Why is it so difficult to build reliable ultra wide medium format lenses?

**barondla** · 08-08-2021, 11:14 AM

Understand ultra wides are optically complicated to design and build. DSLR ultra wides are the hardest. Pentax has had problems with both 25mm models. They finally ceased building the 25.

I was happy to see Fujifilm bring out a 23mm. More ultra wide choices are good. Mirrorless cameras allow a simpler optical design. But... now there are numerous reports of mechanical problems with the 23. Errors causing the on/off warning and repair/replacement of the focus motor.

So why are MF ultrawides so difficult mechanically? Doesn't seem they would be as difficult as big tele lenses, but they are. Now I wonder how Phase & Hasselblad lenses are doing.

Thanks,
barondla

biz-engineer · 08-08-2021, 12:00 PM - **1 Like**

Those are questions for the camera manufacturers themselves.

zapp · 08-08-2021, 01:27 PM - **2 Likes**

While ultra wide angle lenses offer large dof in front of the lens, the complete opposite is true looking towards the sensor. A tiny misalignment in back focus distance changes sharpness completely. Zero to infinity may mean mm of travel of the the lens, a tele lens travel cm from close up to infinity.
Optically large angles cause large challenges.

vector · 08-08-2021, 06:18 PM - **1 Like**

I personally struggle to understand the obsession with ultra wide angle lenses. I have a 14mm samyang and find it very difficult to come up with a pleasing composition that isn't a distorted mess, so it gets used a few times a year for some milky way shots. It's not just my own work I don't like with uwa lenses. I see a lot of just plain bad images shot uwa and very few good ones. Looking at Pentax's limited uwa offerings I get the feeling they feel similarly. I get there are tight spaces where nothing else can do, but more often than not I think compositions benefit from leaving a little more out than trying to pull it all in. Anyway, sort of an irrelevant rant. If I want more in I shoot a pano and get my image without the distortion of a uwa. Doesn't always work, but usually.

biz-engineer · 08-08-2021, 11:05 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by vector

I personally struggle to understand the obsession with ultra wide angle lenses. I have a 14mm samyang and find it very difficult to come up with a pleasing composition that isn't a distorted mess, so it gets used a few times a year for some milky way shots. It's not just my own work I don't like with uwa lenses.

I share a similar opinion. Although my relationship with wide angle changed over time. As beginner, I felt very uncomfortable using wide angle lenses, my lower limit was something like 30mm FF equ. (20mm apsc).Then I discovered the power of wide angle of views for architecture shots only, when suitable, limited use. In the last few years, I noticed the trend of ultra-wide used to make landscape foregrounds huge in the frame, making image viewer feel as if he is the photographer when looking at a print. However, the truth is, those huge foreground, as immersive as it feels, actually hide the fact that there isn't much content in a photograph, same as those mind blowing sunset color with nothing else worth looking in a landscape scene. So, for me now, it's not about how wide the lens is, it's about finding the right spot with the right orientation to produce compelling perspective, and I can easily do that with 28mm FF, even 35mm FF can do with a little more effort on composition.

**Digitalis** · 08-09-2021, 04:13 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by barondla

So why are MF ultrawides so difficult mechanically? Doesn't seem they would be as difficult as big tele lenses, but they are.

There are many,many reasons why this class of lenses are expensive - the registration distance (even in mirrorless designs) are still problematic as sensors aren't very responsive to photons that strike photosites at a sharp angle* and Telephoto lenses - particularly fast apochromatic ones are still quite difficult and expensive to make.

Originally posted by barondla

Now I wonder how Phase & Hasselblad lenses are doing.

Having worked with Both Hassy and P1, I can't really say much ( I haven't worked with Fuji MF cameras at all) but they are said to be (by my colleagues) somewhat better than Fuji..Personally Rodenstock and Schneider are the best optically/mechanically (but still an expensive prospect) by a long shot for dedicated wides and superwides for Medium format..Leica, on the other hand have decent albeit spirit crushingly expensive options for ultrawides for the S2 camera system - but these lenses only work on 44X33 sensors, the Schneider and Rodenstock options are** typically capable of covering 645 format.

* they frequently end up smacking into the wall of the element wells or into wiring on the periphery of the photosites in non-BSI sensor designs, BSI sensor designs are the way forward in improving this trait, along with specially designed microlenses to assist with the light gathering capacity of the sensor.
** with the only exceptions being the widest lenses in which case fall off and vignetting will be severe.

Jonathan Mac · 08-09-2021, 07:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by vector

I personally struggle to understand the obsession with ultra wide angle lenses. I have a 14mm samyang and find it very difficult to come up with a pleasing composition that isn't a distorted mess, so it gets used a few times a year for some milky way shots. It's not just my own work I don't like with uwa lenses. I see a lot of just plain bad images shot uwa and very few good ones. Looking at Pentax's limited uwa offerings I get the feeling they feel similarly. I get there are tight spaces where nothing else can do, but more often than not I think compositions benefit from leaving a little more out than trying to pull it all in. Anyway, sort of an irrelevant rant. If I want more in I shoot a pano and get my image without the distortion of a uwa. Doesn't always work, but usually.

I agree and think that UWAs have extremely limited use and the majority of what I see from them would have been better with a more modest focal length and perhaps a change of position. Still, I do own a few and they take some work to get the best out of, more so than any other focal length. The wisest is the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and while I've tried it for taking photographs for pleasure, where it really comes in handy is in practicality such as taking photos to show the inside of a house or flat.

And if only about 10% of UWA rectilinear shots are any good, then for fish-eyes I'd say it's closer to 0.5%, but that's a very different topic.

As for mechanics, I see no reason why UWAs should be any more delicate than other lenses just because they're more complicated to build.

08-08-2021, 11:14 AM	#1
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	Why is it so difficult to build reliable ultra wide medium format lenses? Understand ultra wides are optically complicated to design and build. DSLR ultra wides are the hardest. Pentax has had problems with both 25mm models. They finally ceased building the 25. I was happy to see Fujifilm bring out a 23mm. More ultra wide choices are good. Mirrorless cameras allow a simpler optical design. But... now there are numerous reports of mechanical problems with the 23. Errors causing the on/off warning and repair/replacement of the focus motor. So why are MF ultrawides so difficult mechanically? Doesn't seem they would be as difficult as big tele lenses, but they are. Now I wonder how Phase & Hasselblad lenses are doing. Thanks, barondla

08-09-2021, 04:13 AM - 2 Likes	#6
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by barondla So why are MF ultrawides so difficult mechanically? Doesn't seem they would be as difficult as big tele lenses, but they are. There are many,many reasons why this class of lenses are expensive - the registration distance (even in mirrorless designs) are still problematic as sensors aren't very responsive to photons that strike photosites at a sharp angle* and Telephoto lenses - particularly fast apochromatic ones are still quite difficult and expensive to make. Originally posted by barondla Now I wonder how Phase & Hasselblad lenses are doing. Having worked with Both Hassy and P1, I can't really say much ( I haven't worked with Fuji MF cameras at all) but they are said to be (by my colleagues) somewhat better than Fuji..Personally Rodenstock and Schneider are the best optically/mechanically (but still an expensive prospect) by a long shot for dedicated wides and superwides for Medium format..Leica, on the other hand have decent albeit spirit crushingly expensive options for ultrawides for the S2 camera system - but these lenses only work on 44X33 sensors, the Schneider and Rodenstock options are** typically capable of covering 645 format. * they frequently end up smacking into the wall of the element wells or into wiring on the periphery of the photosites in non-BSI sensor designs, BSI sensor designs are the way forward in improving this trait, along with specially designed microlenses to assist with the light gathering capacity of the sensor. ** with the only exceptions being the widest lenses in which case fall off and vignetting will be severe. Last edited by Digitalis; 08-09-2021 at 08:57 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wish Pentax would build an ultra wide 645 lens without SR.	barondla	Pentax Medium Format	11	01-07-2021 12:18 PM
Why medium (and large) format looks so good for landscapes?	house	General Photography	19	07-21-2015 11:33 AM
Why are Hoya filters so difficult to clean?	Lokusart	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	20	01-25-2014 08:55 PM
Why can it be so darned difficult to focus my K-01?	rkymtnrider	Pentax K-01	25	03-21-2013 07:44 PM
Why are Canikon diedhards so difficult?	kyteflyer	General Talk	23	08-31-2010 09:49 AM

08-08-2021, 12:00 PM - 1 Like	#2
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,237	Those are questions for the camera manufacturers themselves.

08-08-2021, 01:27 PM - 2 Likes	#3
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,388	While ultra wide angle lenses offer large dof in front of the lens, the complete opposite is true looking towards the sensor. A tiny misalignment in back focus distance changes sharpness completely. Zero to infinity may mean mm of travel of the the lens, a tele lens travel cm from close up to infinity. Optically large angles cause large challenges.

08-08-2021, 06:18 PM - 1 Like	#4
vector Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Alberta Posts: 713	I personally struggle to understand the obsession with ultra wide angle lenses. I have a 14mm samyang and find it very difficult to come up with a pleasing composition that isn't a distorted mess, so it gets used a few times a year for some milky way shots. It's not just my own work I don't like with uwa lenses. I see a lot of just plain bad images shot uwa and very few good ones. Looking at Pentax's limited uwa offerings I get the feeling they feel similarly. I get there are tight spaces where nothing else can do, but more often than not I think compositions benefit from leaving a little more out than trying to pull it all in. Anyway, sort of an irrelevant rant. If I want more in I shoot a pano and get my image without the distortion of a uwa. Doesn't always work, but usually.

08-08-2021, 11:05 PM - 2 Likes	#5
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,237	Originally posted by vector I personally struggle to understand the obsession with ultra wide angle lenses. I have a 14mm samyang and find it very difficult to come up with a pleasing composition that isn't a distorted mess, so it gets used a few times a year for some milky way shots. It's not just my own work I don't like with uwa lenses. I share a similar opinion. Although my relationship with wide angle changed over time. As beginner, I felt very uncomfortable using wide angle lenses, my lower limit was something like 30mm FF equ. (20mm apsc).Then I discovered the power of wide angle of views for architecture shots only, when suitable, limited use. In the last few years, I noticed the trend of ultra-wide used to make landscape foregrounds huge in the frame, making image viewer feel as if he is the photographer when looking at a print. However, the truth is, those huge foreground, as immersive as it feels, actually hide the fact that there isn't much content in a photograph, same as those mind blowing sunset color with nothing else worth looking in a landscape scene. So, for me now, it's not about how wide the lens is, it's about finding the right spot with the right orientation to produce compelling perspective, and I can easily do that with 28mm FF, even 35mm FF can do with a little more effort on composition.

08-09-2021, 07:20 AM - 1 Like	#7
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,904	Originally posted by vector I personally struggle to understand the obsession with ultra wide angle lenses. I have a 14mm samyang and find it very difficult to come up with a pleasing composition that isn't a distorted mess, so it gets used a few times a year for some milky way shots. It's not just my own work I don't like with uwa lenses. I see a lot of just plain bad images shot uwa and very few good ones. Looking at Pentax's limited uwa offerings I get the feeling they feel similarly. I get there are tight spaces where nothing else can do, but more often than not I think compositions benefit from leaving a little more out than trying to pull it all in. Anyway, sort of an irrelevant rant. If I want more in I shoot a pano and get my image without the distortion of a uwa. Doesn't always work, but usually. I agree and think that UWAs have extremely limited use and the majority of what I see from them would have been better with a more modest focal length and perhaps a change of position. Still, I do own a few and they take some work to get the best out of, more so than any other focal length. The wisest is the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and while I've tried it for taking photographs for pleasure, where it really comes in handy is in practicality such as taking photos to show the inside of a house or flat. And if only about 10% of UWA rectilinear shots are any good, then for fish-eyes I'd say it's closer to 0.5%, but that's a very different topic. As for mechanics, I see no reason why UWAs should be any more delicate than other lenses just because they're more complicated to build.