how wide before you get noticeable distortion?

[-kk-]

im thinking of picking up a wide angle to complement the 40 cron thats stuck on the CL. Im looking at the 21 / 25 / 28 lenses.

im looking to do street shooting and candids with this, so im weary about distorted images at the edges of the frame. what do you think is the widest i can go without dramatic distortion? eg if you have faces on the edges, it should look normal, not stretched in any way.

also, the lenses im looking at are:

21: CV 21/4
25: CV25/4
28: CV28/3.5, biogon (though size is a deterrant)


not really sure what the options are, but would like to hear your opinion. Let me just rule Leica 28 Elmarit out form the get go, its way over my budget (even used).

 

[-kk-]

i should also say, i have high hopes of getting an M7 sometime this year (hopefully soon, finance permitting), so im more inclined towards 28.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

A good lens will not distort.

Where you choose to stand will alter the perspective, but that is not distortion.

If you're close up then you'll see the perspective from being close up.

Their nose may look big.

But as you're right in their face their nose is big compared to what it would look like where you'd normally stand.

For many people 35mm is a normal street lens, others go for 28mm. Some go wider. Different strokes.

Personally I do 40mm with occasional trips into 28mm.

 

[Bryce]

True that what is known as "wide angle distortion" is not... it is a product of standing too close to your subject. So any lens can do it.
Personally I feel 35mm is the minimum length to avoid misshapen heads in a picture unless they are too far off to be a problem. Wider and you have to start paying attention to converging verticals and rainbow shaped horizons. These are avoided by holding the camera level. So it is a matter of how willing you are to learn to use the perspective and what you are willing to do to make use of it.
I like 15mm, and take "serious" pictures with it, but it does take effort. So within the range you are looking at, I'd go at least as wide as 25mm and maybe 21mm; 28 is just not different enough from 40 to my thinking to be worth carrying around.
Have fun!

 

[mfogiel]

I think that 35mm is actually the limit, at 28 mm you start getting slightly ovoid heads at the borders, even with fairly well corrected lenses - according to Erwin Puts, the 28/2.8 Elmarit ASPH is the best corrected 28 mm lens for rectilinear distorsion, here's an example or two:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1801048870&context=set-72157600129466148&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1862002008&context=set-72157601490684129&size=l
I wouldn't go shorter than that, even if the 21/4.5 and 25/2.8 Biogons are very well corrected, you cannot avoid the planetary like distorsion away from the center.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There is a form of distortion with wide-angles that is completely independent of lens quality, and it is somewhat Jesuitical not to call it distortion: if a ball is stretched into an oval, that's pretty much distortion in anyone's book.

As to when it becomes noticeable/unacceptable, that depends on what you're shooting and what you regard as acceptable. Certainly a 21mm lens will give people very funny-shaped heads near the edge of the frame -- so don't shoot pics with people's heads near the edge of the frame! With 24/25mm it will be a bit less obvious and with 28mm it's rarely a problem at all -- but it can be.

Personally I'd go for a 21 out of those three, but hey, that's just me. I almost never use 28mm and although I've had them in the past, I don't currently own a 24/25mm, though I'm leaning more and more towards one for the M8.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[nksyoon]

For me personally, a 28mm is OK, while a 24mm results in oval heads near the edge.

 

[ferider]

28 is OK for close up portraits, and a great match to 40.

35 is a little easier to use. Also, you are limited in your minimum focus due
to RF coupling (important for fast wides), so in a way with 35 you can fill
your frame better. I recommend to avoid 35s with more than .7m
minimum focus.

Here is my favorite 28mm portrait:

Done with an Ultron.

As you see, speed is important if you want to use a wide angle for people.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Rafael]

Here is a street shot that I took with a 21mm lens. I think that this focal length can be used for interesting effect in street photography. But I have never really gotten comfortable with it (I have bought and sold two 21mm lenses). Personally, I find the 28mm focal length to be much more usable. Since getting it a few months back, I have used the Biogon quite extensively. Don't discount it too quickly. It's not that big. And it is certainly a stellar lens.

 

[uhligfd]

I think you are talking about perspective issues here. If you map the globe, something has to give: perspective will stretch the polar region, for example.

So, on a 35mm lens for 35mm film, the car wheel will not get much out of round at the edge of the frame; but more so with a 28mm lens and worse at 21 or 16mm.

You pick your poison and learn your language/optics/physics terms. They rule, not the lens design, price, max aperture, .... ; just plain geometry!

If in doubt try with a pinhole cap and the same thing will happen with it: elliptical tires appear on cars near the edge of the frame ...

 

[RayPA]

I think the 28 is great as a compliment to the 40. I shoot with the 28/3.5, which, despite its speed, I really like. However, I find that when shooting on the street, the 28 stretches a little around the edges, especially when the camera angles are less than perfect. I think it's acceptable, though. I find it tough to "compose" with a 28.

CV 28/3.5 sample:

28/1.9 sample:

.

 

[-kk-]

thanks for all the responses. i should clarify that im thinking of getting this lens with the primary goal of getting hip/grab shots in busy street areas. so wide view is important, as is size, but speed not necessarily so.

yes, i suppose i talking about perspective distortion but i think you know what i mean (see Roger's post for a more articulate explanation). so it looks like im going for a 28 then.

now the fun part begins, choosing lenses!

Ray, i really like the drawing from the 28/3.5, size is a big plus too, though ive been hearing/seeing nothing but great things from the biogon.

decisions, decisions...