The purpose of extreme wides?

[Tim Gray]

Cool dam shot!

 

[angeloks]

Thanks guys ! I'm glad you like them. The 12mm Heliar is a great lens. BTW, one thing I love about it, is the way it flares.

 

[Sparrow]

High places work too ...





... of course there are always people who can't cope with them

 

[FrankS]

I find that a 28 is a pretty good walking around lens, and the 21 works when a wide angle is desired.

 

[semilog]

ZM 18/4 and 21/4.5:


20111124-proof_1142_006 by Semilog, on Flickr


Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr


untitled by Semilog, on Flickr


20111123-proof_1138_025 by Semilog, on Flickr

 

[konicaman]

Wow - a lot of stunning photos here. I should not have started this thread - I am getting a serious GAS attack 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I originally bought mine for shooting interiors, especially for a book on the American Civil War. Then I started to use them for other things. But generally, unless you have a specific use for something, it's not a good idea to buy it, i.e. if you have to ask what it's for, you don't have a use for it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[VinceC]

Many cool examples. In a lot of cases, extreme ultrawides give me a sense that cropped down to about 24mm image, they might be just as powerful.

One of the main reasons ultrawides became so popular (and so familiar in our visual terms of reference) is that they were quickly adopted by news photographers upon creation of the first 21mm and wider lenses. The main reason for that is that news photographers often need to push their way to the very front of a crowded scene and then often find themselves so close that they need a 21mm or wider to be able to capture the scene with some context. Once the look became familiar, advanced amateurs wanted it as well.

 

[mile]

Nice Thread. 🙂

I digged out some image from my local library. Shot with a 15/4.5 Super-Wide Heliar which I had borrowed for a day some time ago.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Sparrow]

I got my 12mm for interiors originally ...




... perfect for European hotel rooms, but any tight space will benefit. Like this subway (the British type of 8ft wide pedestrian subway that is)

 

[Richard G]

In the Elliott Erwitt volume in the Masters of Contemporary Photographers series by Thames and Hudson he cites the need of a 21 in his portrait of Buckminster Fuller. They were in a helicopter above his geodesic dome and the light was poor and he was only inches away from Fuller and he wanted depth of field sufficient to have the dome discernible. 21.

I don't see it as so radical a focal length. I love 25 and have taken that as my only lens often. I don't have 28. If I did I might be like many and make my next widest 21. For interiors it's a must. And without a view camera or a Nikkor PC it's the only was to get straight verticals of tallish buildings as you don't need to tilt up to include the top. As some of the posts show, perfectly flat towards the subject it can look quite ordinary as a lens.

You can't tell that this is with a 21:


Barkers by Richard GM2, on Flickr

I walked around for weeks with just a 21 when I got it not so long ago. It works here: the DS floats in space:


La Déesse by Richard GM2, on Flickr

 

[Monz]

With Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 super wide-heliar:


The Mothership by *monz*, on Flickr



Circles and Curves by *monz*, on Flickr



Selfridges & Co by *monz*, on Flickr



Drunken Yoofs by *monz*, on Flickr



Displaced NYC Taxi by *monz*, on Flickr



Magnificent Malvern Hills by *monz*, on Flickr



Break Off! by *monz*, on Flickr

 

[rogerzilla]

If you keep the camera back vertical, a 21mm lens doesn't have to give "superwide"-looking images. Try shooting things like railway locomotives inside their sheds and the need for a very wide lens quickly becomes apparent.

Otherwise, just exploit the huge depth of field and the way it exaggerates distances.

 

[tbarker13]

Almost every time I try a lens wider than 28 (and sometimes even a 28), I find myself wondering why I bother. Extreme wides just don't work all that well with my eye.
I think I've pretty much given up on them. Give me a 35, 50 and 90 and I'm quite happy.

 

[filmtwit]

Effect for the sake of effect?

 

[Sparrow]

Effect for the sake of effect?

... could well be ...



... but then what else is there?

 

[monkeypainter]

Heliar 15mm on a M2. It wasn't easy to get it right!


Stratospherique by Monkeypainter, on Flickr

 

[dave lackey]

Heliar 15mm on a M2. It wasn't easy to get it right!


Stratospherique by Monkeypainter, on Flickr

Well done! Did you use an external VF?:angel:

 

[monkeypainter]

Well done! Did you use an external VF?:angel:

Well, it was mounted, but it was impossible to look through it as I had tu push the camera firmly *into the window*. I shot 3 or 4 times and hoped th get the right frame. Only one shot did.

 

[monkeypainter]

Well done! Did you use an external VF?:angel:

I was so happy with the result that now everytime I fly, I try the same shot:


Stratospherique II by Monkeypainter, on Flickr