|
Post by John Parry on Feb 6, 2006 18:33:22 GMT -5
Hi Everyone
There has been some discussion about super-wide lenses, which to me would be anything 24mm and below (above?). To me, the photos from these begin looking distorted at 24mm, and eventually turn to grotesque. I am speaking only of magazine pictures I've seen here - not from personal experience. I can see how there could be a requirement. Some of the posts have mentioned architectural photographs, pictures of cliff faces etc.
'Normal' wide angles seem to start at around 28mm and run to 35mm - 40 at a pinch. I have a bagful of lenses in this bracket - Practicons and Prakticars, plus a bunch of zooms that go down to 35mm.
But when I first got interested in Praktica cameras with their M42 lenses, I knew nothing about the wider end of the lens scale, and bought something completely different. It was a Prinzflex Auto-Reflex 2.8 28mm. And - you all know the feeling - everything about it is right!. Nobody is a bigger fan of the 'Praktica' Tessar family (and I include the Oresten's, CZJ's and everything else built specifically for a Praktica camera), but that old Prinzflex knocks them all into a cocked hat at the wide (but not super-wide) end of the scale.
Anyone else have any favourites in this lens category?
Regards - John
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Feb 6, 2006 18:36:58 GMT -5
My favourite W/A is my Canon 28mm FD.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by sinedyar on Feb 6, 2006 19:10:41 GMT -5
John:
Depends on how one looks at it. I’ve always said that 28mm is usually wide enough for most people. Some say that super wide begins at 24mm while others will drop that down to 20mm. In my way of thinking, 24mm is the perfect compromise, being both the top end of super wide and the bottom end of normal wide angle.
However, having said that, I wouldn’t give up my 28mm lenses. Often 28mm lenses are much sharper than other wideangle lenses. The Nikon 28mm f/2.8 is one of the sharpest ever made. On the other hand, I wouldn’t give up my 17mm lenses, either. There are times something that wide is very useful, but it does take some practice to keep a picture taken with such a wideangle lens to keep from looking distorted.
Denis
|
|
|
Post by screaminscott on Feb 6, 2006 19:39:57 GMT -5
I love the shots I get with my 24mm F2.8 Nikkor & I really don't have distortion problems unless something is too close to the edge of the frame...That being said, like Denis, I wouldn't get rid of any of my 28's either....I'm looking forward to the 19mm that's on it's way to me....I have seen some pics from a 15mm Nikkor on another group site that blew me away...The main thing with any of the super wides are not to have a light source in the frame, keep it level & nothing too close to the edges of the frames...I'll agree that that's hard to do all the time, but you can post process to correct some of theses problems...
Scott
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Feb 7, 2006 14:51:17 GMT -5
Got a 20mm lens for my Minolta but haven't tried it yet.
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Feb 8, 2006 9:53:22 GMT -5
I 'never' seem to go with anything wider than 28. Even if I am using my Nikkor 24-120, once I compose 'wide' and look to see what focal length I chose, it is generally a 'hair' wider than 28 through 35. Just have never caught on to the main subject looking to be a '1000' miles away.
Also, really have never taken the time to learn wide angle photgraphy and am told I am missing out on some neat opportunities. Must admit, too, I have seen some rather striking wide angle shots from other photogs.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Feb 8, 2006 14:58:59 GMT -5
Ron, I admit I'd be hard pressed to shoot an entire roll of film with something like a 20mm lens
|
|
|
Post by sinedyar on Feb 8, 2006 15:05:24 GMT -5
Rachel: I have shot whole rolls with a 24mm, and as I'm learning wideangle I can see where I could easily shoot a whole roll with my 17mm. It is a learning curve, however, and takes time. Denis Ron, I admit I'd be hard pressed to shoot an entire roll of film with something like a 20mm lens
|
|
|
Post by herron on Feb 8, 2006 16:17:26 GMT -5
I have an absolutely marveous Mamiya CS 14mm f/3.5 lens...that rarely gets used...although you would think, since I am usually shooting only 12-exposure test rolls any more, that it would see the light of day much more frequently!
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Feb 8, 2006 17:05:19 GMT -5
Ron -
Why would anybody want to see the back of their head through the viewfinder?
Best Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Feb 9, 2006 8:38:35 GMT -5
Rachel: I have shot whole rolls with a 24mm, and as I'm learning wideangle I can see where I could easily shoot a whole roll with my 17mm. It is a learning curve, however, and takes time. Denis Ron, I admit I'd be hard pressed to shoot an entire roll of film with something like a 20mm lens Well Denis perhaps I'll try it
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Mar 9, 2006 15:40:59 GMT -5
In my previous post to the original message here, I mentioned my Nikkor 24-120...and that I, once having a pic composed and I check the focal length, it is rarely wider than 28.
Don't know why but I forgot all about my Nikkor 20-35/2.8...probably because it is mostly in hibernation and does not get used much. It is a fabulous lens and even at 20 does not show distortion. However the same holds for this lens as the 24-120, I generally compose not much lower than 28.
And the few times that I do go wider, I always allow a little extra around the edges for cropping if necessary.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 9, 2006 16:44:54 GMT -5
In my previous post to the original message here, I mentioned my Nikkor 24-120...and that I, once having a pic composed and I check the focal length, it is rarely wider than 28. Don't know why but I forgot all about my Nikkor 20-35/2.8...probably because it is mostly in hibernation and does not get used much. It is a fabulous lens and even at 20 does not show distortion. However the same holds for this lens as the 24-120, I generally compose not much lower than 28. And the few times that I do go wider, I always allow a little extra around the edges for cropping if necessary. Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI I sold my 24mm Nikkor to help finance a 20mm. Eventually I'll probably get another because I consider 24mm the ideal WA--you can distort with it but you also can avoid distortion of you so decide. 20mm isn't really that bad either. The trick is to keep the lens level. Shoot at an up or down angle and things start to lean. I had a 24-120 Nikkor and it was decent at 24mm but there was more distortion than with a 24mm prime lens. I should really save my sheckles for a 35mm f2 Nikkor as I have long considered the 35mm "normal." I shoot 20 WA shots for every telephoto picture.
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Mar 9, 2006 19:24:27 GMT -5
Wayne,
When I look into my stable, be it Minolta or Nikon, for a wide angle prospective shot...if I do not take a zoom, it is the 35 focal length. Maybe because that is the first 'wide angle' I ever owned and really got accustomed to and proficient at using it. I have seen the pics of others using even as wide as 17, but I cannot get used to it. Yes, I know you must show something in the foreground to give perspective, but a lot of times such is not available.
Next up for me is 'normal' which is, to me, 50-58.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 20, 2006 13:23:46 GMT -5
The hard choice for me is between a 24/2.8 and a 28/2.8 Nikkor. The 28 ais may be a little sharper and focusess closer but that extra 4mm of the 24 really makes a difference in tight cramped situations. To me the 35 is my normal and not a wide. For one lens to cover it all the Tamron SP 20-40 works well although a bit large.
Bob Hammond
|
|