How wide is wide enough - and why?

cbaytan · 07-05-2009, 01:07 AM

Isn't there a modern Pentax rectilinear lens?
(ok new-line not modern, no throwing stones)

Bests.
Can.

nulla · 07-05-2009, 01:41 AM

I find my DA*16-50 wide enough for me and I use the 16mm quite often and have not needed more.

I do however pray for an FA 15 or 16 mm Limited and fast

Neil

Marc Sabatella · 07-05-2009, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by cbaytan

Isn't there a modern Pentax rectilinear lens?

??? As far as I know, all modern (DA) Pentax lenses are rectilinear except the 10-17 fisheye. So for wide angle, that includes the 12-24, the 14, the 15, the 21, and any of the standards zooms that extend into the wide range (16-45, 16-50, 17-70, 18-55, etc).

**rparmar** · 07-05-2009, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by nulla

I do however pray for an FA 15 or 16 mm Limited and fast

Well, you've got a fast 14mm, a slower and compact 15mm and a versatile 12-24mm. Or do you mean full frame?

**NaClH2O** · 07-07-2009, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

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.

I find that at 60, distorting reality is the only option!

NaCl(you are getting old when your slowing down speeds up)H2O

**rparmar** · 07-07-2009, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

I find that at 60, distorting reality is the only option!

And the best option at any age.

**NaClH2O** · 07-07-2009, 07:04 AM

I got the 12-24 because I wanted somthing wider and less distortion than the kit lens. I've found that I use it more frequently than not in the 12-15mm range, so I guess I like wide. That said, I did try a Sigma 10-20 and was unimpressed, so I'd have to say 12mm is plenty wide enough for me.

NaCl(but I do pine for a faster 12 or 14mm prime)H2O

Dom · 07-07-2009, 07:16 AM

I'm on the hunt for a nice wide prime at the moment. Somewhere near the 10mm mark for me.

ballgofar · 07-07-2009, 08:19 AM

I've never felt restricted with the DA 16-45, nor have I had a desire to go wider than it allows.

ManixZero · 07-15-2009, 05:53 AM

A very good question.

I am definitely in the market for something wider than the kit lens's 18mm. Originally I was gonna plump for the Sigma 10-20. Tamron announced the 10-24 and I thought I'd wait for that. Now however I am most inclined towards the 16-45 as that would give an improvement in quality over the kit lens and an extension out to 16mm. In the old days of film my wide angle lens was a 24mm - wide enough for me (I thought at the time) so is the desire for 10mm just greed or do I need it?? Dunno!! I'm still torn. I definitely miss 24mm (16 on cropped) so the 16-45 would cater for that. If I then still feel the need for w i d e r then maybe I'll get a Zentar 16mm. Al I can say at the moment is 18mm is not wide enough, almost, but not quite.

I'll vote once I have made my choice and splashed the cash!!

MZ

K McCall · 07-15-2009, 08:00 AM

I answered in the 12mm range.

I was just thinking about this last night. When I took my first big photo-trip, I spent three weeks in Spain and Morocco. I took three lenses - the DA 21, the FA 43, and the DA 70.

The only thing I would change now is that I would drop the DA 21 and take the DA 12-24. I'd probably only have about 5 keepers as the 12mm range, but I have a feeling that those 5 would be amongst my favorites of the trip.

So I know it would be/is one of my least-used lenses, but when you need 12mm for the shot you have in your head, you NEED 12mm.

I've had 10mm envy too, but at this point, I think that 12mm is enough for me.

Das Boot · 07-15-2009, 09:37 AM

If someone made a 2mm lens, someone would bitch and want a 1mm. It's human nature... I find wider lenses attractive when I'm trying to get a shot I want and can't. When I've had a wider lens I'd complain because when everything was framed right, everything was just too far away and the crops were just too weird and lower resolution. The grass is always greener. When the idea of wider pops in my head as I peer through the view finder, I lower the camera and start walking to another spot and think about the next shot I'm going to take.

EricT · 07-15-2009, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by emr

My widest lens is the 18mm of kit lens v. II and that's not wide enough. I feel I can't get enough of landscape and buildings in the picture. Unfortunately I don't think there's a way I could try locally wider options and yet I feel I need to buy something wider. But what's wide enough in your opinion? I know many here for example feel that a Sigma 10-20mm is a better option for them than a Pentax 12-24mm due to the 2mm difference (not suggesting it's miniscule in angle). On the other hand many are just happy with the kit lens's 18mm - or longer like 21mm or even more.

So I'm starting this poll to see what is wide enough for you. Feel free to post reasons why you need that FL and what can't you do with something longer. And rectilinear only, no fisheyes please.

As several people have mentioned, wider focal lengths are usually not about "getting it all in", but more about exaggerating perspective, making foreground objects look closer relative to the background than they really are. Conversely, telephoto lenses brings the background closer, it compresses the scene, it's not just about zooming in.

I really like those wide shots where you feel drawn into the picture, so I answered as wide as possible

robjmitchell · 07-15-2009, 02:48 PM

The 14mm gives you a 90 degree field of view, which is enough for me. I do notice the 17mm on my sigma is just not wide enough sometimes.

pb_red · 07-15-2009, 03:44 PM

how wide is wide enough? well, having the kit lens as my widest lens, i've thinking about this one and asking a couple of times here and there and got interesting answers...

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!"
personally i don't buy it because i've seen some interesting wide angle compositions, cool crops, as well as websites of pro's who say that they really like their 20mm ultra-wides (on full-frame body) for landscape shots, albeit specific landscape shots.

so after pondering this one for a while and looking at lens options i went ahead and ordered the pentax 15mm lens. i got it rather than the 10-20mm sigma because:
a) 10mm distortion is about as cool as fish-eye distortion - it's fun but only once in a great while
b) size and weight... i really like having a compact slr with a compact lens (and looking forward to the k-7)
c) although i only recently got into photography i am beginning to appreciate pentax limited primes

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

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

07-15-2009, 05:53 AM	#40
ManixZero Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Huntingdon, Cambs. UK! Photos: Gallery Posts: 97	A very good question. I am definitely in the market for something wider than the kit lens's 18mm. Originally I was gonna plump for the Sigma 10-20. Tamron announced the 10-24 and I thought I'd wait for that. Now however I am most inclined towards the 16-45 as that would give an improvement in quality over the kit lens and an extension out to 16mm. In the old days of film my wide angle lens was a 24mm - wide enough for me (I thought at the time) so is the desire for 10mm just greed or do I need it?? Dunno!! I'm still torn. I definitely miss 24mm (16 on cropped) so the 16-45 would cater for that. If I then still feel the need for w i d e r then maybe I'll get a Zentar 16mm. Al I can say at the moment is 18mm is not wide enough, almost, but not quite. I'll vote once I have made my choice and splashed the cash!! MZ Last edited by ManixZero; 07-15-2009 at 05:54 AM. Reason: Forgot the punch line (Sorry)

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

07-05-2009, 01:07 AM	#31
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Isn't there a modern Pentax rectilinear lens? (ok new-line not modern, no throwing stones) Bests. Can.

07-05-2009, 01:41 AM	#32
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	I find my DA*16-50 wide enough for me and I use the 16mm quite often and have not needed more. I do however pray for an FA 15 or 16 mm Limited and fast Neil

07-05-2009, 08:07 AM	#33
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by cbaytan Isn't there a modern Pentax rectilinear lens? ??? As far as I know, all modern (DA) Pentax lenses are rectilinear except the 10-17 fisheye. So for wide angle, that includes the 12-24, the 14, the 15, the 21, and any of the standards zooms that extend into the wide range (16-45, 16-50, 17-70, 18-55, etc).

07-05-2009, 09:22 AM	#34
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,817	Originally posted by nulla I do however pray for an FA 15 or 16 mm Limited and fast Well, you've got a fast 14mm, a slower and compact 15mm and a versatile 12-24mm. Or do you mean full frame?

07-07-2009, 06:55 AM	#35
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by GeneV 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. I find that at 60, distorting reality is the only option! NaCl(you are getting old when your slowing down speeds up)H2O

07-07-2009, 06:57 AM	#36
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,817	Originally posted by NaClH2O I find that at 60, distorting reality is the only option! And the best option at any age.

07-07-2009, 07:04 AM	#37
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I got the 12-24 because I wanted somthing wider and less distortion than the kit lens. I've found that I use it more frequently than not in the 12-15mm range, so I guess I like wide. That said, I did try a Sigma 10-20 and was unimpressed, so I'd have to say 12mm is plenty wide enough for me. NaCl(but I do pine for a faster 12 or 14mm prime)H2O

07-07-2009, 07:16 AM	#38
Dom Guest	I'm on the hunt for a nice wide prime at the moment. Somewhere near the 10mm mark for me.

07-07-2009, 08:19 AM	#39
ballgofar Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 87	I've never felt restricted with the DA 16-45, nor have I had a desire to go wider than it allows.

07-15-2009, 08:00 AM	#41
K McCall Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 808	I answered in the 12mm range. I was just thinking about this last night. When I took my first big photo-trip, I spent three weeks in Spain and Morocco. I took three lenses - the DA 21, the FA 43, and the DA 70. The only thing I would change now is that I would drop the DA 21 and take the DA 12-24. I'd probably only have about 5 keepers as the 12mm range, but I have a feeling that those 5 would be amongst my favorites of the trip. So I know it would be/is one of my least-used lenses, but when you need 12mm for the shot you have in your head, you NEED 12mm. I've had 10mm envy too, but at this point, I think that 12mm is enough for me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2009, 09:37 AM	#42
Das Boot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky Photos: Gallery Posts: 689	If someone made a 2mm lens, someone would bitch and want a 1mm. It's human nature... I find wider lenses attractive when I'm trying to get a shot I want and can't. When I've had a wider lens I'd complain because when everything was framed right, everything was just too far away and the crops were just too weird and lower resolution. The grass is always greener. When the idea of wider pops in my head as I peer through the view finder, I lower the camera and start walking to another spot and think about the next shot I'm going to take.

07-15-2009, 12:26 PM	#43
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by emr My widest lens is the 18mm of kit lens v. II and that's not wide enough. I feel I can't get enough of landscape and buildings in the picture. Unfortunately I don't think there's a way I could try locally wider options and yet I feel I need to buy something wider. But what's wide enough in your opinion? I know many here for example feel that a Sigma 10-20mm is a better option for them than a Pentax 12-24mm due to the 2mm difference (not suggesting it's miniscule in angle). On the other hand many are just happy with the kit lens's 18mm - or longer like 21mm or even more. So I'm starting this poll to see what is wide enough for you. Feel free to post reasons why you need that FL and what can't you do with something longer. And rectilinear only, no fisheyes please. As several people have mentioned, wider focal lengths are usually not about "getting it all in", but more about exaggerating perspective, making foreground objects look closer relative to the background than they really are. Conversely, telephoto lenses brings the background closer, it compresses the scene, it's not just about zooming in. I really like those wide shots where you feel drawn into the picture, so I answered as wide as possible

07-15-2009, 02:48 PM	#44
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	The 14mm gives you a 90 degree field of view, which is enough for me. I do notice the 17mm on my sigma is just not wide enough sometimes.

07-15-2009, 03:44 PM	#45
pb_red Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 194	how wide is wide enough? well, having the kit lens as my widest lens, i've thinking about this one and asking a couple of times here and there and got interesting answers... 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!" personally i don't buy it because i've seen some interesting wide angle compositions, cool crops, as well as websites of pro's who say that they really like their 20mm ultra-wides (on full-frame body) for landscape shots, albeit specific landscape shots. so after pondering this one for a while and looking at lens options i went ahead and ordered the pentax 15mm lens. i got it rather than the 10-20mm sigma because: a) 10mm distortion is about as cool as fish-eye distortion - it's fun but only once in a great while b) size and weight... i really like having a compact slr with a compact lens (and looking forward to the k-7) c) although i only recently got into photography i am beginning to appreciate pentax limited primes so i guess the answer for me was 15mm. your results may vary...