At least for most applications, do we really need anything much wider than 24mm (or equivalent FOV on a crop sensor) ? Most photographs shown on the entire forum using wide angle lenses are architecture and landscape, primarily.
This forum especially is obsessed with having absolutely crushing sharp corners and uniformity across the frame. With the availability and ease of synthesizing panoramas, why are we searching so hard to realize incredible ultrawides when by and large we can render better images through stitching? ND grads, rapidly changing light and water based photography (most of the time we're slowing our shutter speed down enough to smooth this out as well) are the only places I can really see the need for a single--really wide capture. Extra pixels for architecture cannot hurt, especially when one thinks about correcting perspective and such.
Looking through my own work, I'm noticing that 28mm is really as wide as I ever need to go in a single capture. Everything else that I want really wide has been 35mm or longer in a panorama.
I'm genuinely interested in peoples opinions on this one.
Well I donīt care for post production apart from classic adjustments, so my wides are staying! But then again I donīt use them much anyway... 35mm is about as wide as I like to go.
I sort of agree. In fact, to take it farther I have pretty much retired my Mamiya 645 because of the quality print I can come up with from Canon 5D shots stitched together.
I agree with the 28mm limit on the wide end for full frame. I have one 2' by 3' print that was taken with 24mm, when I'm sure a 28mm would have been just as effective. I then jump directly to 50mm.
If I want wider panoramas, I have a custom nodal point, vertical L bracket with level that weights 4 oz. 3 or 4 single row vertical shoots gives as wide as I need, and stitches quickly.
I stich for a living, doing 360 virtual tours. So out and about, I have to say I love my 14mm lens. I really don't want to stitch any images once I get home. Its just a pain in the ass after that. Outside of that, the ultrawides are not nearly as good as there counterpart wides, but stitched skies just look odd without some work to them, and worrying about the nodal point, distortion from shakes, etc. Its just not fun for something I would want to photograph either for an event or for fun.
p.1 #10 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Gotta agree with cogi...I like having the ability to go really wide with a single shot. I'm not totally averse to stitching (there are several specific pano's that I have in mind and waiting to shoot), but sometimes multiple shots aren't very practical. Below is a shot of Horseshoe Bend along the Colorado River taken with a 5D/17-40L at 17mm focal length (single exposure). At the time, there were 40 mph wind gusts at the rim which didn't make it conducive to setting up a tripod and taking multiple exposures with a 'normal' lens. When a UWA will do the job and is available, why bother stitching?
p.1 #12 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
hahahaahhahahahahah this is one of the most rediculous threads/questions i've read in a LONG time.
There will always be a place for UWA's. If you don't see it, then they're clearly not your style. I love 18mm and below. I think 20-28 is boring. 28 is borderline "standard" lens to me.
p.1 #13 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
I have to agree with Chris on this. UWA have a lot of uses and the question seems a bit odd
This is a random shot (taken with a sigma 10-20 on a 40D) - not sure how I would have achieved this without a lot of PP, and not sure stitching would have helped...
p.1 #14 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Err... the last shots is neither landscape nor architecture. Did you actually read what I read? I see plenty of exceptions to my rule when moving things are involved. Then again, I don't see ultrawide photos with people as terrible fetching. Perhaps my title should have been more specific.
No... ultrawide isn't my style. I take more normal-to-telephoto shots than anything else. 24mm full-frame, which happens to be my present widest, doesn't even get used that much.
Here's my point: lots of people piss and moan about subpar ultrawide angle lenses. They'll spend billions on unobtanium lenses that give them better performance in "zone c" for whatever reason. Same said individuals often don't present pictures of landscapes that require everything taken in a single capture. Those people can save themselves the grief of having to octuple check their corners at 400% by taking a much better 28 mm or so lens and taking a 3 row pano. It's not hard.
p.1 #16 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
I read it a few times to see what you were asking.
"...At least for most applications, do we really need anything much wider than 24mm (or equivalent FOV on a crop sensor) ? "
If you are specifically relating to landscapes, then I am not experienced enough to give a worthy opinion, although the example from the GC should be ample enough evidence of the difference a UWA can make. I am not sure stitching would give the same exaggeration of the Horseshoe Bend.
p.1 #17 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Agreed--stitching doesn't work with that style of photography. But few seem to adopt that style. To your defense Chris, I generally like what you put up on the board when it's above 35mm or so ;-)
p.1 #19 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Stitching has it's use but does not work for me when shooting landscapes because:
1) Time passes between shots. The clouds move, water moves, the earth rotates, light changes.
2) Often the best light for shooting landscape is during the "golden hour" when the sun is rising or setting. Light will be different between frames, shadows may be different, a cloud may block the sun etc. The light you want is short and ever changing.
3) Time can also ruin reflections since whats reflected may not mirror whats in another frames.
4) I like to be able to frame the shot. Stitching requires more use of the imagination (may be good thing) and trial and error shooting.
5) It's nice not having to process all your shots before you can make a pick out the pictures that stand out.
6) Like to shoot at night. Stars move and aurora moves fast. Stitching is simply not possible here besides the hassle of rearranging everything in the dark.
7) Getting sharp corners with an ultra-wide requires a killer lens and choosing the right aperture for the shot. Choosing to small aperture may hurt sharpness. My 18mm Zuiko is best at f/11 but some shots require smaller aperture if foreground is really close. When stitching you will be using a lens that has less dof and will require smaller aperture for same depth of field.
8) In theory you should be able to get similar/same perspective when stitching. It will need careful planning and knowledge of the the lens's nodal point. It won't work like using a 28mm on a medium format camera.
9) and 10) Well this is important and relating number 8) ....can any one show me stitched image showing dramatic perspective?? Maybe small stones/rocks in the foreground and swooping skies?
p.1 #20 · Are ultrawides really necessary anymore?
Hrannar's post has said everything I would, and more.
Stitching has its uses, and if you need 200 megapixel images then it's probably your only solution. But ultra-wide angle lenses have their place too.
If it doesn't suit your style then don't use one.
Not many people would be happy to lug a 600mm f4 lens and 15lb tripod around all day, but I am in order to get the bird shots I want. Use the appropriate tool for the job, it's as simple as that.
