Wide angle suggestions

darinwc said:

I own a 24mm and a 17mm. The 24mm will get the corners of each room in my house. The 17mm will get the corners plus about 4-5 more feet in to the side walls. However I dont find the side walls add any interest to the pic.

Also, the 24mm is f2.8 while the 17mm is f4.. that makes a big difference indoors.

I think either a 24mm f2.8 or a 20mm f2.8 would be ideal for indoor shots.

Click to expand...

Astute observations.
I'm wondering where we are heading. This morning I've viewed a newly-released 17mm f4 TS-E (tilt/shift) optic from Canon, which is bizarre given the limited use of 17mm even in experienced hands, and touted at landscape and architectural photographers. Quite so? With 14 years' experience with TS-E, I much prefer a prime 20mm f2.8 or TS-E 24mm f3.5 99% of the time, even outdoors up close at waterfalls which is where a lot of photography takes place. It probably will have appeal to lens-geeks. Canon did not disclose the retail price of the distinctly fish-eyed look (a reference to the huge bulging asph. front element) of the L-series 17mm f4, remoured to be around AUD$4,700.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Astute observations.
I'm wondering where we are heading. This morning I've viewed a newly-released 17mm f4 TS-E (tilt/shift) optic from Canon, which is bizarre given the limited use of 17mm even in experienced hands, and touted at landscape and architectural photographers. It probably will have appeal to lens-geeks. Canon did not disclose the retail price of the distinctly fish-eyed look (a reference to the huge bulging asph. front element) of the L-series 17mm f4, remoured to be around AUD$4,700.

Click to expand...

Good morning, PdJ;

Is it possible that Canon may be offering this particular 17 mm f 4.0 TS-E lens in the hope that many of the people with Canon cameras using the APS-C sized sensor (EOS-D30 to 50D) will be buying this lens? With the 1.6 X multiplying factor, that would make it equivalent to a 27.2 mm lens on a full frame 35 mm size sensor.

Ralph Javins said:

Good morning, PdJ;

Is it possible that Canon may be offering this particular 17 mm f 4.0 TS-E lens in the hope that many of the people with Canon cameras using the APS-C sized sensor (EOS-D30 to 50D) will be buying this lens? With the 1.6 X multiplying factor, that would make it equivalent to a 27.2 mm lens on a full frame 35 mm size sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes Ralph, available from May, both the 17mm TS-E f4 and the 24mm f3.5L II are aimed at digital bodies within the Canon range. The existing TS-E line is around 14 years old now and although excellent optics in their own right, they are beginning to look dated. Both lenses (with DC motor drives) have new AF algorithms matched to Canon's current and future D****s, and optimised redesigned coatings on all surfaces (to reduce ghosting and flare). Discussion amongst several skilled TS-E users here yesterday and this morning has not elicited much enthusiasm for either of the new lenses, chiefly because they are AF (as opposed to MF, which is more precise) and pointedly, the legend on the focusing ring (for hyperfocal etc.) is poor, compared to the greatly more legible 24mm f3.5L — the best of the trio in this small detail (the 24mm is best used with HYP technique)

The lenses are also suitable for other existing Canon EOS bodies though I am waiting on precautions/warnings for some older EOS bodies: the protruding rear element of the 17mm TS-E is believed to interfere with the mirror on some of the older EOS bodies.

I have no interest whatesoever in Canon's digital cameras.

• Canon TS-E 24mm f3.5L II




• Canon TS-E 17mm f4L

35mm is also my normal lens. I do honestly believe that while 50mm may represent a more "accurate" level of visual magnification - that 35mm easily represents natural viewing width more readily.

Now for wides, 20mm is my favorite. 14mm and the like are a bit too wide for even my tastes, 20 sits just right at the edge of any ridiculous distortion. Both 24mm and 28mm are also tamer wides that can do double duty as normal lengths as well.

In order to make use of wides - you MUST get close. If anything, wides are a great tool for encouraging closeness - especially with subjects. They are by NO means relegated only to landscape or architectural use and are quite capable of performing wonderfully with environmental portraits.

All Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS:

I personally find Nikkor wides to perform very well with minimal distortion. A lot of shots don't scream "wide angle!"

clayne said:

35mm is also my normal lens. I do honestly believe that while 50mm may represent a more "accurate" level of visual magnification - that 35mm easily represents natural viewing width more readily.

Now for wides, 20mm is my favorite. 14mm and the like are a bit too wide for even my tastes, 20 sits just right at the edge of any ridiculous distortion. Both 24mm and 28mm are also tamer wides that can do double duty as normal lengths as well.

In order to make use of wides - you MUST get close. If anything, wides are a great tool for encouraging closeness - especially with subjects. They are by NO means relegated only to landscape or architectural use and are quite capable of performing wonderfully with environmental portraits.

All Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS:

I personally find Nikkor wides to perform very well with minimal distortion. A lot of shots don't scream "wide angle!"

Click to expand...

But...the shot directly above screams both ways: distortion and ultra-wide angle, as illustrated by the pan at lower left. The 2 before are very pleasing indeed.

Poisson Du Jour said:

"A stop greater" is actually a stop slower in terms of Av (aperture).

Click to expand...

A "stop greater" is actually a stop faster in relation to light gathering ability.
2.8 allows more light to pass in a given time than 3.5.

In thirty years of dealing within the trade I have never heard anyone refer to an aperture in this manner.

If you are referring to numeric value engraved on the aperture ring you are correct as 3.5 is a bigger number than 2.8.

Poisson Du Jour said:

"Sage"!?


There is indeed! The sky's the limit.

I've never seen optics of e.g. 17mm+++ in the Minolta mount (Nikon, Canon yes), but I suspect Tamron or Sigma has something worth looking at.


The 24mm and my 20mm share stints at night sky photography in the outback where it is inky black (new moon phase). Aiming the 20mm into the chandelier above is easier than the 24mm though the whacky distortion from the steep angle looking up makes trees, boulders or what run around the edge of the frame—an effect you either love or hate, but hey, the focus (sorry, pun..) is on what the star trails!!

Click to expand...

Good morning, PdJ;

Interesting that you should mention using your 20 mm and 24 mm lenses for wide field astrophotography. I also do that, but with the 16 mm full-frame fisheye and the 17 mm f 4.0 rectilnear wide angle. Usually they are mounted on a Minolta X-700 looking up with the Multi-Function back doing the timing of the shot and an MD-1 Motor Drive advancing to the next frame for me. By the way, the Tamron Type 51B 17 mm lens is an f 3.5; about 1/3 stop more light, and mine is in the Minolta MC mount. Usually I am trying for meteor trails or some similar transient phenomenon. I also used it once to record the clouds for a night by taking a photograph of the sky every 15 minutes.

Your beloved Outback is of great envy and jealousy here. If I try to take long duration photographs here in Latte Land, the sky glow from all of the lighting limits me to about 5 minutes per exposure until the fog begins to become noticeable on ASA 400 film.

I know that the original posting was asking about WA lenses for the Minolta A mount, which I also have, but the only thing I have seen for sale here is the Minolta 28 mm f 2.8 AF lens. I know that they made a 24 mm lens for it also, but I have not seen one yet--only photographs. Most of the interest in the alternate lens manufacturers seems to be for zoom lenses. Very frustrating.

I really like my 17mm & 20mm wide-angles.

Kiron Kid

I'm in a similar situation, my widest is a Minolta (AF) 28mm f2.8. If you take a look at Photodo.com, you'll find basically a library of information based on either lens mount, or makers. Looking at info of dpreview.com some months ago, apparently Sigma's new wide angle zoom is a killer (no info yet on Photodo), perhaps much better than Sony's new wide angle zoom. I assume that these will work on your camera. And depending on how much of an issue cost is, Tamron's new equivalent is apparently still quite good (again, no info on Photodo, yet).

Ralph Javins said:

Good morning, PdJ;

Interesting that you should mention using your 20 mm and 24 mm lenses for wide field astrophotography. I also do that, but with the 16 mm full-frame fisheye and the 17 mm f 4.0 rectilnear wide angle. Usually they are mounted on a Minolta X-700 looking up with the Multi-Function back doing the timing of the shot and an MD-1 Motor Drive advancing to the next frame for me. By the way, the Tamron Type 51B 17 mm lens is an f 3.5; about 1/3 stop more light, and mine is in the Minolta MC mount. Usually I am trying for meteor trails or some similar transient phenomenon. I also used it once to record the clouds for a night by taking a photograph of the sky every 15 minutes.

Your beloved Outback is of great envy and jealousy here. If I try to take long duration photographs here in Latte Land, the sky glow from all of the lighting limits me to about 5 minutes per exposure until the fog begins to become noticeable on ASA 400 film.

[...]

Click to expand...

The location in the outback is a long way from here (744km by road) and very, very black and cloudless. Astronomers often gather there too. I leave in Tuesday to travel up via Broken Hill (you may have heard that name: the place where mining megolith BHP Billiton Limited had its beginnings). These 3 photos and this one in particular, give a good impression of the open outback scale, but not the terrific vastness that characterises the dry, dusty interior. I head for the place called the Mundi Mundi Lookout, a short distance outside Silverton (where scenes in the Mad Max movies were staged). I only do astrophotography a few days before and a few days after a New Moon so I can find the Southern Cross and South Celestial Pole more easily (for you Northern Hemisphere guys, it's Polaris, and I wonder how difficult it would be to locate any particular star with a fisheye...?). Without a light out there (Broken Hill is about 25km away), it is a truly remarkable moment to look up and see with startling clarity, the beauty of the night sky. Having a beer or two and some crunchy munchies handy (the crunching sound keeps inquisitive wildlife away from the camera) helps pass the hour or two the camera is permitted "stargazing". Oh, and a rug, too—it's cold late at night (11-midnight)! You do need to get far, far away from the big city lights and I imagine it's pretty sleepless in Seattle...

Not sure why you're using 400iso film for astro; that makes it much more sensitive to ambient light incursions (the city e.g.).
Provia 100F at EI125 or Velvia 100F as is have done me fine for eons.

Yeah, I haven't seen to many wide primes for the A mount, mostly the MD's and so forth. While I have an SRT, it needs some repair work done on it to be usable, that's why I've just been looking at those zooms, since they're the only thing I've been finding available. Thanks for all the advice.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Not sure why you're using 400iso film for astro; that makes it much more sensitive to ambient light incursions (the city e.g.).
Provia 100F at EI125 or Velvia 100F as is have done me fine for eons.

Click to expand...

Good morning, PdJ;

The ASA 400 (or ISO 400) film was chosen in hope of catching the meteor trails. They do not last very long. The lens did have a wide angle lens hood on it also hoping to reduce any tendency to fog over with dew. I did get some, but it was not really impressive.

The five minute maximum exposure time was the result of testing earlier to see what effect the light pollution would have. Please note that this figure applies only to my area. Other locations may be quite different.

I am still jealous of what I see when looking at the photographs of the earth taken at night. The lack of light shining up into the sky from the middle of Australia is impressive. The guys in the International Dark Sky Association (IDSA) must be proud of you. About the only other similar area is Central Africa and Northern Africa and the oceans. When you look at the photographs of the earth showing the Northeast United States, Europe, California, and most other populous areas, you begin to wonder what the IDSA guys might be talking about. It is only when you get out into the night at one of the areas where light pollution is many miles away, and you see that broad band of stars we call the Milky Way, that you finally begin to understand what the IDSA guys are trying to reclaim.