Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-23-2017, 12:29 AM - 4 Likes   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,699
Learning all over again - wide angle

I picked up a K1 about 2 months ago, not only to shoot the Milky Way, but that's what pushed me over the edge. I was really intending to stay with the cropped bodies - but the larger sensor is nice - really nice. I acquired the body, with the intention of also getting the 15-30 to support in part wide stitches of the Milky Way end to end (against the Arizona landscapes here). But, I usually shoot wide - and stitch even with the 8-16, so my thinking was to go with the 15-30. However, in the meantime, I'm using the full frame lenses that I currently have - Voightlander 20, ZK 25, 31 Ltd, K 28 Shift, Contax 28 - so it's not that I have nothing to shoot with.

I have not been shooting as much as I would have thought, due to a number of things going on (Mom @ 92 having some surgery, etc., etc., etc....) [and she is just fine now]. So, I have really only gotten out about 5 dedicated times now. I have a lot to learn (or relearn - especially when out in the dark). The LED's and the articulating screen makes things soooo much easier - otherwise it would be impossible.

So, Wednesday - my wife and I packed up and took a day trip up to Oak Creek Canyon and had a wonderful time. I did some shooting up in the West Fork (noted for its towering canyon walls with a "subway" curve cut into the base). This was somewhat of a reconnoiter trip, and then in the evening - shot some Milky Way on the late drive home.

What did I learn? Well, I need to go out shooting daily for a couple of weeks to really understand the camera along with the new "view" of things it provides. Also, my ability "see" framing is now waaaaaaay off. Also, after a long hot summer, seeing some actual green was really nice.

In the afternoon, I shot with the Voight 20 and it turned out way wider than what I even expecting. At night, I shot with the 31.
  • [image 1] and [image 2] were shot with the 20mm. Image 1 is a 4x2 stitch of one of the entry canyon walls along the creek bed (it's 13K x 7K large). The canyon wall is a couple of hundred feet high, and I cropped off the top because the image was just way out of balance, and the sky was way too uninteresting (also somewhat blown out). Image 2 is just a single frame, looking up the creek to the first set of subway walls.
  • [image 3] is a vertical stitch of 3 shots using the 31Ltdf of the Milky Way in the meadow of the West Fork trail head. I forgot to disable the tracking so the foreground is blurry - stupid mistake. The lights off to the left are some cars on highway 89A which winds through the canyon and are silhouetting the trees and casting some light on the red rock canyon walls off on the right. Other than stitching it and a bit - it's really pretty much right out of the camera. Since, I screwed up the foreground, I'm just going to leave it as it is and shoot it again sometime.
I'm having to learn how to shoot again. This camera is very different. The field of view of the lenses is very different, but the detail is staggeringly good.

I'm now somewhat re-evaluating what lens I really want.
  • The 15-30 will capture what I want to shoot at night. But for landscapes, at least right now 24 to 30mm seems much more reasonable. I was very use to shooting the 8-16 at 8 all the time, but the 20 seems much wider than what I would have thought. Also, we're going up to Oregon to see our youngest son and I want to stop at both the Hiller Aviation Museum and the Evergreen Museum to shoot some aircraft that I have some very specific interests in.
  • The 28-105 was also suggested, and I'm thinking that this might just be better for most all around shooting - as everyone has indicated.
Essentially, I'm re-educating myself in wide angle - which I thought that I had down pretty well.



Attached Images
     
09-23-2017, 02:33 AM   #2
Site Supporter
Bengan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,756
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I picked up a K1 about 2 months ago, not only to shoot the Milky Way, but that's what pushed me over the edge. I was really intending to stay with the cropped bodies - but the larger sensor is nice - really nice. I acquired the body, with the intention of also getting the 15-30 to support in part wide stitches of the Milky Way end to end (against the Arizona landscapes here). But, I usually shoot wide - and stitch even with the 8-16, so my thinking was to go with the 15-30. However, in the meantime, I'm using the full frame lenses that I currently have - Voightlander 20, ZK 25, 31 Ltd, K 28 Shift, Contax 28 - so it's not that I have nothing to shoot with.

...

I'm now somewhat re-evaluating what lens I really want.
  • The 15-30 will capture what I want to shoot at night. But for landscapes, at least right now 24 to 30mm seems much more reasonable. I was very use to shooting the 8-16 at 8 all the time, but the 20 seems much wider than what I would have thought. Also, we're going up to Oregon to see our youngest son and I want to stop at both the Hiller Aviation Museum and the Evergreen Museum to shoot some aircraft that I have some very specific interests in.
  • The 28-105 was also suggested, and I'm thinking that this might just be better for most all around shooting - as everyone has indicated.
Essentially, I'm re-educating myself in wide angle - which I thought that I had down pretty well.



The 28-105 is a really nice all around lens. Well priced.


Note that the 8-16 also works on the K-1 @16mm FF
09-23-2017, 05:40 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mattt's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,905
I have been shooting FA35/2 k24/2.8 M20/4 and I also have the 15-30. There is no substitute for experience so do get out there and practice
I also agree with the assessment of DFA 28-105.
The 15-30 is large / heavy compared to the rest of my kit. I don't trust it on my Manfrotto 190XB + 496RC2 combo which I do most of my hiking about with. It is brilliant for Astro though. I prefer to shoot it on a bigger/heavier tripod and head.
09-23-2017, 06:08 AM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
I think a big issue for a lot of people is that they want wider, wider, wider and widest, because they think it will let them "capture more". But that's not the case at all. A mountain in front of you will be big at 35mm. But at 8mm it will be smaller than that donkey standing 2m in front of you. Not to mention you catch your own toes and half the frame is empty sky.
Wide angle has its specifics, but don't make the mistake that wider is better. Get a focal length and figure out how to use it. How far you have to be, what light you need, how it renders colours and bokeh, etc. Then move to the next lens.
I have Samyang 14mm on APSC and it is often awkwardly wide. Need to get super close to the subject. It can be stunning, but often 21mm or 28mm or 35mm will be more suitable for what I want.

Its good to always continue learning. Getting a new camera is a big step, as it can "change" all the lenses you have. Their FoV, distortion, apparent sharpness, bokeh, flare and CA control.. and not only in the edges

09-23-2017, 07:05 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,759
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
In the afternoon, I shot with the Voight 20 and it turned out way wider than what I even expecting. At night, I shot with the 31.
Experimentation, attention to detail, and patience are key s to success, especially in night shooting IMO.

Crop sensor cameras really have changed the idea of what a sufficiently wide angle lens is, going to FF after APS-C is a real change when it comes to wide-angle. IIRC, in Film days, I used a 28mm and that was very wide, with a 21 being close to the max before turning into fisheye perspective and distortion, the 31 on the other hand, was about right for a wide angle that didn't "miniaturize" a mountain in the distance, as the poster above mentioned.

I have a 17mm Takumar, it is a fisheye lens on the K-1, but it's a great wide angle on my K-5. (ca 25mm crop factor) with minimal distortion, so wide, but the MFD makes it a nice multipurpose lens as well. Anyway, for night shots, I'd lean towards the 20mm on the K-1, and the 31mm for daytime landscapes, but that's really up to you. I oten use an 8mm Rokinon on my K-5 for night shooting, it takes in the whole scene and allows for a wide star field and also a horizon for perspective. I'm considering using a graduated ND filter at night, inverted, to minimize ground lighting ,and balance out the picture.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of your pictures. Please consider posting in the Pentax Night Owls group in my signature.
09-23-2017, 08:53 AM   #6
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,611
i always say in my workshops, if you go TOO wide, you'll make a molehill out of a mountain. Use sparingly.
Similar with night sky shooting. A greater FOV captures more stars but they lose detail and become much less pronounced in the composition.
09-23-2017, 10:17 AM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,759
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
if you go TOO wide, you'll make a molehill out of a mountain.
+1.
I noticed that I like to shoot wide to take in the whole scene, but during processing, I'd often crop to feature the most interesting part of the scene. If I'd paid more attention before taking the picture, I'd have realized i didn't need as wide a lens as I was using.

09-23-2017, 10:14 PM - 4 Likes   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
Ultra wide lenses can be difficult to use as the wider the FOV gets the harder it is to form a strong visual "anchor" for a composition. By far the most common technique used is the near-far composition, which can form strong images : but has the drawback of being a crutch when using wide angle lenses. I often look for textures and light to provide a leading line for the eye to follow rather than simple distance cues, when this approach is combined with a near-far composition the overall image is stronger. With any wide lens it is important to lead the viewer into the image, the wider the lens gets the more you have to lead the eye.

QuoteOriginally posted by Bengan Quote
Note that the 8-16 also works on the K-1 @16mm FF
This is what you can expect from the Sigma 8-16mm @ 16mm:


Pentax K-1 - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @16mm f/11 ISO 100 1/30th - +0.80 Ev correction for vignetting in the extreme corners used.
09-24-2017, 11:49 AM   #9
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Ultra wide lenses can be difficult to use as the wider the FOV gets the harder it is to form a strong visual "anchor" for a composition. By far the most common technique used is the near-far composition, which can form strong images : but has the drawback of being a crutch when using wide angle lenses. I often look for textures and light to provide a leading line for the eye to follow rather than simple distance cues, when this approach is combined with a near-far composition the overall image is stronger. With any wide lens it is important to lead the viewer into the image, the wider the lens gets the more you have to lead the eye.



This is what you can expect from the Sigma 8-16mm @ 16mm:


Pentax K-1 - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @16mm f/11 ISO 100 1/30th - +0.80 Ev correction for vignetting in the extreme corners used.
and that, folks, is how it's done!
09-24-2017, 10:15 PM   #10
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,124
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
and that, folks, is how it's done!
I don't have a K-1, but I would use it exactly as I use my K-30 - just with corresponding wider lenses. I use my 10-20mm lens when I want to capture where I am as I experience it - for example, I'm in a swamp and I want to capture what I'm intimately experiencing from my spot, not viewing it from paces back with a "normal" lens {which would be impossible if I were on a boardwalk looking to the side}
09-25-2017, 08:28 AM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 183
Unfortunately, the choice of UWA lenses for the K-1 is rather limited.
There's the Pentax/Tamron 15-30, there used to be the Sigma 12-24, and there are two primes by the rather new manufacturer "Irix", a 15-mm lens and the absolute maximum in UWA, a 11-mm lens.
The latter two are manual focus only, because either Irix or Pentax won't license the Pentax lens protocol, as is well known with other manufacturers as for instance Sigma.
09-25-2017, 02:37 PM   #12
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,124
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
Unfortunately, the choice of UWA lenses for the K-1 is rather limited.
There's the Pentax/Tamron 15-30, there used to be the Sigma 12-24, and there are two primes by the rather new manufacturer "Irix", a 15-mm lens and the absolute maximum in UWA, a 11-mm lens.
The latter two are manual focus only, because either Irix or Pentax won't license the Pentax lens protocol, as is well known with other manufacturers as for instance Sigma.
If I Recall Correctly, users have reported no vignetting for the Sigma 10-20mm in the range 15-20mm, so if I were to get a K-1, it would give me 15-20mm, instead of the "FF effective" 20-40mm I'm getting now - I could live with that.
09-25-2017, 02:46 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 183
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
users have reported no vignetting for the Sigma 10-20mm in the range 15-20mm,
Well, that I'd consider not a solution, but merely a temporary workaround.

Combined with a 1.4x rear teleconverter, the 10-20 does perform like a 14-28, and that apparently without vignetting, when I recall that correctly. Someone described the setup several months ago here on PF.

But if you've tasted blood, that is, used a 8-16 on APS-C, then you'd consider a 14-28 or a 15-30 a step backwards.
09-25-2017, 04:04 PM   #14
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by funktionsfrei Quote
Unfortunately, the choice of UWA lenses for the K-1 is rather limited.
There's the Pentax/Tamron 15-30, there used to be the Sigma 12-24, and there are two primes by the rather new manufacturer "Irix", a 15-mm lens and the absolute maximum in UWA, a 11-mm lens.
The latter two are manual focus only, because either Irix or Pentax won't license the Pentax lens protocol, as is well known with other manufacturers as for instance Sigma.
There are lots of options, Funktionsfrei. Myself, I own six lenses of 20mm or less focal length, four of them with autofocus. They are the Samyang 14mm, Voigtlander 20mm, Pentax FAJ 18-35, Pentax FA20-35, Sigma DG 12-24mm and Pentax DA 12-24.

Check out this thread:

Full Frame Wide Angle Lens List--20mm and Under - PentaxForums.com
09-26-2017, 11:42 AM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 183
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Pentax DA 12-24.
That's an APS-C lens, as you write, useable above 17mm.

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Sigma DG 12-24mm
That one I explicitly mentioned; Sigma does not sell this lens anymore in Pentax mount.

None of the other lenses you mention come close to the Sigma or the 11mm Irix.

Fortunately I've had the luck to obtain a used copy in very decent condition.

Strange thing though; to get lenses that do on the K-1 what I was accustomed to with my K-5, I've had to use old used lenses, because no direct alternatives are produced. I was using the SMC DA 16-85 and the Sigma 8-16 - both lenses I really like. As an equivalent to the 16-85 I now use an old SMC FA 24-90 ... after having checked a Tamron 24-135, which was way to soft.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, couple, creek, dslr, full frame, full-frame, image, k-1, k1, museum, night, pentax k-1, walls
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello again, and again.. and again..... ghigoblin Welcomes and Introductions 9 01-11-2017 02:22 PM
Get wide angle lens from an extreme angle lens jorgegetafe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-08-2015 12:53 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMC D FA MACRO 1:2.8 100 mm WR -----PRICE DROPPED again- again-again-again watchman323 Sold Items 12 12-09-2013 11:18 AM
Purple fringes, and trees, again, and again, and again. Calmsea Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 39 08-16-2013 02:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top