Originally posted by kaseki My perspective: Given the modern ability to stitch together images in post processing -- images potentially taken with medium-angle lenses that can always beat ultra-wide-angle lenses in lower non-uniformity, aberrations, and distortions -- ultra-wide lenses' role would seem to be more limited than before the age of massive processing power on one's desk. Ultra-wide angle might now only be necessary for certain dynamic scenes that wouldn't be normally taken with long telephoto lenses -- perhaps billowing sails seen from the sailboat's deck, huge flocks of flamingos taking flight, etc. My perspective should not be taken to infer that as a hobbyist, I would not enjoy a lens with an unusual quality; I do have an Arsenal fish-eye for my 645s, for example. Even more "fisheye" field width could be of interest (at used lens prices). But where does the desired scene boundary stop? Do I need 645 resolution when one of the Ricoh devices could provide an extreme image width for a single shot?
Some very nice stitched panoramic examples may be seen in Glenn Randall's book, The Art, Science, and Craft of Great Landscape Photography.
Actually I do that a lot. Really a lot. But, there is a limit: when your target moves. That happens when you have stars moving slowly on the sky while everything on the foreground is fixed. In such a case, it will be really hard to stitch multiple frames while giving each frame sufficient exposure time. Fortunately I don’t do this kind of photography very often, so I can live with the lack of good UltraWide, for now.