sirius
Well-known
Hi, I have 28mm lens. It distorts people at the edges. How far to I have to be from someone before this stops or will the edges always do that?
Last edited:
using a wide angle, advice needed
- Thread starter sirius
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 24
- Views 2K
sirius
Well-known
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
It'll always do that. Its the distortion effect from the lens. Anything under 28mm shows distortion (I've found 28mm usually shows very exaggerated perspective but no distortion). As you know 15mm to 5mm shows extreme wide/fisheye effects.
If you're photo'ing people you'd be best with 50mm or even 85/90. A wider angle is best for street, large groups, landscape etc (where you need as much in the shot as possible) - where you have someone in front of you like that, framing will be better on a 50mm I should think. EDIT: This is working on the principle that the longer the focal length, the flatter the image, the shorter, the more distortion as the more is crammed into the frame (causing a spherical effect from the lens glass)
If you're photo'ing people you'd be best with 50mm or even 85/90. A wider angle is best for street, large groups, landscape etc (where you need as much in the shot as possible) - where you have someone in front of you like that, framing will be better on a 50mm I should think. EDIT: This is working on the principle that the longer the focal length, the flatter the image, the shorter, the more distortion as the more is crammed into the frame (causing a spherical effect from the lens glass)
Last edited:
sirius
Well-known
Hi Ash, thanks for the reply. This is a 28 mm and it certainly looks distorted to me.
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
I've never used anything less than 50 for portraiture. I used to have a variable lens 50-100ish. It was perfect, and very fast (in M42). That was my portrait lens, and a fixed 135mm as well.
You're right its definitely distorted, my last wide-angle shots were a few city streets and they appeared elongated, but all the lines appeared perpendicular, straight, unwarped.
What lens is it? Possibly stopping down aperture will give more detail, but things will still be warped
You're right its definitely distorted, my last wide-angle shots were a few city streets and they appeared elongated, but all the lines appeared perpendicular, straight, unwarped.
What lens is it? Possibly stopping down aperture will give more detail, but things will still be warped
Ronald M
Veteran
The large appearing limbs are from being close relative to other body parts. Centering the image will not help either. It is a matter of perspective between near and far objects.
Hold your thumb close to your eye and notice how large it is compared to your fingers. Them look at the relationship further away and it goes normal. Your eye did not go to a WA lens, just perspective change.
Any lens will do this, just that a WA allows it more easily.
Hold your thumb close to your eye and notice how large it is compared to your fingers. Them look at the relationship further away and it goes normal. Your eye did not go to a WA lens, just perspective change.
Any lens will do this, just that a WA allows it more easily.
sirius
Well-known
Thanks everyone, good information and advice.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
Ash said:
Ash,
Distortion, or more accurately the perspective exaggeration effect we can see on Sirius' pictures, has nothing to do with focal length. It depends only on the distance to your subject. You can get some perspective exaggeration with a 50mm lens used for close-up shots. The golden rule if you want to avoid any perspective exaggeration, for example in portraiture, is to shoot 1.5 meters (5 feet) or more from your subject. If you want head shots, that means using at least a 90mm.
Cheers,
Abbazz
sirius
Well-known
Thanks Abbazz, that is exactly the advice I was looking for, much obliged.
Last edited:
Glenn2
Well-known
Here's a good way to visualize the effect you are seeing. Shine a flashlight on a wall from several feet away. Move the beam around an area that will represent your film. Make note of the shape of the beam (round). Move close to the wall and shine the light at the same area you imagined to be your film. When the light is aimed at the center its spot will be circular, but if you aim it out near a corner the spot will be oval shaped.
If you keep heads near the center of the frame with wide angles they'll look more normal.
If you keep heads near the center of the frame with wide angles they'll look more normal.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Here is a shot with the VC 28/1.9 Ultron Aspherical lens, close up and near the edge of the frame:
another
the second shot shows some of the distortion you get with wide angles, this guy was less than two foot from my lens. The aspherical elements in this lens minimize (to some degree) the amount of distortion.
here is a good link describing lens characteristics: http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec8.htm
Which 28mm are you using?
Todd
another
the second shot shows some of the distortion you get with wide angles, this guy was less than two foot from my lens. The aspherical elements in this lens minimize (to some degree) the amount of distortion.
here is a good link describing lens characteristics: http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec8.htm
Which 28mm are you using?
Todd
Last edited by a moderator:
BillBingham2
Registered User
Sirius,
I got into photography with a 24/85/200 kit. My 24 nikkor twisted just about everything near the edges. Now I have 25 CV and find the edges are not as bad as I remember my 24. I have yet to have a head go WIDE and I've shot a lot with my 25/L combo.
I think each lens has it's own signature. I've seen a great shots with a 21 and crappy ones with a 35. All I can say is kicking the tires. I love CV lenses and they hold their value so if you do not love it you can filp it without loosing too much.
Good luck.
B2 (;->
I got into photography with a 24/85/200 kit. My 24 nikkor twisted just about everything near the edges. Now I have 25 CV and find the edges are not as bad as I remember my 24. I have yet to have a head go WIDE and I've shot a lot with my 25/L combo.
I think each lens has it's own signature. I've seen a great shots with a 21 and crappy ones with a 35. All I can say is kicking the tires. I love CV lenses and they hold their value so if you do not love it you can filp it without loosing too much.
Good luck.
B2 (;->
sirius
Well-known
I'm using the Ricoh GR digital.
In an other thread they mentioned that the stretching is because there is so little barrel distortion. Once that was mentioned I was reminded of an article I read about this subject and I understand why it is happening now. It is the RFF members mentioned earlier, it is more due to the physics of perspective---convergence, divergence, foreshortening, exaggerated by a WA lens---rather than the lens itself.
I was a little confused by the Web site thinking that I had a problem ... http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/special/index.html click "superior resolution GR lens" > "distortion data"
In an other thread they mentioned that the stretching is because there is so little barrel distortion. Once that was mentioned I was reminded of an article I read about this subject and I understand why it is happening now. It is the RFF members mentioned earlier, it is more due to the physics of perspective---convergence, divergence, foreshortening, exaggerated by a WA lens---rather than the lens itself.
I was a little confused by the Web site thinking that I had a problem ... http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gr/special/index.html click "superior resolution GR lens" > "distortion data"
sirius
Well-known
These comments are helpful because I have seen decent wide angle portraits. Obviously it will take some getting used to.
Here is a portrait off the Ricoh GRD Web site and I can see now that it works because the subject was more central.
quote:
"The texture of skin. The details of a single strand of hair. All is revealed in a subject standing out against a blurred background.
1/68sec, F3.5, ISO64, EV+0.3, (Full-size photo; no trimming)"
Here is a portrait off the Ricoh GRD Web site and I can see now that it works because the subject was more central.
quote:
"The texture of skin. The details of a single strand of hair. All is revealed in a subject standing out against a blurred background.
1/68sec, F3.5, ISO64, EV+0.3, (Full-size photo; no trimming)"
Attachments
Last edited:
sirius
Well-known
Todd, photozone also had this animation which visually make the relationship between perspective and focal length clear. Thanks, http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/demos/focalCompress.htm#
Finder
Veteran
It is called the "wide-angle effect." It is a problem of having a three-dimentional object projected onto a flat two dimensional plane. Also it is not a "distortion" as if you view the image from the optical axis with a viewing distance proportional to the focal length of the lens to the format dimensions, the image will appear normal. Since there is no distortion, there cannot be any correction.
As far as fisheye lenses go, there is also curvalinear distortion at work so more than the wide-angle effect is causing objects to look funny.
As far as fisheye lenses go, there is also curvalinear distortion at work so more than the wide-angle effect is causing objects to look funny.
sleepyhead
Well-known
My technical term for this is "football-head distortion" (American football)
My two cents - I agree with the previous postings, particularly the one illustrated with photos by Todd.Hanz, that not all lenses of the same focal length are created equal when it comes to F-H D.
For example, the 21mm f/3.4 SA that i used to use was quite resistant to it compared to the 20mm f/4 Nikkor (SLR lens) that i also used to use. Clearly the 28mm that sirius is using has got a bad case of the F-H D, while the 28mm Ultron seems pretty darn good.
Personally, I wish lenses wideangles were rated on this distortion, because I hate it and would rather have a lens that minimised it and was less sharp, than a sharp as all hell one with F-H D.
My two cents - I agree with the previous postings, particularly the one illustrated with photos by Todd.Hanz, that not all lenses of the same focal length are created equal when it comes to F-H D.
For example, the 21mm f/3.4 SA that i used to use was quite resistant to it compared to the 20mm f/4 Nikkor (SLR lens) that i also used to use. Clearly the 28mm that sirius is using has got a bad case of the F-H D, while the 28mm Ultron seems pretty darn good.
Personally, I wish lenses wideangles were rated on this distortion, because I hate it and would rather have a lens that minimised it and was less sharp, than a sharp as all hell one with F-H D.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
sleepyhead said:
Geometrical distortion is something that can be corrected for,up to a point, this is where aspherical lenses can be helpful. The problem for the designer is that any correction made in the plane of focus does not hold up in areas that are out of focus, but inside DOF, making it particularly hard to correct for three-dimensional objects like heads. Also, as always the corrections for this error will influence the correction for other errors, notably vignetting and linear distortion in this case. So egg-shaped heads make for headaches 😉.
Different lenses thus make for different results and stopping down will make a difference as well.
Nachkebia
Well-known
Strangly enough I find very little or almost none distortion on my 25 biogon ZM, I was used to heavy distortion from my nikons, I kind of miss it 😀 But maybe it is becasue I can not focus closer then 0.7 (with range finder)
jaapv : How come you did not mention photoshop? you can corrected it right? 😀 😀
jaapv : How come you did not mention photoshop? you can corrected it right? 😀 😀
VinceC
Veteran
I use a 28mm Nikkor quite a lot for portraiture. The trick is to keep faces away from the corners.
It's helpful that, with an Nikon RF, you can't focus closer than 3 feet. But I've also gone in quite a bit closer with a 28mm SLR Nikkor. Lens design might help a bit, but this is mainly caused by the physics of perspective. In an extreme case (like with a 15mm) someone's eyes might be twice the distance from the lens as someone's chin. That IS the perspective, and the lens will show it, whereas the human brain does a lot of PhotoShop-style post-processing to make stuff look "normal".
If you have something in the corners, it works better if that subject/person is facing the camera itself.
It's helpful that, with an Nikon RF, you can't focus closer than 3 feet. But I've also gone in quite a bit closer with a 28mm SLR Nikkor. Lens design might help a bit, but this is mainly caused by the physics of perspective. In an extreme case (like with a 15mm) someone's eyes might be twice the distance from the lens as someone's chin. That IS the perspective, and the lens will show it, whereas the human brain does a lot of PhotoShop-style post-processing to make stuff look "normal".
If you have something in the corners, it works better if that subject/person is facing the camera itself.