How wide is wide enough - and why?

**rparmar** · 07-15-2009, 10:02 PM

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 · 07-15-2009, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Yeah, nice lens, but crap for landscapes.

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

ivoire · 07-15-2009, 10:29 PM

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 · 07-15-2009, 10:35 PM

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** · 07-16-2009, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

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

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

Quote:

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 · 07-16-2009, 12:14 PM

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 · 07-17-2009, 05:22 AM

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

HermanLee · 11-23-2009, 10:49 AM

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

**interested_observer** · 11-23-2009, 05:01 PM

It all depends on the subject matter. Having said that, its not really the focal length, but the field of view that we are talking about, which boils down to composition. I use the 12-24 quite a bit. However, lately I acquired a FA31Ltd and was experimenting with it. In doing so, I stumbled across some details in a landscape that I had not really been looking at, since I was looking at the large picture of the landscape and not necessarily the individual details.

One instant that got me started in wide angle landscapes was up in Alaska. How does one even start to convey the immense size and wide expanse of the views up there?

So back to the question of how wide? One of my best pictures was taken with the 10-17FE at 10mm because I needed the entire 180 degree field of view in one individual shot as everything was in motion (two ships at sea, 100 feet apart performing an underway refueling) sailing into the sunset. This could not be stitched, and a rectilinear 12-24 at its widest is 100 degrees - or in this case 80 degrees (of half the picture) too narrow. But that need is not all the time - its really using the camera to capture a story - and what you want the story to convey to the observer.

So some shots will require - as wide as possible others a bit more tailoring. Most of us can and should use the lenses we have more effectively (but new toys are so much more fun). You can use your standard 18-55 at 18 and stitch for additional width. There are additional ways to work around the problem. I was just looking at some babbling brooks that are essentially small waterfalls in portrait mode - the waterfall literally coming right in to your lap - a very effective use of the foreground.

I voted for 12 and up since I like that segment - however, with this new lens - the 31, I am gaining a new appreciation for the shorter and narrower field of views and what they have to offer....

**Ash** · 11-23-2009, 06:46 PM

I'm surprised Gary hasn't chimed in yet in this thread.
His sig used to say: "My name is Gary, and I want a lens so wide that when you focus to infinity you can see behind you".

I have the 10-17 FE and 12-24. The extra 2mm is huge as seen through the FE, but for most practical purposes, 12mm is enough for me in a rectilinear.

stevebrot · 11-23-2009, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Sorry for the misunderstanding

I took it the same way Andi

Steve

stevebrot · 11-23-2009, 07:28 PM

I would generally be quite happy with a fast, sharp, well-corrected lens at about 18mm on APS-C. Say something equivalent in speed, performance and FOV to my Tamron 28/2.5 on 35mm film and at a moderate price point. Sadly, such a beast is hard to find and/or terribly expensive (e.g. Pentax-A 20/2.8).

The DA 15/4 is about the closest thing I have found, but the viewfinder is too dim at f/4 with my aftermarket screen (KatzEye with OptiBrite). So, for the time being, I am continuing to use either the 18-55 kit or the Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye for landscapes.

Steve

(And they ask me why I want a FF sensor...)

pinholecam · 11-24-2009, 01:57 AM

To me it depends on what I am doing.

When I'm shooting locally (ie. not on tour). I'd say 24mm is wide enough. 17mm at times.

If I am on holiday overseas, then the 10-20mm certainly goes into the camera bag.

Maybe it has to do with the lack of board landscapes locally (Singapore). Or maybe its just the novelty and wonderment of this foreign when overseas.

When using the 10-20, I often find that I am at 14mm and above. At 10mm, usually there are many shots with uninteresting foreground or sky which get cropped out in PP.

Damn Brit · 11-24-2009, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Ash

I'm surprised Gary hasn't chimed in yet in this thread.
His sig used to say: "My name is Gary, and I want a lens so wide that when you focus to infinity you can see behind you".

I have the 10-17 FE and 12-24. The extra 2mm is huge as seen through the FE, but for most practical purposes, 12mm is enough for me in a rectilinear.

Ta Da!

I've just come across this thread Ash. Well, here's my usual charming input.

Wide angles are a bit like Porsche's (***** substitutes).

Seriously, wide angle lenses are very hard to use and as Robin said earlier, they have relatively few applications. People will buy lenses as wide as they make them, because they can but that doesn't mean that the lenses will get used to their full potential. I've seen so many noobs come onto the forum and get swept up in an LBA frenzy, Pentax would be really struggling if we weren't getting these people (and ourselves) hooked. It seems ultra wide is the new Bigma. Everybody wanted a Bigma a year or so ago (me included) but now there isn't much mention of it.

Perhaps we should forget about the lenses for a bit and talk about wide angle photography itself, maybe include some images.

**Ash** · 11-24-2009, 04:49 AM

Oh there you are Gary.

I certainly have not used my wides to their full potential, but I've found myself hitting the wide end of my 12-24 very often, and many times wondered how I could have gotten the shot if it weren't for the 12-24...

The unique perspective at 12mm does add something special to the landscape-type image with a bold subject IMO, and my use of the lens for this application has given me much to be pleased about.

There, that's my take on it - and images are available to see in my gallery.

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

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

07-15-2009, 10:02 PM	#46
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	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.

07-15-2009, 10:06 PM	#47
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by rparmar Yeah, nice lens, but crap for landscapes. Huh? What's the point on having a 15mm then? :ugh:

07-15-2009, 10:29 PM	#48
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	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

07-15-2009, 10:35 PM	#49
kthung Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 359	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

07-16-2009, 10:44 AM	#50
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by Andi Lo Huh? What's the point on having a 15mm then? :ugh: I made a joke since the poster I was responding to said: Quote: 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.

07-16-2009, 12:14 PM	#51
pb_red Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 194	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...

07-17-2009, 05:22 AM	#52
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	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

11-23-2009, 10:49 AM	#53
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	I want Pentax *DA 10mm/4 LimitedPancake** :P...so I can go - ULTRA WIDE - WEATHER SEALED - NO DISTORTION

11-23-2009, 05:01 PM	#54
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	It all depends on the subject matter. Having said that, its not really the focal length, but the field of view that we are talking about, which boils down to composition. I use the 12-24 quite a bit. However, lately I acquired a FA31Ltd and was experimenting with it. In doing so, I stumbled across some details in a landscape that I had not really been looking at, since I was looking at the large picture of the landscape and not necessarily the individual details. One instant that got me started in wide angle landscapes was up in Alaska. How does one even start to convey the immense size and wide expanse of the views up there? So back to the question of how wide? One of my best pictures was taken with the 10-17FE at 10mm because I needed the entire 180 degree field of view in one individual shot as everything was in motion (two ships at sea, 100 feet apart performing an underway refueling) sailing into the sunset. This could not be stitched, and a rectilinear 12-24 at its widest is 100 degrees - or in this case 80 degrees (of half the picture) too narrow. But that need is not all the time - its really using the camera to capture a story - and what you want the story to convey to the observer. So some shots will require - as wide as possible others a bit more tailoring. Most of us can and should use the lenses we have more effectively (but new toys are so much more fun). You can use your standard 18-55 at 18 and stitch for additional width. There are additional ways to work around the problem. I was just looking at some babbling brooks that are essentially small waterfalls in portrait mode - the waterfall literally coming right in to your lap - a very effective use of the foreground. I voted for 12 and up since I like that segment - however, with this new lens - the 31, I am gaining a new appreciation for the shorter and narrower field of views and what they have to offer....

11-23-2009, 06:46 PM	#55
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I'm surprised Gary hasn't chimed in yet in this thread. His sig used to say: "My name is Gary, and I want a lens so wide that when you focus to infinity you can see behind you". I have the 10-17 FE and 12-24. The extra 2mm is huge as seen through the FE, but for most practical purposes, 12mm is enough for me in a rectilinear.

11-23-2009, 07:20 PM	#56
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Andi Lo Sorry for the misunderstanding I took it the same way Andi Steve

11-23-2009, 07:28 PM	#57
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I would generally be quite happy with a fast, sharp, well-corrected lens at about 18mm on APS-C. Say something equivalent in speed, performance and FOV to my Tamron 28/2.5 on 35mm film and at a moderate price point. Sadly, such a beast is hard to find and/or terribly expensive (e.g. Pentax-A 20/2.8). The DA 15/4 is about the closest thing I have found, but the viewfinder is too dim at f/4 with my aftermarket screen (KatzEye with OptiBrite). So, for the time being, I am continuing to use either the 18-55 kit or the Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye for landscapes. Steve (And they ask me why I want a FF sensor...)

11-24-2009, 01:57 AM	#58
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,709	To me it depends on what I am doing. When I'm shooting locally (ie. not on tour). I'd say 24mm is wide enough. 17mm at times. If I am on holiday overseas, then the 10-20mm certainly goes into the camera bag. Maybe it has to do with the lack of board landscapes locally (Singapore). Or maybe its just the novelty and wonderment of this foreign when overseas. When using the 10-20, I often find that I am at 14mm and above. At 10mm, usually there are many shots with uninteresting foreground or sky which get cropped out in PP.

11-24-2009, 02:37 AM	#59
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by Ash I'm surprised Gary hasn't chimed in yet in this thread. His sig used to say: "My name is Gary, and I want a lens so wide that when you focus to infinity you can see behind you". I have the 10-17 FE and 12-24. The extra 2mm is huge as seen through the FE, but for most practical purposes, 12mm is enough for me in a rectilinear. Ta Da! I've just come across this thread Ash. Well, here's my usual charming input. Wide angles are a bit like Porsche's (***** substitutes). Seriously, wide angle lenses are very hard to use and as Robin said earlier, they have relatively few applications. People will buy lenses as wide as they make them, because they can but that doesn't mean that the lenses will get used to their full potential. I've seen so many noobs come onto the forum and get swept up in an LBA frenzy, Pentax would be really struggling if we weren't getting these people (and ourselves) hooked. It seems ultra wide is the new Bigma. Everybody wanted a Bigma a year or so ago (me included) but now there isn't much mention of it. Perhaps we should forget about the lenses for a bit and talk about wide angle photography itself, maybe include some images.

11-24-2009, 04:49 AM	#60
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Oh there you are Gary. I certainly have not used my wides to their full potential, but I've found myself hitting the wide end of my 12-24 very often, and many times wondered how I could have gotten the shot if it weren't for the 12-24... The unique perspective at 12mm does add something special to the landscape-type image with a bold subject IMO, and my use of the lens for this application has given me much to be pleased about. There, that's my take on it - and images are available to see in my gallery.