD. It came with an FA-J 18-35, which was not even as wide on th eistD as my 24mm was on my PZ-1, BUT when I put the 18-35 on my PZ-1 I started to see the field of view I was looking for. Until I bought my sigma 10-20, I shot film using the 18-35 on my PZ-1 for all the wide angle shots.

11-30-2009, 02:55 PM	#68
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	Originally posted by Itai Well, my favorite lens is the 16-50mm F2.8. I use it often at 16 or so. I also have the 12-24 F4 which is fantastic. The extra 12-16mm coverage is not used very often but when I need it, I am really glad to have it. I considered the Sigma 10-22 and couldn't handle its poor image quality, so I although I would like to go wider than 12 occasionally, I won't compromise on quality. I was lucky enough to have a loaned Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 on a full-frame D3 and really got creative with it. I wish we could cover the same field of view with a high-quality Pentax lens. On the a K-series, we would need to go as wide as 9.5mm. Interestingly, the Four-Thirds format (and now its Micro version) covers the same field-of-view with the Zuiko 7-14mm F4, which is a superb lens as well. I'm really looking forwards to a DA* 9-16 F2.8 some day - Itai Neocamera Just curious why you make that claim? And fyi, Canon makes a 10-22 not Sigma... There were a few of the shots taken with my 10-20, all shot at 10mm: One of the many murals we have painted around our town: On this one I added the slight vignetting And here I walked across the street to get a closer shot I kinda like the IQ from the copy of the 10-20 I owned. My neighbor now owns it and she earns her living from photography.

12-02-2009, 01:30 PM	#71
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	Originally posted by HermanLee I want Pentax *DA 10mm/4 LimitedPancake** :P...so I can go - ULTRA WIDE - WEATHER SEALED - NO DISTORTION And w/o SDM right? Still it sounds great to me. Maybe they could add an MFD of around 12"?

12-02-2009, 11:11 PM	#72
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I believe 12mm is enough for me. easily manouverable for composition, even in close corners. although the Sigma and Tammy have a 10mm, the soft corners doomed it, thereby making the 10mm not that appealing for architectures.

12-03-2009, 10:22 AM	#73
sajah Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: South Korea Photos: Gallery Posts: 275	I have to confess I used my 12-24 too much and my two 28mm are rarely used I agree that sometimes even landscape would benefit from a little short telephoto treatment (as MoiVous said). So, I'm thinking to use 28mm more often for landscape because I feel my pics with 12mm (or 18mm APS), most of them are taken too wide (i.e. trying to include too many things to the frame) But indoor, I found 12mm is very good, as a plus I could go up to 24mm if I want to. It's only F4 max and I have 28mm F2 but still I used 12-24mm more for indoor. F4 is good enough to get unshaken pics indoor most of the time. So, back to the thread subject, 12mm (APS-C) is wide enough for me, and in fact sometimes too wide, need to use something less wide.. thinking of 21mm ltd (argh LBA strikes again :ugh

12-03-2009, 04:27 PM	#74
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Recercare I have never felt the need to go wider than 40mm on APS-C ... Kind regards .lars You must be kidding, why get a DSLR if you don't use any lens wider than 40mm that is equal to a 60mm on a FF film SLR. I use my 6.5mm Opteka and 10-24mm Tamron more than any lens of 40mm or more .

12-03-2009, 05:46 PM	#75
SA Photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virgina Posts: 129	I'm good with my DA* 16-50mm f/2.8. Anything wider than that I go with my 10-17FE