Lens suggestions for this type of image?

[tnewell]

Hey guys,
just wondering what lens you would suggest for this type of image on a medium format camera. Obviously these have some sort of distortion in post - but i'm assuming a wide angle?

 

[AgX]

What we see is perspective distorsion, due to too little distance from the subject. In this case a wide-angle lens was used.


It all is about the ratio of the distance of subject details to each other and their distance to the camera.

 

[AgX]

Thus it is not the lens that creates these distorsions, but the photographer.

 

[AgX]

By the way, the other etreme of ratio is possible too, whe the photographer takes too much distance from the subject.

 

[ic-racer]

30mm fisheye

 

[Arthurwg]

Don't bother.

 

[AgX]

30mm fisheye

Would not with a fish-eyle lens in the 3rd photo that wall show a strong concave curvature, unless having been at about center and the photo being cropped, or the wall having had a convex curvature originally?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Don't bother.

Agreed. You might get close with a Hasselblad 903, which can be had for $2k or so. But it's not an SLR. Bronica with a 40mm?

Shots like the sample are where 35mm film and digital shine. Rectilinear wide angle lenses are plentiful. Horses for courses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not a fisheye but a very wide angle and a photographer who is too close and has a foot fetish.

 

[gone]

The pic on the left looks much better than the others, to me anyway. Looks like the foot is airborne. I share Dan's thinking, a 35mm wide angle lens will distort things nicely.

 

[maltfalc]

rectilinear ultrawide. not seeing any actual distortion, in post or otherwise, in the images themselves.

 

[ic-racer]

By the way, the other etreme of ratio is possible too, whe the photographer takes too much distance from the subject.

I was thinking of the center image only, based on the horizon seemed curved, but maybe it is just an illusion from the uneven treetops. The first and third look like photoshop creations to me.

 

[MattKing]

I doubt that you can make those sorts of images in medium format.
I think you need a tiny digital sensor, to achieve that depth of field - perhaps M4/3, but probably smaller.
In film, 16mm film maybe.

 

[projectbluebird]

Ultra-wide on full-frame (35mm equivalent) will give you that sort of look. I would start with 15mm or shorter. (Super-ultra wide?) I agree that you are unlikely to find a lens wide enough for medium format.
(Last time I was toying with the idea of M4/3, I noticed a similar problem with ‘crop’/‘format’ factors making ultrawides into the equivalent of regular wide angles.)

 

[Eric Rose]

Back in the 70's this kind of perspective was the rage. I used a 16mm on a Nikon to get it.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

A Nikkor 14-24mm used at 14mm f22 yields focus from 32cm to infinity. Equivalent to a 105mm 8x10 pinhole around f/165 or a 5.6mm @ f8 frame on 16mm film.

Any options for covering medium format with a similar perspective will be exotic, exorbitantly expensive, and in poor taste.

 

[AgX]

Back in the 70's this kind of perspective was the rage. I used a 16mm on a Nikon to get it.

Especially the 3rd one made me think of those years.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

40 mm

 

[Huub]

Perhaps a Brooks Veriwide will do the trick. It provides a 47mm lens and a 6x9 negative. Or you might want to take a look at Bill Brandts nude photography and have a look at the camera he used.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I doubt that you can make those sorts of images in medium format.
I think you need a tiny digital sensor, to achieve that depth of field - perhaps M4/3, but probably smaller.
In film, 16mm film maybe.

I can do it with a Hasselblad and you may be able to do it with a Mamiya C series because there is not a wide enough lens.

 

[MattKing]

I can do it with a Hasselblad and you may be able to do it with a Mamiya C series because there is not a wide enough lens.

Show us.
You can achieve a somewhat similar effect, but the very near and the very far aren't going to be as sharp as in the examples - at least not at the same time.

 

[Huss]

Perhaps a Brooks Veriwide will do the trick. It provides a 47mm lens and a 6x9 negative. Or you might want to take a look at Bill Brandts nude photography and have a look at the camera he used.

The Veriwide is 6x10 and the lens is a 21mm equivalent in 35mm film. Plus it cannot focus that close - only down to .7m

 

[Huss]

Not a fisheye but a very wide angle and a photographer who is too close and has a foot fetish.

Pretty sure it is an ad campaign for the shoe maker.

 

[projectbluebird]

Not medium format, but Voigtlander (Cosina) makes (or has made) Ultra-wide Heliars in 12mm and 15mm, in both screw and M-Mount.
At the time of this post, they also have a ‘hyper-wide’ 10mm, in M-mount only.

Having played with the 15mm version, I can tell you that effective depth of field is extraordinary, even at moderate apertures. I also found I had to change the way I focused the lens, it was *extremely* easy to ruin a frame with an (apparently enormous) errant fingertip in the corner.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Show us.
You can achieve a somewhat similar effect, but the very near and the very far aren't going to be as sharp as in the examples - at least not at the same time.

With ISO 400 film and a small aperture in MF but I agree it would be easier with 35mm film.