back alley
IMAGES
ok, from the other thread that i started on wides i got some very interesting replies and a few surprises too.
it triggered this questions...
do you think ultra wides (whatever that means to you) are a legitimate lens or more of a gimmick lens, used for effect only?
joe
it triggered this questions...
do you think ultra wides (whatever that means to you) are a legitimate lens or more of a gimmick lens, used for effect only?
joe
MadMan2k
Well-known
Legitimate, if you know how to use them. My 8mm fisheye is almost too wide on film though, so it's closer to a gimmick lens...
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
What are you calling ultrawide? I use the 15 for tight interiors, like small chapel interiors where you simply can't back up. The lens needs to be rectilinear, though.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I think a lens (a technique, a style…) can only be considered a “gimmick” if it is used as a substitute for good composition, light, etc….
If the only thing an image has going for it is “wow, that’s wide,” then yea, it’s a gimmick.
If the only thing an image has going for it is “wow, that’s wide,” then yea, it’s a gimmick.
back alley
IMAGES
do you think ultra wides (whatever that means to you)...
aizan
Veteran
you just need a good reason.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
What Steve said, with an additional comment: the "problem" with ultra-wides is that they are overused only to cram as much of the scene as possible in the frame, without thinking about composition or how distortion is going to affect the scene.
Just like HDR: poor overuse by many who don't really understand the reason behind its application just creates a heap of "gimmickry", when in the right hands, it *could* be a wonderful tool.
Just like HDR: poor overuse by many who don't really understand the reason behind its application just creates a heap of "gimmickry", when in the right hands, it *could* be a wonderful tool.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
If a lens allows you to get an important photo (you'll know what that means when you see it) that you could not get otherwise, then an ultrawide is OK. These are the keys, I think. Otherwise, such a lens will just sit in a camera bag and add weight/gather dust/shrink bank account.
Ron
Ron
Last edited:
bmicklea
RF Newbie
I'm with Steve 100% on this - if the first reaction upon seeing the picture is "wow that's one hell of a wide lens" then you've failed as a photographer. But that's not the fault of the lens 
I'm actually toying with the idea of getting a 12mm or 15mm as I've found myself using my 21 a lot. There's certainly a challenge to finding a good vantage point and sufficient fore-, mid- and background interest, but when it comes together it really works. Most of my pictures that friends (non-photographers) comment on are taken with the 21 and show a real layering of information from front to back.
Certainly I can't picture using a 12 or 15 as much as I use my 21 but there are times (like indoors) when I do wish for the extra width. Problem is indoors is typically dark and a 5.6 or f8 lens is going to be a challenge. That's what's kept me away...
I'm actually toying with the idea of getting a 12mm or 15mm as I've found myself using my 21 a lot. There's certainly a challenge to finding a good vantage point and sufficient fore-, mid- and background interest, but when it comes together it really works. Most of my pictures that friends (non-photographers) comment on are taken with the 21 and show a real layering of information from front to back.
Certainly I can't picture using a 12 or 15 as much as I use my 21 but there are times (like indoors) when I do wish for the extra width. Problem is indoors is typically dark and a 5.6 or f8 lens is going to be a challenge. That's what's kept me away...
ikiru
Established
I find my CV 15mm to be a useful lens, and not at all a gimmick... It can be a great P&S travel lens, set the focus and point in the direction of interest, and snap to capture what you see.
I'm heading to the airport in a few hours and trying to decide what to bring, and it is either, Hexar AF, or m2 +15 + 50
I'm heading to the airport in a few hours and trying to decide what to bring, and it is either, Hexar AF, or m2 +15 + 50
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You know you'll take all four, don't kid yourself, ikiru
oscroft
Veteran
Before I could try to answer that, you'd have to define "legitimate", "gimmick" and "effect".
back alley
IMAGES
c'mon guys...definitions are yours...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh, I didn't know you wanted definitions.back alley said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_angle_lens
http://www.answers.com/topic/wide-angle-lens-1
back alley
IMAGES
smart ass...
i am not looking for definitions but for those that are i say use YOUR OWN and don't depend on me for them.
joe
i am not looking for definitions but for those that are i say use YOUR OWN and don't depend on me for them.
joe
The photos posted in the other thread look pretty legit to me.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Ah. Oh. My vadd.
:bang:
:bang:
Sparrow
Veteran
It depends on the subject and what you want to say about the subject, we take a family holiday to Corfu each year and when we’re in town it’s packed with life and movement, anonymous people scooters bikes small cars bustling wherever you look an ultra-wide is how it feels to me, so that’s what I use
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I would add...
When I first started using an ultrawide for my landscapes (10mm on a crop DSLR) I used it to death. I think, for the most part, the individual images passed the stink test (ie, they were good shots, and not just because they were ultrawides) but my overall body of work was becoming gimmicky from relying too heavily on this very distinctive perspective.
When I recognized this, I started forcing myself to go out in the desert with one fixed FL lens only-50mm, 85mm, 135mm and 200mm in turns. As a result, I no longer have to rely on a particular look to get a good shot. I'm confident I can find something to see, no matter what I have on the camera.
When I first started using an ultrawide for my landscapes (10mm on a crop DSLR) I used it to death. I think, for the most part, the individual images passed the stink test (ie, they were good shots, and not just because they were ultrawides) but my overall body of work was becoming gimmicky from relying too heavily on this very distinctive perspective.
When I recognized this, I started forcing myself to go out in the desert with one fixed FL lens only-50mm, 85mm, 135mm and 200mm in turns. As a result, I no longer have to rely on a particular look to get a good shot. I'm confident I can find something to see, no matter what I have on the camera.
DavidH
Overweight and over here
Totally legit - images can have real impact and they are ideal for many subjects - they enable attention-grabbing shots. But...after one or two such shots you get 'tired' of the perspective - it is natural to then want to see closer, more detail, to isolate some of the story from the noise.
As part of an arsenal of lenses - great. If you are trying to create an account of a place/subject/event...? Don't over use them...
This is part of the problem I see in landscape collections - loads of superwide, trying-to-be-clever shots...when what is needed are some closer shots to bring a location to life.
As part of an arsenal of lenses - great. If you are trying to create an account of a place/subject/event...? Don't over use them...
This is part of the problem I see in landscape collections - loads of superwide, trying-to-be-clever shots...when what is needed are some closer shots to bring a location to life.
Last edited: