ultra wides - real or gimmick?

Then again I could just be a shallow gimmicky person

U4688I1160937687.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Sometimes the field of view with both of your eyes gives you the whole impression for a place/scene. Just selecting only a part of it (using a 35 or 50) will not match you original optical impression.Therefore the message of a crop will be different. This impression e.g. of a landscape scene at Yosemite (that might scream "ANSEL WAS HERE !" back at you) or the walls of lights at TimeSQ in all directions you might try to catch with a CV5.6/12mm. There is no other way to get this on 35mm. For me definately not a gimmic - but a special case, yes of course.
 
i am not looking for definitions but for those that are i say use YOUR OWN and don't depend on me for them.
Click to expand...
Then yes, it's legitimate (but then, who's to say gimmicks aren't legitimate?)
 
IMO, ultrawides should be used for their *perspective effect* and not for edge distortion or "fisheye effects" nor for replacing your feet. The latter has an exception when space behind is limited,of course.
 
Gimmicks have their place, I think.

The widest lens I have and use is a 21mm. I've owned the CV 15mm and sold it and I have used the CV 12mm. I did nothing productive with the 15mm and all of my 12mm shots inspired the 'lookit what I can cram in with 121 degree FOV" reaction.

In my hands, they were just gimmicks - I didn't have the creativity or the vision to make them do anything other than show an extremely wide shot of nothing important. I'm marginally better with the 21, so I stick with it.
 
I just bought a CV 15mm for $380 CAD. Maybe I got ripped off, but I really like the focal length. It lives permenantly on my Zorki 6, now, since I don't have to worry about VF/RF accuracy on a Russian Camera anymore. Not that I don't like the Z6, and not that it isn't deadly accurate, but it would be a waste on the M2.

For street shooting, if the 50mm is the standard issue Colt 45, the 15mm is a sawed off 12-gauge. I loves me some wide-angle distortion, and composing right up close is a neat feeling.
 
Ultrawides are indispensible for:
Architecture- just can't get back far enough, indoors or out.
Telling the whole story- or as nearly as a still photo can. I see "gimimick" when long lenses are used to remove context or fast ones to blur out what the photographer doesn't want you to see. These methods can be just as tasteless as when short lenses are used to make things look silly.
Exaggerating for clarity- Can be a gimmick, but there are times when nothing else will bring the subject into the fore. As I said above, I don't see that as any worse than using long or fast lenses to isolate a subject.
So I think ultrawides are just a tool, powerful enough to be abused. I'd feel pretty limited without the 15mm voigtlander or 47mm angulon (on 6x9).
 
I shot exactly one roll with the CV 15 and concluded that it was not for me. The usual argument in favour of extreme lenses is that some shots are simply impossible to take otherwise; but as far as I'm concerned, these shots mostly just weren't worth it. I don't need special effects lenses; personally I just don't see the return on investment for me.

Philipp
 
Last edited:
I have quite often used a 15 on the Pentax and the 20 even more. The widest I go on the Leica is a 25 Biogon. I could be tempted by a 21 for the Leica but not anything wider.

Someone once wrote on a Pentax forum that the 15 is not a lens that you would carry in your everyday bag but when needed it is indispensible. I would go along with that. It is an invaluable tool for working in confined spaces and for specific jobs. Whenever I have tried it in "everyday" photography, I have never been really happy with the reults. They do tend to look gimmicky or false. Also, it is not an easy lens to use. This would be especially true on an RF. The results can become very weird if it is tilted eveb slightly and the perspective distortion would be difficult to visualise . Much less of a problem with an SLR.

The 20 is much, much less extreme and could be used for everyday photog once you got used to it. The framing difficulties are less and I would quite like to try one with the Leica. The 2 lenses I use most for RF are the 25 Biogon and the 28 Elmarit so I am a wide sort of person. Even so, I would have to get a secondhand 21 to try out because I am not sure I would be that happy with it on an RF and may well then resell it.

For me, the ultra wides are specialized lenses rather than gimmicks. Rather like macros, soft focus portrait lenses etc; very useful in their own area. They can be used for "everyday" work but are certainly not ideal. Again, IMHO, they are better suited to SLRs in the same way long lenses and macros are.

Kim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom