p.1 #1 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
Yes it's Monday and I've likely had too much caffeine, but this new photographer just doesn't seem to have an eye for going wide. My widest lens is currently the 24-70 2.8g, and I don't seem to get excited enough to want to reach for it over 851.4d, 105 2.8 Micro, 135mm 2.5 AIS.
I have my sights set on a 70-200 2.8e FL ED, and thinking that I might carry that and maybe try to find a special 35mm prime (zeiss 35 f2 ZF.2?) for a two camera carry hike setup.
p.1 #2 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but I'll keep them brief.
I am not enamored with ultra wide (12mm-20mm) shots 99% of the time when I see others present them. You absolutely must include a foreground element once you get to a certain width or the entire image falls apart and most people are pretty uncreative when it comes to doing that well. I've tried my hand and I don't like being shoehorned into shooting a certain way.
I have a somewhat unpopular opinion that 24mm is wide enough for landscape work, so to that end, my 24-120/4 is the perfect companion that gets me to the very widest I like to go in a single shot. If, by some chance, my subject is so close that 24mm can't get it all in frame, stitching is an easy solution.
The vast majority of my hiking shots are with that lens. If I opt for a 2-camera setup, which I rarely do, I put the Voigtlander 35/2 APO on the smaller body. Its sharpness at f8 makes up for the lower megapixel count of my Zf. Others might prefer the 28 APO, but that trends towards shots that, again, need something extra instead of emulating what one might naturally see with their own eyes. The Voigt also doubles for a great small and lightweight around-town setup for street during downtime.
The zoom gets me out to far away mountains:
While the Voigt gets me candids, wide-enough landscapes, and street:
p.1 #3 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
Nothing wrong with you AFAIK. We all see different things.
I have found that using a "wide" takes some learning. After I bought my 35mm f/2.8 S Auto around 1974 I found I rarely used it. I was so used to having a picture's subject be closer and more the center of attention. A wide-angle lens makes everything seem so far away. (A lens' FL really just determines the size of the image on the film or sensor. By making the image of the subject smaller a short FL can capture more stuff on the sides. It doesn't actually change the perspective, which is determined solely by the camera's position.)
With a digital camera much of that is different. Depending on how much you want to crop and resize, which depends on what you want to do with the picture in the first place, as long as you have enough precision (and within limits of course) you can extract part of an image and get the same picture as if you had started with the larger image produced by a longer FL. The short FL captures more if you want it, but you don't have to keep it all.
If also depends on the kinds of pictures you take. Landscapes require a short FL but also require vision lest you just get shots already taken a thousand times by others. Capturing a sense of place can be incredibly difficult. As with wildlife shots, you have to be in the right place and also keep your eyes open. Here are two pics I took two days ago with that same vintage 35mm that I found I rarely used 50 years ago. I like to think I see things differently now. Someone gave me a vintage 24mm, oops, I mean a 28mm (actually labeled 2.8cm) recently and though I've used it I have not come to understand it yet.
p.1 #4 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
Everyone is different. I shoot ultra-wide quite a lot, and I think I see it pretty well also. I'd say 20/21mm is probably my favorite focal length, but I shoot plenty in the 14-18mm range too. I do some ultra-wide landscape work, though most of my landscape work is 24-60mm or so, with the occasional very wide shot. I shoot a ton of UWA architecture work, though.
I also do plenty in the normal ranges as well, with about 90% of my photography sitting between 14 and 100mm. I shoot longer from time to time, but not nearly as much as the shorter focal lengths.
p.1 #5 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
RoamingScott wrote:
I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but I'll keep them brief.
...
Great pictures. Your posts and the quality of your picture always demonstrate how thoroughly you know what you are doing. It is a level we can all aspire to.
p.1 #6 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
Let your photography guide your lens choices.
Your preferred focal lengths reflect how you like to compose. If you’re constantly at the 24mm end of your zoom and wishing you could fit more in, that’s a good reason to consider a 20mm or wider.
Likewise, if you’re always at 600mm on a 180–600 and still cropping heavily, an 800mm might make sense.
In the right setting (such as cityscapes, architecture, narrow streets, interiors and video work) you might surprise yourself.
I personally like 20mm focal length a lot, and Viltrox 14mm is also a joy to use.
p.1 #10 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
jimmuller wrote:
Not all taken with "wide" lenses either. Nice set of pics.
I do believe we have demonstrated the possible value of shorter FL lenses. Which was the question, after all.
Yeah, my point was basically, you can take great shots at whatever focal length. Sometimes a subject lends itself to the longer stuff, sometimes it lends itself well to wide shooting, but ultimately, if someone feels like they see the world through a tighter view, then they should express themselves through that.
p.1 #11 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
Wide-angle is clearly "in the eye of the beholder", and if your brain/eye mechanism can't see it, you won't like shooting it.
Like @RoamingScott, I think ultra wide-angles (below 24mm) require careful, perhaps even artificial composition. I shot most of my film photography with a Nikkor 24/2 (paired with a 105/2.5), and still kind of see the world through that focal length. Relatively recently, switching to AF-D lenses and a Nikon Df digital body, I have mostly shot with a 28/1.4D, and honestly the transition from 24mm to 28mm wasn't that big a deal: I still "see" the world through much the same viewpoint. That being said, I have also got an 18/2.8D that I do shoot occasionally (and was always tempted by the 20/2.8 AiS), but as was noted, this requires careful composition and inclusion of foreground elements, as everything ends up small and in the distance otherwise.
I'm a prime shooter, so perhaps my focal-length taste is more exaggerated as a result, but I could totally shoot just a 24/28 for most of my photography, and then a 105mm lens for the rest: Wide-angle is my jam I guess.
p.1 #12 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
grantgoodes wrote:
...but as was noted, this requires careful composition and inclusion of foreground elements, as everything ends up small and in the distance otherwise.
To my eyes @RoamingScott@'s second picture above is an incredible display of depth. It feels like I am actually there rather than looking at a picture. But it doesn't use foreground. OTOH I find that foreground inclusion is essential most of the time. I don't do landscapes much and usually not very well.
p.1 #13 · I Don't Like Shooting Wide Focal Lengths....What's Wrong With Me?
jimmuller wrote:
To my eyes @RoamingScott@@'s second picture above is an incredible display of depth. It feels like I am actually there rather than looking at a picture. But it doesn't use foreground. OTOH I find that foreground inclusion is essential most of the time. I don't do landscapes much and usually not very well.
Well that shot is at 35mm, so the foreground "requirement" is long behind us by then My comment about foreground objects was more for the 12-20mm range.
We all see different things.
