chirantanpatnaik
Newbie
Hi,
Wanted to gain some insight from more experienced shooters on the forum regarding what focal length on full frame do you think is the least 'unreal' looking in terms of perspective.
I have a 15mm, which is ultrawide on my m9, good for some 'cool' looking shots. However, the more i shoot street upclose, the more i'd like my pictures to NOT distort much of the perspective. I used the 15mm on my M8, and the crop seemed to do away with some of the 'edge stretching' as i call it (barrel, pincushion and what not)
So what would you prefer as the widest you'd go with your M:- 21mm, 24mm, 28mm or even 15mm? (when the object is to tell a wider 'story' in a photograph and not necessarily distort for an 'effect')
I use a 50 almost exclusively on my m9 now.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
-Chirantan
Wanted to gain some insight from more experienced shooters on the forum regarding what focal length on full frame do you think is the least 'unreal' looking in terms of perspective.
I have a 15mm, which is ultrawide on my m9, good for some 'cool' looking shots. However, the more i shoot street upclose, the more i'd like my pictures to NOT distort much of the perspective. I used the 15mm on my M8, and the crop seemed to do away with some of the 'edge stretching' as i call it (barrel, pincushion and what not)
So what would you prefer as the widest you'd go with your M:- 21mm, 24mm, 28mm or even 15mm? (when the object is to tell a wider 'story' in a photograph and not necessarily distort for an 'effect')
I use a 50 almost exclusively on my m9 now.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
-Chirantan
kzphoto
Well-known
24/25 seems to be about as wide as I can tolerate. It still has the wide perspective without having horrible distortion. Check into the ZM 25/2.8 or the Leica 24mm lenses. The Leica 24/1.4 has a weird mustache distortion Ken Rockwell describes here:
http://kenrockwell.com/leica/24mm-f14.htm#perf
Otherwise they're all amazing lenses. The ZM is known for having near zero distortion and excellent performance for it's price point. I own the 24/2.8 and it has made some of my favorite images.
http://kenrockwell.com/leica/24mm-f14.htm#perf
Otherwise they're all amazing lenses. The ZM is known for having near zero distortion and excellent performance for it's price point. I own the 24/2.8 and it has made some of my favorite images.
Ronald M
Veteran
Lenses do not distort perspective. Perspective is detirmined by camera position and subject position.
If you want to prove it, set up a 15 mm shot. Now put a 24/35/50/90 mm lenses on the camera and do not move, you or the subject. Perspective remains the same.
Perspective is the size relationship between near and far objects.
In fact you can cut the 15mm down to the longer length angle of view and the photos will overlay perfectly.
NOw repeat keeping the subject the same same and moving close with the wide lens and further back with the long. Notice how the perspective changes. With a wide lens, the subject appears big compared to the background. With longer lenses, it is smaller.
There is distortion as the the lens gets shorter because you are trying to image a sphere on a flat plane, film. The corner stretch and round objects go to ellipses.
35 mm is about as far as one can go. After that, the corners and then near corners get progressively worse. How noticeable this is depends on the subject matter.
Map makers have exactly the same problem. Look up the different kinds or projections they use to image a hemisphere. For the most critical work, the map only a small area.
Navigation is done by GPS now and sextents, chronographs, dividers, parallel guides, and maps are a back up system or parallel system.
To try perspective out, hold up your thumb at arms length. Notice how small it is compared to a distant subject. Now moce it closer and it appears larger compared to the distant object.
If you want to prove it, set up a 15 mm shot. Now put a 24/35/50/90 mm lenses on the camera and do not move, you or the subject. Perspective remains the same.
Perspective is the size relationship between near and far objects.
In fact you can cut the 15mm down to the longer length angle of view and the photos will overlay perfectly.
NOw repeat keeping the subject the same same and moving close with the wide lens and further back with the long. Notice how the perspective changes. With a wide lens, the subject appears big compared to the background. With longer lenses, it is smaller.
There is distortion as the the lens gets shorter because you are trying to image a sphere on a flat plane, film. The corner stretch and round objects go to ellipses.
35 mm is about as far as one can go. After that, the corners and then near corners get progressively worse. How noticeable this is depends on the subject matter.
Map makers have exactly the same problem. Look up the different kinds or projections they use to image a hemisphere. For the most critical work, the map only a small area.
Navigation is done by GPS now and sextents, chronographs, dividers, parallel guides, and maps are a back up system or parallel system.
To try perspective out, hold up your thumb at arms length. Notice how small it is compared to a distant subject. Now moce it closer and it appears larger compared to the distant object.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I appreciate what you are saying Ron - you are absolutely right. However, in practice, wide angle shots tend to display more perspective distortion because of the wide field of view and the urge to use them in close to get the desired framing. It is in that context that my response applies.
In terms of perspective distortion, I'd have to go with 28. 21 is too wide for this at close distances. I've not shot a lot with 24/25, but I know sometimes depending on my framing, 28 can get a bit squirrelly at the edges of the long side.
Typically, if I'm shooting people close in with a 28, I don't have to worry too much unless I put there heads in maybe the last 15% on either edge of the long side, particularly the corners. However, I typically don't feel the urge to frame like that anyway, so I basically don't worry about perspective distortion at 28mm on an M (when you are limited to a minimum distance of .7m).
For shots further away, I've had decent success at 21mm. 15mm invariably has some since it's hard to make sure everything is equally far away at such a wide focal length.
In terms of perspective distortion, I'd have to go with 28. 21 is too wide for this at close distances. I've not shot a lot with 24/25, but I know sometimes depending on my framing, 28 can get a bit squirrelly at the edges of the long side.
Typically, if I'm shooting people close in with a 28, I don't have to worry too much unless I put there heads in maybe the last 15% on either edge of the long side, particularly the corners. However, I typically don't feel the urge to frame like that anyway, so I basically don't worry about perspective distortion at 28mm on an M (when you are limited to a minimum distance of .7m).
For shots further away, I've had decent success at 21mm. 15mm invariably has some since it's hard to make sure everything is equally far away at such a wide focal length.
chirantanpatnaik
Newbie
Thanks, yeah i agree that a lens does not change perspective, but the way it draws it tries to stretch areas from the sides does make pictures look 'unreal' sometimes.
However, i've also hear reviews about how the Zeiss 18mm is virtually distortion free and hence great for architecture etc. So maybe it also depends on the lens design, perhaps.
i havent tried out a 28, but something tells me a 25 zeiss may be quite good for the job.
You know, apart from aesthetics related to 'corner stretching', their is also the added headache of color shifts, slight vignettes etc. coding or no.
-Chirantan
However, i've also hear reviews about how the Zeiss 18mm is virtually distortion free and hence great for architecture etc. So maybe it also depends on the lens design, perhaps.
i havent tried out a 28, but something tells me a 25 zeiss may be quite good for the job.
You know, apart from aesthetics related to 'corner stretching', their is also the added headache of color shifts, slight vignettes etc. coding or no.
-Chirantan
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I think the original question was to see if there might be some consensus as to how wide we can go without the wide-angle effects becoming too obvious.
Personally, I use 15, 18, and 20mm lenses on a Nikon SLR; for the M, I use 21, 24, 28, and 35. I love the 24mm focal length, but I could not say that no oddities of drawing are visible at the extreme edges and corners. If the goal is to minimize these effects to a point that is at or below the threshold of awareness, I'd have to name 28mm as the widest lens that does not call attention to itself for being wide-angle. It adds a sense of space and openness that, while perhaps not 100% realistic, is pictorially pleasant.
Finally, I would name the 35mm focal length as the 'Natural Vision" angle of view, that sees the world a lot like I do.
Hope that's helpful.
Personally, I use 15, 18, and 20mm lenses on a Nikon SLR; for the M, I use 21, 24, 28, and 35. I love the 24mm focal length, but I could not say that no oddities of drawing are visible at the extreme edges and corners. If the goal is to minimize these effects to a point that is at or below the threshold of awareness, I'd have to name 28mm as the widest lens that does not call attention to itself for being wide-angle. It adds a sense of space and openness that, while perhaps not 100% realistic, is pictorially pleasant.
Finally, I would name the 35mm focal length as the 'Natural Vision" angle of view, that sees the world a lot like I do.
Hope that's helpful.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I agree distortion and convergence are being mixed here...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Brian Legge
Veteran
That is one of the most dangerous thinks about flickr for me. I like searching for gear to see example shots when people make claims about it. I sort of 'interesting' to see good uses and by 'recent' to see more typical work shots.
You never know how accurate the search is or how photoshopped the pictures are, but I figure if I look at enough shots by different people I should get a bit of a sense.
Here is the Zeiss 18mm for reference:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Zeiss+18mm&ss=2&s=int
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Zeiss+18mm&ss=2&s=rec
You never know how accurate the search is or how photoshopped the pictures are, but I figure if I look at enough shots by different people I should get a bit of a sense.
Here is the Zeiss 18mm for reference:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Zeiss+18mm&ss=2&s=int
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Zeiss+18mm&ss=2&s=rec
tlitody
Well-known
the Zeiss C Biogon T* 4,5/21 ZM is distortion free. Approx 0.1% at 15mm from lens axis but you'd have to be looking very hard to see it. But is it fast enough for you?
The zeiss 18 f4 is just less than 1% distortion at the edges. The 25 F2.8 is about 0.7% distortion at the edges. Anything less than 1% is very little and you won't notice it. The star performer is the C Biogon T* 4,5/21 but at the price of a speed loss.
The zeiss 15 F2.8 is just under 4% distortion at the edges. You can compare data sheets from zeiss and leica but any lens with 1% or less is going to be a lot less distortion than a 15mm lens.
But if you want to keep perspective effects under control, then keep your film plane vertical. i.e. camera not tilted up or down. Then its just a question of not having something close to lens as that will exagerate near / far relationships when using short focal lengths.
I think a 21mm lens would be fine unless you get really close to subject. Depnds on your typical shooting distance.
The zeiss 18 f4 is just less than 1% distortion at the edges. The 25 F2.8 is about 0.7% distortion at the edges. Anything less than 1% is very little and you won't notice it. The star performer is the C Biogon T* 4,5/21 but at the price of a speed loss.
The zeiss 15 F2.8 is just under 4% distortion at the edges. You can compare data sheets from zeiss and leica but any lens with 1% or less is going to be a lot less distortion than a 15mm lens.
But if you want to keep perspective effects under control, then keep your film plane vertical. i.e. camera not tilted up or down. Then its just a question of not having something close to lens as that will exagerate near / far relationships when using short focal lengths.
I think a 21mm lens would be fine unless you get really close to subject. Depnds on your typical shooting distance.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
The Zeiss 18mm (or any other extreme wide angle lens) being relatively distortion free relates to how well a lens draws a rectilinear image. This is something different from the seemingly un-natural perspective at the edge of the frame. In reality this is the correct perspective, but the print is being viewed from the wrong distance.
experiment:
Take an 8"x10" print from a full frame image shot with a 35mm lens. Close one eye, and hold the print at 10" from your eye. The 10" is a about the proportional equivalent of the position of the lens to the film (35mm lens, and the long side of the negative is 36mm).
You are now in your minds eye recreating the perspective of the original scene. Every print will have an ideal viewing position from where the perspective seems natural.
If you now take picture of the same scene from the same spot with an 18mm lens and print it at 16"x20" (the smaller print should overlay nicely in the middle), and view it from the same distance, it will look natural too. You may have trouble seeing the whole image at once because you are so close to it, but the perspective at the edges will 'correct itself'.
In practice we view most images from greater than ideal distances, and as a result those edges look 'distorted'. Any lens wider than 35mm is likely to 'distort' subjects close to the edge of the frame in this way to some degree. Keeping the closest things in the frame away from the edge can limit this effect.
experiment:
Take an 8"x10" print from a full frame image shot with a 35mm lens. Close one eye, and hold the print at 10" from your eye. The 10" is a about the proportional equivalent of the position of the lens to the film (35mm lens, and the long side of the negative is 36mm).
You are now in your minds eye recreating the perspective of the original scene. Every print will have an ideal viewing position from where the perspective seems natural.
If you now take picture of the same scene from the same spot with an 18mm lens and print it at 16"x20" (the smaller print should overlay nicely in the middle), and view it from the same distance, it will look natural too. You may have trouble seeing the whole image at once because you are so close to it, but the perspective at the edges will 'correct itself'.
In practice we view most images from greater than ideal distances, and as a result those edges look 'distorted'. Any lens wider than 35mm is likely to 'distort' subjects close to the edge of the frame in this way to some degree. Keeping the closest things in the frame away from the edge can limit this effect.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
There are three different things: distortion (barrel, for example), parallel verticals convergence or divergence (aiming up or down), and deformation (circles to ellipses, wider faces and bodies) of subjects near the extremes... And tastes are as different as people: I just care about (barrel) distortion...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Mister E
Well-known
Lots of my shots up there.
chirantanpatnaik
Newbie
Exactly! That's what i've meant by my post, sorry if i got perspective and distortion mixed up.
And thanks to others for the insight.
-Chirantan
leicashot
Well-known
28mm. 24mm isn't too bad if you understand how to use it carefully, especially when tilting the frame.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I know this point has already been made, but it's worth repeating. When people say that about a lens (or the 21/4.5, or the 35/2, etc.) they are talking about geometric/rectilinear distortion stemming from the lens design. They are NOT talking about objects close to the camera getting stretched out near the frame edges/corners. That is perspective 'distortion' (to use the word loosely) and it's only a function of subject to camera distance, not focal length or lens design. It appears more in wide angle shots for a variety of reasons, but that's a different topic.
Using a lens with little or no distortion, such as the 21/4.5, for architecture is nice because straight lines in real life end up as straight in the photo. That's what people mean when they say a lens is virtually distortion free.
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
28mm is the widest wide that doesn't say WIDE-ANGLE LENS USED HERE. A 28mm has a very natural look and is wide enough to easily tell a story and build relationships between picture elements. At 24mm, things usually start to look a little unnatural to my eye, a bit surreal. People start to look too big or too small. I love 24mm and wider, and any lens can be used to tell a story, but I feel that at 24mm and wider the lens starts to get "in the picture", so to speak. 24mm and wider too easily becomes unflattering to people who are near the lens and requires extra care, whereas 28mm still (usually) looks OK.
Last edited:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
I've shot literally thousands of images using two CV lenses- the first generation 12mm and the 15mm lenses respectively. I need to get my flickr account up to date (ie: pay for an annual account so I can display my gallery). Both of these lenses are rectilinear so distortion is limited mainly to composition and not a direct component of the lenses themselves; although getting the "composition" correct so distortion is not an issue can be challenging especially when taking street shots.
Take a look at this shot with my 15mm CV lens. I'll post more images as soon as I get them out of flicker jail
ST
Take a look at this shot with my 15mm CV lens. I'll post more images as soon as I get them out of flicker jail
ST
