Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Is 16mm enough or do I need 12? · 12:56 PM

Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

alohadave · 04-05-2009, 01:28 PM

Why do you ask? Is there something that you are trying to achieve that 16mm is too constricting for?

JMR · 04-05-2009, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by alohadave

Why do you ask? Is there something that you are trying to achieve that 16mm is too constricting for?

That is a good question and one you should consider before trying to get anything wider. If 16mm is the equivalent of the old 20mm in 35 mm photography, as far as I am concerned, that is more than enough. Extreme wide angles have limited uses and even less appeal in their results. Few extreme wide angle shots are comparable to the best shots of ordinary day to day ranges of 20 to about 200 mm. In my film days, I turned down Nikon Fish eye lens that I could get cheap because I had very little use for it. Others may have a different take, but that is my view and experience. If you have a practical regular use for it, by all means consider it. If you were to use a 12mm on the fine landscape-lake shot just posted, it would bend the horizontals. Something you should consider.

JMR

MRRiley · 04-05-2009, 03:44 PM

For that shot, 16mm appears to be enough, but for another it might not be. I rented the DA 10-17mm for the Obama inauguration on the Mall in DC and there were several shots which just would not have been the same without those silly little millimeters.

As for the fisheye effects, these can be minimized by keeping the horizon or prominent straight lines in the center of the frame or used to advantage.

Mike

Last edited by MRRiley; 04-15-2009 at 11:33 AM. Reason: corrected 10-20 to 10-17

brkl · 04-05-2009, 03:59 PM

It isn't, JMR! 16mm is the equivalent of 24mm. Quite a bit of difference. That shot is nice, though.

axl · 04-06-2009, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

For that shot, 16mm appears to be enough, but for another it might not be. I rented the DA 10-20mm for the Obama inauguration on the Mall in DC and there were several shots which just would not have been the same without those silly little millimeters.

As for the fisheye effects, these can be minimized by keeping the horizon or prominent straight lines in the center of the frame or used to advantage.

Mike

Never heard about that one Mike...
to OP: it depends, I think in that shot 16 is more than enough, but as others have said, in other shots/situations it may not be...
I have Sigma 10-20 and at times I find it too wide (even at 20) but at times I'm glad I have it, or otherwise I wouldn't be able to take some shots.

there is recent thread with good examples from 10-20 int it:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/56022-getting-...t-10-20-a.html

have a look and see if it's for yourself...

BR

JulesJ · 04-06-2009, 12:26 AM

I have recently purchased a sigma 10-20mm and it eally enhances landscapes particularly the clouds. I wouldn't use it on the image you have posted. However on other occasions, skewing the image in post production to eliminate the distortion in foreground verticals, can create excellent images with a bit more wow factor. Not with a fisheye though.

Jules

planedriver · 04-06-2009, 05:32 AM

Thanks for your comments, now the reason I'm asking (and I'm constantly asking myself) is that is it me or the distortion or both but I'm just not 100% happy with those (and not only on this picture) horizons and straight lines.
So if I go for a 12-24mm lens in the future would it make me happier?

Today I went back to the same place-maybe there were more boats around so the straight lines were not that distinctive-and I would say I like this picture better.

Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

roentarre · 04-06-2009, 06:01 AM

Beautiful image in deed

You would utlise 12mm focal length even better for sure

PhilippeG · 04-06-2009, 06:43 AM

I like the second picture better too. The light is nicer, the boats in the background are less symmetrically placed and make the picture more interesting.

gawan · 04-07-2009, 11:14 AM

That second image is great! If you had to shoot it from where you did, so I understand you could have also got the boats in the edges with a wider lens.

I have both 16-50 and 10-20 and I love to have both, but I do use the 16-50 a lot more!

But for example in a tight space of a lighthouse top, I got images I could not have got with any other lens than with the 10mm Sigma. I had the prisms just about one foot from my nose and I still got the people around me to the same image... summa summarum, it depends...

planedriver · 04-07-2009, 01:05 PM

I have the feeling that a 12-24 will be on its way soon

Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

Fl_Gulfer · 04-07-2009, 01:28 PM

I just step back a little to get 12mm out of my 17mm it's much cheaper.

gawan · 04-07-2009, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer

I just step back a little to get 12mm out of my 17mm it's much cheaper.

If I had stepped back from the narrow top of the lighthouse, it would have very expensive...

planedriver · 04-07-2009, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by gawan

If I had stepped back from the narrow top of the lighthouse, it would have very expensive...

...and painful

Thank you all of your comments!

Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

planedriver
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by planedriver
	Find threads started by planedriver
	Find threads in which planedriver has posted

04-05-2009, 03:08 PM	#3
JMR Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by alohadave Why do you ask? Is there something that you are trying to achieve that 16mm is too constricting for? That is a good question and one you should consider before trying to get anything wider. If 16mm is the equivalent of the old 20mm in 35 mm photography, as far as I am concerned, that is more than enough. Extreme wide angles have limited uses and even less appeal in their results. Few extreme wide angle shots are comparable to the best shots of ordinary day to day ranges of 20 to about 200 mm. In my film days, I turned down Nikon Fish eye lens that I could get cheap because I had very little use for it. Others may have a different take, but that is my view and experience. If you have a practical regular use for it, by all means consider it. If you were to use a 12mm on the fine landscape-lake shot just posted, it would bend the horizontals. Something you should consider. JMR Last edited by JMR; 04-05-2009 at 06:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What about Sigma 8-16mm??	mikiresty	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	06-19-2010 04:00 AM
DA* 11-16mm/2.8 looking for the thread	jpzk	Pentax News and Rumors	2	02-17-2010 03:24 PM
16mm vs 10mm	cooldude14es	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	05-27-2008 11:34 PM
Zenitar 16mm	Flaco	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-22-2007 11:45 AM

04-05-2009, 01:28 PM	#2
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Why do you ask? Is there something that you are trying to achieve that 16mm is too constricting for?

04-05-2009, 03:44 PM	#4
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	For that shot, 16mm appears to be enough, but for another it might not be. I rented the DA 10-17mm for the Obama inauguration on the Mall in DC and there were several shots which just would not have been the same without those silly little millimeters. As for the fisheye effects, these can be minimized by keeping the horizon or prominent straight lines in the center of the frame or used to advantage. Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 04-15-2009 at 11:33 AM. Reason: corrected 10-20 to 10-17

04-05-2009, 03:59 PM	#5
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	It isn't, JMR! 16mm is the equivalent of 24mm. Quite a bit of difference. That shot is nice, though.

04-06-2009, 12:03 AM	#6
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by MRRiley For that shot, 16mm appears to be enough, but for another it might not be. I rented the DA 10-20mm for the Obama inauguration on the Mall in DC and there were several shots which just would not have been the same without those silly little millimeters. As for the fisheye effects, these can be minimized by keeping the horizon or prominent straight lines in the center of the frame or used to advantage. Mike Never heard about that one Mike... to OP: it depends, I think in that shot 16 is more than enough, but as others have said, in other shots/situations it may not be... I have Sigma 10-20 and at times I find it too wide (even at 20) but at times I'm glad I have it, or otherwise I wouldn't be able to take some shots. there is recent thread with good examples from 10-20 int it: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/56022-getting-...t-10-20-a.html have a look and see if it's for yourself... BR

04-06-2009, 12:26 AM	#7
JulesJ Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Tasmania Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 50	I have recently purchased a sigma 10-20mm and it eally enhances landscapes particularly the clouds. I wouldn't use it on the image you have posted. However on other occasions, skewing the image in post production to eliminate the distortion in foreground verticals, can create excellent images with a bit more wow factor. Not with a fisheye though. Jules

04-06-2009, 05:32 AM	#8
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664 Original Poster	Thanks for your comments, now the reason I'm asking (and I'm constantly asking myself) is that is it me or the distortion or both but I'm just not 100% happy with those (and not only on this picture) horizons and straight lines. So if I go for a 12-24mm lens in the future would it make me happier? Today I went back to the same place-maybe there were more boats around so the straight lines were not that distinctive-and I would say I like this picture better. Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

04-06-2009, 06:01 AM	#9
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Beautiful image in deed You would utlise 12mm focal length even better for sure

04-06-2009, 06:43 AM	#10
PhilippeG Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 345	I like the second picture better too. The light is nicer, the boats in the background are less symmetrically placed and make the picture more interesting.

04-07-2009, 11:14 AM	#11
gawan Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Helsinki Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,400	That second image is great! If you had to shoot it from where you did, so I understand you could have also got the boats in the edges with a wider lens. I have both 16-50 and 10-20 and I love to have both, but I do use the 16-50 a lot more! But for example in a tight space of a lighthouse top, I got images I could not have got with any other lens than with the 10mm Sigma. I had the prisms just about one foot from my nose and I still got the people around me to the same image... summa summarum, it depends...

04-07-2009, 01:05 PM	#12
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664 Original Poster	I have the feeling that a 12-24 will be on its way soon Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

04-07-2009, 01:28 PM	#13
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	I just step back a little to get 12mm out of my 17mm it's much cheaper.

04-07-2009, 03:15 PM	#14
gawan Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Helsinki Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,400	Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer I just step back a little to get 12mm out of my 17mm it's much cheaper. If I had stepped back from the narrow top of the lighthouse, it would have very expensive...

04-07-2009, 11:20 PM	#15
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664 Original Poster	Originally posted by gawan If I had stepped back from the narrow top of the lighthouse, it would have very expensive... ...and painful Thank you all of your comments! Flickr: sopiandri's Photostream

Is 16mm enough or do I need 12?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!