Why Super Wide??

[nemjo]

The easy answer: why not...
OTOH I find my 15's perspective very similar to how one see by eyes.
Without turning the head nor eyes one can see at least 120 - I never mesaured it.
By cropping the upper and lower zones I find it very useful for panoramic landscapes.
and so on... so why not?

In this May the only filmcamera was the Bessa R with an CV15 on it with me. Some of the results can be seen here : http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5128

nemjo

 

[sf]

Why?

Why?

Why superwide? Because.

The lens is as important as the film most of the time. Or at least can have as much of an impact as the film. You choose a lens for the same reasons you choose film or time of day or subject or camera, etc. Because it helps you capture or create what you see in your mind's eye. Or it allows you. Sometimes, you need a superwide, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you need a long lens, sometimes you don't. And when you want it long or wide. . . . you just want what you want. Long or wide. And if you can, you get it. I tend to prefer wider lenses for landscapes and normal to 100mm (35mm) for portraits.

Or maybe you just like superwide lenses. I know I do. My Fujinon 75mm SWD was hot. And the Zeiss Hologons and Biogons are pretty gorgeous pieces of glass. I think I almost enjoyed just looking at my Fujinon as much as shooting with it.

 

[Bertram2]

One would use a super wide when it would give the result that is desired and when there is no more room to back up. I don't need to go any wider than the CV25mm personally.

My limit too and let me add something, risking Joe will find me beeing "so very practical" again 😀 :

One thing that seems to be forgotten is the fact that all focal lengths were made because of practical reasons, as more of less specialized tools for a clearly focussed purpose, each of them beeing a compromise, paying with bad effects for their specialized abilities
.
Playing with the exaggerated perspectives of the super-specialized lenses like a 15 or a 600 far away of all original intentions is walking on a thin ice. It often leads to "funny" results, which aren't creative at all tho. Just funny, and after a while one gets tired of this kinda "fun" and the lens collects dust on the shelf.

I spoke of "misunderstandig" in my last post and there are many concerning super wides.

One is that many folks simply do not realize that the angle of view is also given vertically and after the first landscapes the lens drives them insane because they don't kow how to get rid of that damn huge amount of foreground and sky .
First then they realize that what they had looked for was a panorama camera.

Personally I would not buy a super wide if I weren't sure I really need it because of practical reasons, too seldom I had ever and still have today the feeling they would be worth an attempt from creative reasons .

But : To each his own kinda creativity, "De gustibus non desputandum est" ( About taste you cannot argue) 😉 And I take it all too seriousy anyway, mostly.

Best,

bertram

A BIT MORE SERIOUSNESS; GENTLEMEN !!! CONCENTRATE !!!!!!!!

A Latin teacher in school, while we translated the Ars Amandi of Ovid (The Art of Loving) at the age of 16 😀









.

 

[peter_n]

Just a completely different perspective. Everything is in focus with a 15 or 21, all you need is a viewfinder and you can snap away. A 15 is fantastic in very tight spaces and is just sheer fun, at not too many $$$.

 

[Theo-Prof]

The closest image I can get in my head is a dolly zoom in film ... er ... movies.

Perhaps I am a little ignorant where motion picture nomenclature is concerned. By "dolly zoom" do you mean when the camera is moved back while the camera is zoomed in (such as the shot in "The Fellowship of the Rings" just before the Hobbits first encounter the Wraith on the horse), or the camera is moved forward while the lens is zoomed out to a wider focal length? If so, this is precisely what is meant by change in relative perspective due to lens focal length.

However, the difference in perspective is due to the position of the camera relative to the subject matter. If you just change lenses, say, to a shorter focal length, all the objects in the scene maintain the same perspective relative to one another, although they will all be smaller. However, if you move closer in order to maintain the same image size for your main subject then the relationship between objects in the scene changes. The foreground "looms" while the background receeds. If you move back and switch to a longer focal length to maintain the size of your main subject, then the whole image is compressed.

Kevin

 

[RML]

One is that many folks simply do not realize that the angle of view is also given vertically and after the first landscapes the lens drives them insane because they don't kow how to get rid of that damn huge amount of foreground and sky .
First then they realize that what they had looked for was a panorama camera.

I think you may on to something here, Bertram. I never thought about really. I started out with a Noblex 35mm pano camera (indeed an expensive little gadget). I used it for a while until I fell back on my Eos and a new cheap consumer 22-55mm zoom lens. Only then did I realise I needed I super wide angle lens instead of a pano camera. When I got my first RF camera, a Bessa L (I was already used to the viewfinder approach from the Noblex), I got it with the CV 25/4. It was just the right ticket for me. I don't use the L much anymore but the 25 sees enough action still (though I really do need that R-D1 adjusted 25mm VF).

 

[Pherdinand]

i had the same issue, Bertram. Everything i wanted was included in the FOV of the 17mm lens, even much more...and everything was so damn small that the image got "empty". With all that stuff inside. The whole roll i've shot was useless empty frames with distant tiny objects.
Then i really understood what people mean by using the perspective and started to kneel down or lie donw on my belly for a shot, to include small foreground objects that are a few cm away from my lens, or to fill the frame with large things that are reeeeally large. Sure, the perspective gets funky this way, but sometimes it's good.
example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3808031&size=lg

 

[RML]

Good G*d, Csab'! That's one heck of an angle and perspective! It's giving me vertigo!

 

[Bertram2]

Everything i wanted was included in the FOV of the 17mm lens, even much more...and everything was so damn small that the image got "empty". With all that stuff inside.
Then i really understood what people mean by using the perspective....

...ore using the lens as it is thought to be used , one could say.
It was said by one member here the 15mm would come closest to what he regards to be the natural human angle of view and that is one of the basic misunderstandings which lead to the wish to have a real wide lens.
Actually the 15mm angle ( 95° ?) is NOT our AOV but it seems to be because we have a certain perception outside of our AOV. We are used to MOVE our eyes permanently and keep this as our AOV ! 🙂
To emulate this kind of viewing a pano does a better job, that's what I meant with a " misundestanding". Rene came the other way round from the pano to the super- wide and so THIS kinda misunderstandind and disappointment could not happen to him.

One reason why I am getting a bit more careful with the use of my 25 is that i had to recognize that I was a victim of a kind of of "over adapting process".
This means the 25 got something like a standard lens for me, mostly because the large DOF making it so fast as a snapshot lens , since a year or so almost 90% of my shots were wides !
And suddenly I had to face that I had messed photos using a 25 where the 50 solely could have done it properly. :bang:

Made me first angry and very thoughtful later about my use of different AOVs and the right lenses for those. BUT, and this is the good thing, this proved to me my other lenses do have their purpose too and now I simply try to learn always to take the right one. Obviously it isn't as easy as I thought. ( My permanent experience in this world 🙄 )

Sometimes I read "I am on the wide side" or " I am a 21 man" and similar statements and remembering my own experiences i think guys don't try to be a X or a Y or anything, better think about your preferences instead , how you gained them and why you keep them and if they are still good or if you simply got used too much to make you photography fit to one focal lenght.

In that state of over-adaption one uses a 50 sometimes and thinks , hehe, looks like a tele now. Not funny at at tho, just stupid ! 😀
Because a wrong perception or forgotten ability does not proof that your monomania is a healthy thing, right ? 😀
Well, to live means to learn anything permanently, if there is nothing left to learn the thrill is gone too..

Regards,
Bertram

 

[RML]

To emulate this kind of viewing a pano does a better job, that's what I meant with a " misundestanding". Rene came the other way round from the pano to the super- wide and so THIS kinda misunderstandind and disappointment could not happen to him.

Remy, not Rene, but I've called Greg for some 10 years by a local Quik-e-Mart owner so I won't hold it against you, Bertram. 🙂 The man just couldn't get around mt real name so I just let it slide.

And suddenly I had to face that I had messed photos using a 25 where the 50 solely could have done it properly. :bang:

Know the feeling. Nowadays, when deciding which lenses to bring I bring the 25 and the 50. Using the R-D1 with its 1.5x crop factor makes me "see" more with a short tele view. I never was much interested in the 85mm I have but it's becoming more natural (with the 50 at 1.5x crop). The only thing is that the 25 is nearer to 40 now, which is a good length but not why I bring the 25. That's why I'm still longing for a 15mm, which will give me back that super wide angle I rather ften need.

 

[Bertram2]

Remy, not Rene, .[/QUOTE

Sorry, I have to excuse myself ! The name issue wasn't ever easy for me but since a while it's getting worse........... 🙁

Worst is that I myself don't like people very much who handle names in a thoughtless manner, aaarrghh !!

Bertram
"What a drag it is gettiing older !" (Rolling Stones)

 

[Vagabond]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank everyone for the great feedback and the fine examples. It has really been helpful.

Now I just have to figure out if my next acquisition will be in the vicinity of a 75 or 21!!!

Regards to all,

Bill