Thoughts on wides...

[hepcat]

I have done some architectural work of late, both interiors and exteriors where I ended up stitching because my 28mm wasn't quite wide enough. My lens lineup includes the VC 28mm f/2 at the widest end. I'm considering picking up the new VC 21mm f/1.8 which will, of course, require a shoe-mount finder as well.

I have never been much for accessory finders 'cause they're kind of a pain to use, but I'm looking for a little insight here. Can the 21mm make the 28mm redundant? Selling the 28 f/2 would help pay for the 21mm, and I really don't use the 28mm all that much in "regular shooting" (whatever that means.) I also have the VC 35mm f/1.2 V1 so the 21/28 isn't my only wide, and I prefer the 35 for "regular" use.

Other than losing the "widest wide" that will use the VF/RF framing, What am I missing?

 

[VinceC]

I never find much overlap between the two (21mm and 28mm) and carry them both. If cost is an issue, you could get a 21/4, which also is considerably lighter and smaller.

 

[hepcat]

Thanks for the thought, Vince. I find I seldom use the 28 except for architectural kinds of things, and I think the 21 would serve better in that regard. I do frequently, however, use wide apertures. I think the only thing I'm giving up is the internal viewfinder framing, and frankly as an eyeglass wearer, that's not all it's cracked up to be anyway. I have considered the 21mm f/4 though... and that may be an alternative.

 

[Richard G]

The 21 can make the 28 redundant, yes. You'd be missing nothing. I was almost going to pass on ever getting an RF 28. I have one and I love it and I could use it all day. Since I have it I now sometimes don't have the 21 in my bag, as the 28 does well for quite a bit of architecture. Having a 21 and a 25 was the reason it took me so long to consider the 28. If I am out shooting buildings etc I will take the 21 not the 28. Control of the film plane, horizontal and vertical, is much more important with the 21, but I don't think you are losing anything by swapping the 28 for the 21 if 35 is your preferred non-ultra-wide.

OK. The 21 4.5 ZM Zeiss I have is great. I often use it on the M9 without the accessory finder. I am mainly using it for architectural shots in black and white. While I don't mind accessory finders and even like them, I frame with it and then do the final alignment in the camera viewfinder to make use of the rangefinder patch and the 90 frame lines to fine tune the centre and the orientation. I would not want to be without the 21. I have the ZM 18 too, occasionally indispensible, but it is big, and only goes in the bag for specific excursions.

 

[rjschell]

I do a lot of architectures & interiors. Personally, I limit myself to 28mm and stitch if I need a little more image. Ask yourself "is the perspective friendly to the subject?". Especially with residential work, extreme WA distorts shapes in foreground & edges. Sometimes, less is better - be selective. If you must go wider, I would get a 24mm. What camera body are you using?

 

[oftheherd]

My widest lens in 35mm RF is a 35mm for my Kiev (I do have a 50mm for my Super Press). I don't like 35mm FOV because it is not wide enough for me. But in SLR, I tend to "see" wide more that long. My widest in 35mm is an 18mm that I really like.

First, I think RF wide is usually a different lens design, and may have less distortion. Users with wider RF lenses will correct me if I am wrong. But my experience with wide SLR, 28mm, 24mm, and 18mm, is that they sure are useful. They aren't needed all the time, but when needed, they are just what you need. The distortion can be a problem, but not needing to point the lens up or down can also prevent such distortion as keystoning.

If you are successfully using stitching software that is giving you photos your clients like, perhaps you don't need wider angle lenses. The "look" will be different between the two types of shots.

 

[hepcat]

The 21 can make the 28 redundant, yes. You'd be missing nothing. I was almost going to pass on ever getting an RF 28. I have one and I love it and I could use it all day. Since I have it I now sometimes don't have the 21 in my bag, as the 28 does well for quite a bit of architecture. Having a 21 and a 25 was the reason it took me so long to consider the 28. If I am out shooting buildings etc I will take the 21 not the 28. Control of the film plane, horizontal and vertical, is much more important with the 21, but I don't think you are losing anything by swapping the 28 for the 21 if 35 is your preferred non-ultra-wide.

Thanks Richard. I appreciate your perspective.

I do a lot of architectures & interiors. Personally, I limit myself to 28mm and stitch if I need a little more image. Ask yourself "is the perspective friendly to the subject?". Especially with residential work, extreme WA distorts shapes in foreground & edges. Sometimes, less is better - be selective. If you must go wider, I would get a 24mm. What camera body are you using?

I'm primarily using an M9-P. The reviews on the VC 21mm suggest that the lens has almost no distortion, which is hard to fathom but photos I've seen from the lens tend to bear that out.

First, I think RF wide is usually a different lens design, and may have less distortion. Users with wider RF lenses will correct me if I am wrong. But my experience with wide SLR, 28mm, 24mm, and 18mm, is that they sure are useful. They aren't needed all the time, but when needed, they are just what you need. The distortion can be a problem, but not needing to point the lens up or down can also prevent such distortion as keystoning.

If you are successfully using stitching software that is giving you photos your clients like, perhaps you don't need wider angle lenses. The "look" will be different between the two types of shots.

I've been reasonably successful with stitching with the 28 f/2. Here's a couple of examples I've done recently. The courthouse is a six exposure stitch with heavy tilt/swing corrections in PS and the sky burned in to resemble an old picture postcard, and the kitchen interior was a two or three vertical framed, horizontal pano. Both were done with the 28 f/2.


Woodbury County Courthouse In Sioux City, IA by chief1120, on Flickr

 

[Godfrey]

I have done some architectural work of late, both interiors and exteriors where I ended up stitching because my 28mm wasn't quite wide enough. My lens lineup includes the VC 28mm f/2 at the widest end. I'm considering picking up the new VC 21mm f/1.8 which will, of course, require a shoe-mount finder as well.

I have never been much for accessory finders 'cause they're kind of a pain to use, but I'm looking for a little insight here. Can the 21mm make the 28mm redundant? Selling the 28 f/2 would help pay for the 21mm, and I really don't use the 28mm all that much in "regular shooting" (whatever that means.) I also have the VC 35mm f/1.2 V1 so the 21/28 isn't my only wide, and I prefer the 35 for "regular" use.

Other than losing the "widest wide" that will use the VF/RF framing, What am I missing?

I have both 21/4 and 28/2. The difference between them in terms of FoV is enormous. From a field of view calculator:

• 21mm 81.2H 59.5V 91.7D
  [*] 28mm 65.5H 46.4V 75.4D

That means the 21mm lens will record 60% more than what the 28mm will from the same subject to camera distance.

I've not found that to be much overlap for my uses, but that's a subjective decision for your needs. I do know that I'll fit the 21mm occasionally for when I want that extreme FoV where the 28mm is more amenable to general purpose shooting.

G

 

[willie_901]

Interiors and exteriors benefit from different fields of view.

The 21 would be useful for exteriors where the options for camera location (both distance and height) are limited. I prefer this focal length for taller buildings. Stitching is effective but time is money. So I like to minimize post-processing manipulations when possible. Also, if i don't rely on stitching I know I have what my client needs when I leave the site. I guess I'm insecure about relying on post-processing unless it's unavoidable. However I would much rather use a 50mm lens and place the camera far away.

Interiors are another matter. Using wide fields of view for anything but unusually large spaces is not desirable. The volume anamorphosis distortion (round objects appear oval and square objects appear rectangular) at the frame edges is a major distraction. Anamorphosis distortion is not a lens flaw and it is more apparent as focal length decreases. Generally never use a focal length below 24 mm (for 24x36mm sensors) for typical residential rooms unless the camera can be placed at a distance where anamorphosis distortion is not obvious.

DxO has an anamorphosis distortion correction tool. Newer version of PS can correct anamorphosis distortion with the Free Transform tool. Composition tricks help too. For kitchens if a refrigerator is at the frame edges, put it's center at the frame edge and the anamorphosis distortion makes it appear as if it is'nt cropped. This illusion works for doorways, doors and windows.

 

[lawrence]

I have both 21/4 and 28/2. The difference between them in terms of FoV is enormous.

Yes indeed. When I'm shooting landscapes my standard lens is 28mm and my wide-angle is 21mm. To me they have a very different look and are not by any means interchangeable.

 

[kxl]

I am equally comfortable with the 35 or 50 for everyday shooting.

I could never get used to the FOV from a 28mm, so when looking for something wider than a 35mm, I selected the ZM 25/2.8 - superb lens.

When looking for something even wider I first tried a 21mm, but did not like the FOV. I found that for those occasions when I wante dsomething wider than a 25mm, I wanted something quite a but wider, so I got a ZM 18mm.

But that's just me. If you can get on with the FOV from a 21mm and architecture's your thing, check out the ZM 21/4.5.

 

[hepcat]

Thanks for all of your perspectives, everyone. There are some excellent points made here, and I appreciate the thoughts from practical application. They've given much food for thought. I'm leaning toward adding the 21 and keeping the 28 as well.

I'll keep you posted.

Thanks!