›

Camera Strut - wide-angle lenses?

mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
edited December 2007 in Strut Central
I want to get a wide-angle lens and I want something fast so that pretty much means: no zoom lenses. However, if I'm going to roll fixed, what I'm debating is whether I should go with 20 or 28 (or even smaller). I figured 28 would offer the most options but are there any advantages to going even wider, with say a 20?

  Comments

  • fejmelbafejmelba 1,139 Posts
  • SnagglepusSnagglepus 1,756 Posts
    Anything wider than around a 55 or so distorts the image somewhat. As you dip wider than 28 you're getting into the fisheye range. 28 is a good, all purpose wide angle lens. 20 is getting to the point where the images are noticeably distorted, which can be fun but may not be what you're looking for. I'd suggest visiting a good camera shop and trying out some lenses first so you can see what you're getting.
  • CBearCBear 902 Posts
    A 17-35mm f2.8 is perfect, but they can be some loot. I had a Tamron version of said lens because the nikon was over $1000, and I loved it.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Anything wider than around a 55 or so distorts the image somewhat. As you dip wider than 28 you're getting into the fisheye range. 28 is a good, all purpose wide angle lens. 20 is getting to the point where the images are noticeably distorted, which can be fun but may not be what you're looking for. I'd suggest visiting a good camera shop and trying out some lenses first so you can see what you're getting.

    Appreciate it...I figured a 20 might be pushing it, in terms of distortion. Looks like a 28 is what I'm aiming for then.
  • GambleGamble 844 Posts
    depending on the cash you want to spend, the 16-35mm 2.8 canon should be the shit. I dont neccesarily think you need to go for a prime. If cost is an issue though, a 28 prime should be pretty good.
  • asstroasstro 1,754 Posts
    Just keep in mind that on a DSLR you aren't going to get the true focal length of the lens. Multiply the manufacturer's actual length by 1.5 to get the effective focal length you will get on a digital camera. With this in mind you may want to get something wider than you think you need to get the effect that you want.
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    28
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Just keep in mind that on a DSLR you aren't going to get the true focal length of the lens. Multiply the manufacturer's actual length by 1.5 to get the effective focal length you will get on a digital camera. With this in mind you may want to get something wider than you think you need to get the effect that you want.

    Ah...
  • GambleGamble 844 Posts
    ...unless your rocking a full frame 5d. Baller!
  • bobbydeebobbydee 849 Posts
    Whats your main use for it? I use the Nikkor 14mm for my real estate work, and the distortion is pretty minimal/acceptable for the wide angle you get.




  • kwalitykwality 620 Posts
    Holy shit Bobby, those pics are great! So a 14 on a digital becomes what? Sorry, my maths game is weak.

    Back in the 35mm days I had a beautiful 17-35mm zoom that cost me a fortune, and is now probably worth nothing. I wanna get a digital slr but I'm curious how wide I have to go to get a fisheye/super wide lens. I know it's a bit of a cliche, but nothing beats if for skating.
  • bobbydeebobbydee 849 Posts
    The 14 gives you 140?? on a traditional and 90?? on a dslr. 90 is GREAT for real estate because you just get in the corner with your back to the wall and it makes the room look HUGE.

    Some of the hovels i've photographed actually made me feel a little bad, like I was misleading the buyers. But really that just means i've done my job and gotten them to come to the property.
  • SnagglepusSnagglepus 1,756 Posts
    The 14 gives you 140?? on a traditional and 90?? on a dslr.

    Wow. I had no idea the difference between traditional and digital was so significant (I don't own a dslr, clearly). So what would, say, an 8mm lens (which is a pretty extreme fisheye on a traditional camera) look like on a digital? And I'll read up on this, but does anyone have a quick explanation as to why there is such a significant difference?
  • bobbydeebobbydee 849 Posts
    Just to clarify, i'm a spaz, and it's 114 vs 90. Still a pretty big difference though.
  • asstroasstro 1,754 Posts
    The 14 gives you 140?? on a traditional and 90?? on a dslr.

    Wow. I had no idea the difference between traditional and digital was so significant (I don't own a dslr, clearly). So what would, say, an 8mm lens (which is a pretty extreme fisheye on a traditional camera) look like on a digital? And I'll read up on this, but does anyone have a quick explanation as to why there is such a significant difference?

    The short explanation is that the sensor on almost all DSLR's is much smaller than a piece of 35mmm film, so the sensor only captures part (the middle, more or less) of what the lens sees. So a 50mm lens on a film camera behaves more like a 75mm lens when used on a DSLR.

    One more thing to remember is that even though you can compensate for the focal length issue, you will still have to deal with the lens distortion issues that come with wider angle lenses. For example, a 50mm lens is nice and flattering for a basic portrait on a film camera, but if you use a 33mm lens on DSLR to get the same focal length you will notice that the results might not look as pleasing to the eye, because of the barrel distortion characteristics of the wider lens.
Sign In or Register to comment.