[LensBeginner]

I looked at some absolute great UWA images before I bought the lenses. Just my images weren't up to that standard. They where mehhhhhhh at best. I got no feeling for this type of work.

I can relate... they are hard to master.
At first I went out a couple of times, getting back home with mostly duds.
It's a whole different ballgame, and it takes time to learn their quirks - which are actually the quirks of close-distance shooting, and the related perspective.

[RonHendriks1966]

I can relate... they are hard to master.
At first I went out a couple of times, getting back home with mostly duds.
It's a whole different ballgame, and it takes time to learn their quirks - which are actually the quirks of close-distance shooting, and the related perspective.

I also once bought a zoom 170-500mm. ...... Well that was fun. I chased a hare and filmed some swans. After six weeks sold it to fund the fa*85. It's sometimes just experimenting. I made great footage with the long zoom, but wasn't happy with the waiting in the field.

[beholder3]

I do not think uwa is more difficult than any other focal lenght.
Most of the issues people seem to perceive actually are caused by a dogmatic sticking to output in 3:2 format.
Once you learn to overcome this mindblock it is more than easy.
Then foreground is the least of worries.
No reason to use a ultra tall angle on a ultra wide landscape Shot.

[LensBeginner]

I do not think uwa is more difficult than any other focal lenght.
Most of the issues people seem to perceive actually are caused by a dogmatic sticking to output in 3:2 format.
Once you learn to overcome this mindblock it is more than easy.
Then foreground is the least of worries.
No reason to use a ultra tall angle on a ultra wide landscape Shot.

Well, I see your point... using a more "square" format would eliminate some "stretching".
I have no preconceptions regarding aspect ratios, however I feel that succesful use of UWAs depends more on angles than on aspect ratios.
In particular, the pitch - it pays to shoot level - and yaw - since the different angle of subjects close to the borders has an impact on their shape.

[beholder3]

I agree you Need to check pitch and yaw for certain subjects, but the reasons and consequences are clearly visible in the viewfinder before taking a Shot.
UWA Need some practise yes, but I do Not believe more than any other lens.
I wouldnt recommend a 85/1.4 to a beginner and say he needs less Time to practise with it.

[reh321]

I looked at some absolute great UWA images before I bought the lenses. Just my images weren't up to that standard. They where mehhhhhhh at best. I got no feeling for this type of work.

Look at the image posted just before your post. My experience is that a UWA enables you to give the viewer the sense of being in the scene, rather than viewing the scene from outside. In most cases, you need to think down, not up - forget all the rules; the two-thirds rule may have you putting the horizon way too low in the picture, which results in having way too much {empty} sky; you want most of the image to be something other than sky ... even if the image stops just short of your feet.

[swanlefitte]

I find it hard to see the uwa picture. Its less intuitive. We always see in "normal" view and we always focus in tight when doing tasks. The 10-20 on apsc isn't too bad on the 20mm end but an 8mm fisheye is way more. I think one needs more time with it looking ttl by far 85mm to see the picture.

[ogl]

Where is new lenses, men??? )

[reh321]

I find it hard to see the uwa picture. Its less intuitive. We always see in "normal" view and we always focus in tight when doing tasks. The 10-20 on apsc isn't too bad on the 20mm end but an 8mm fisheye is way more. I think one needs more time with it looking ttl by far 85mm to see the picture.

My experience is the opposite. I don't like the fisheye effect, but I find that 10-20mm {rectilinear} on an APS-C makes me feel that I'm intimately in the picture instead of being an observer looking from the outside.

[LensBeginner]

I find it hard to see the uwa picture. Its less intuitive. We always see in "normal" view and we always focus in tight when doing tasks. The 10-20 on apsc isn't too bad on the 20mm end but an 8mm fisheye is way more. I think one needs more time with it looking ttl by far 85mm to see the picture.

Actually, the area of binocular stereoscopic vision is about 120°... more if you factor in the monocular vision, and even more if you factor in eyeball rotation. However the area of focus is much smaller (60°), and it's from that one that we get the usual approximation of a "normal" lens.
But - and in some jobs it's very important - we have a huge peripheral field of vision.

[DeadJohn]

But - and in some jobs it's very important - we have a huge peripheral field of vision.

We have 220 degrees of visual motion detection when our gaze is straight ahead. Even an 8mm fisheye lens doesn't cover that much.

Our vision covers 360 degrees when we add neck and eyeball movements.That's helpful when predators and rival tribes are trying to sneak behind you.

[MikeyBugs95]

We have 220 degrees of visual motion detection when our gaze is straight ahead. Even an 8mm fisheye lens doesn't cover that much.

Our vision covers 360 degrees when we add neck and eyeball movements.That's helpful when predators and rival tribes are trying to sneak behind you.

Or, in this case, trolls (not pointing anyone out; just putting it here for context) and competing camera brands.

[RonHendriks1966]

We have 220 degrees of visual motion detection when our gaze is straight ahead. Even an 8mm fisheye lens doesn't cover that much.

Our vision covers 360 degrees when we add neck and eyeball movements.That's helpful when predators and rival tribes are trying to sneak behind you.

I don't have 360 degrees. .......

[LensBeginner]

I don't have 360 degrees. .......

[swanlefitte]

Is that Kermit?