wide angle lenses

[zackiedawg]

I wouldn't worry about the barrel distortion, honestly. A few reasons:

1. Part of the unique appeal of a UWA can be that odd perspective it gives - makes it different from other photos.

2. The distortion you are seeing, as mentioned previously, is not lens distortion...it's angular distortion. Rectilinear UWAs like to shoot dead straight ahead, where the rectilinear design can work to keep the straight lines straight. As soon as you tilt up or down at any angle, the perspective quickly goes askew. I also like the close-foreground style with UWAs...but you have to become a bit more interactive by moving your shooting base lower or higher while still shooting straight ahead level, if you want to avoid that perspective skew. Then again, sometimes the perspective skew is a cool effect.

I say revel in the uniqueness that UWA provide - shoot level if you want that drastic wide angle with great straight lines, or shoot skewed at an angle if you want the cool warped perspectives. I just don't think any lens correction is really needed.

Just my opinion!

 

[WDWFigment]

I wouldn't worry about the barrel distortion, honestly. A few reasons:

1. Part of the unique appeal of a UWA can be that odd perspective it gives - makes it different from other photos.

2. The distortion you are seeing, as mentioned previously, is not lens distortion...it's angular distortion. Rectilinear UWAs like to shoot dead straight ahead, where the rectilinear design can work to keep the straight lines straight. As soon as you tilt up or down at any angle, the perspective quickly goes askew. I also like the close-foreground style with UWAs...but you have to become a bit more interactive by moving your shooting base lower or higher while still shooting straight ahead level, if you want to avoid that perspective skew. Then again, sometimes the perspective skew is a cool effect.

I say revel in the uniqueness that UWA provide - shoot level if you want that drastic wide angle with great straight lines, or shoot skewed at an angle if you want the cool warped perspectives. I just don't think any lens correction is really needed.

Just my opinion!

Thanks for providing this feedback. I must say my face is a little red, because I thought barrel distortion was what this distortion was! No wonder I was making massive changes in Photoshop only to see worse results! I guess I need to read those tutorials a little more closely instead of just skimming over them. I now realize it's angular distortion.

I guess I will correct this to some degree on the shots I can. Most of my shots, by virtue of my shooting style, are going to have some distortion. I think the typical UWA shot where you just try to cram as much in the frame as possible are boring (and always seem to have a bunch of dead space at the top and bottom of the frame). I like to get down and dirty with the UWA, getting really close to the subject. That's actually what got me started using a lens hood. I was coming dangerously close to hitting the front of the lens on something I was shooting, and I didn't realize it because it appeared farther away through the viewfinder. Now I have at least 3 inches to spare thanks to using the hood! (Although this doesn't quite work when shooting dachshunds, as they tend to dart their noses or tongues right at the lens )

I am glad to see I'm not the only one who likes that style of shooting for the UWA lenses. Some distortion can be interesting!

 

[DisFam95]

Looking for a wide angle lens.

Can't decide between Canon's...

28mm 1.8 usm
35mm 2.0


Anything to consider? Is there much difference between the 28/35 w/ photographing people closer up..facial distortion?

I'd like it for our upcoming DL trip.

Any other good lens to recommend?

Thanks

 

[ukcatfan]

I am not all that familiar with Canon, but those are not that wide if it is on a APS-C camera (not full frame). I would be really surprised if you had any distortion at those focal lengths.

 

[disneyboy2003]

For Disney World, I really liked using the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. It was wide enough for everyday use at Disney World, and I'd imagine it'd be just as good for Disneyland.

You can certainly go wider than 17mm. I think there were just a small handful of shots I couldn't take because I didn't have a wider lens. So I couldn't copy many of the photos that WDWFigment is known for.

 

[DisFam95]

For Disney World, I really liked using the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. It was wide enough for everyday use at Disney World, and I'd imagine it'd be just as good for Disneyland.

I think that lens is more than double the price of the 2 I mentioned so that's not in my budget right now. Nice option though..just not in the next month

 

[WDWFigment]

What camera are you using? Like ukcatfan mentions, 28-35mm is not going to be wide on a crop sensor. My recommendation (big shock here) is the Tokina 11-16.

 

[DisFam95]

I have the old Rebel XT.

I admit I don;t yet get what that all means about the crop sensor etc and how it effects the lens.

I actually ordered the Tokina 11-16 last night but thought that might be too wide for some stuff???

I want something good for low light/indoor no flash and have the 50mm 1.8 but I find that focal length is too long for most of my daily shooting, kids, around the house etc. I'm always backing up from stuff.

I thought the 28 or 35 might be better for that stuff and the Tokina was more landscape and dramatic effect stuff. Again I'm new at this so any advice is welcome.

Did I use the work 'stuff' enough

 

[disneyboy2003]

I think that lens is more than double the price of the 2 I mentioned so that's not in my budget right now. Nice option though..just not in the next month

I know that this lens is pretty pricey, but if you're still interested in it, you can look into renting it: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f2.8-is/for-canon. That way, you can try it out during your vacation to see if you really like it.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I admit I don;t yet get what that all means about the crop sensor etc and how it effects the lens.

With Canon DSLRs, you've got 2 choices of sensors: full-frame sensor or crop-frame sensor. Your Canon Rebel XT has a crop-frame sensor.

The dimensions of a full frame sensor is the same as 35mm film: 36 x 24 mm. Cameras with full frame sensors cost TONS more than crop-frame sensor cameras. For Canon DSLRs, your choices for full-frame cameras are the Canon 5D Mark II for $2499.99 or the Canon 1D Mark IV for $4999.95.

Before you faint at the price of Canon's full frame cameras, consider the full-frame Nikon D3x for only $7499.95.

What is a crop-frame sensor? It's smaller than full frame. For Canon, the crop-frame sensor is about 22 x 15 mm. If you calculate the areas for the sensors, you'll see that a crop-frame sensor is 40% the size of a full-frame sensor (or 60% smaller than a full-frame sensor).

Here's a picture from Cambridge In Color Web site that shows the difference between crop-frame and full-frame sensors:

What does this mean for your photography?
Let's say you have 2 cameras side-by-side, right next to each other. They both have the exact same lens (say, a 50mm lens on each camera). But one camera has a full-frame sensor and the other has a crop-frame sensor.

As you can see from the photo above, the full-frame camera will see a lot more of the scene. On the other hand, the crop-frame camera will see only 40% of the scene. But when you look through your Rebel XT, you don't notice that you're missing the other 60% of the scene, do you?

Essentially, having a crop-frame sensor is almost like you've "zoomed in" on a scene. In this case, you've zoomed in by a magnification of 1.6x. On your Rebel XT crop-frame camera, the 50mm lens acts like an 80mm lens on a full frame camera (here's the math: 50mm x 1.6 crop factor = 80mm).

So using the above 2 camera example, if the full-frame camera had an 80mm lens and your crop-frame camera had a 50mm lens, they would both see the exact same scene.

Advantages of crop-frame sensor
For any lens you buy, you can essentially multiply by a factor of 1.6! So that 100-400mm lens you've been craving becomes a 160-640mm view on a crop-frame camera!

Wildlife photographers and bird photographers *love* having this "extra zoom" from a crop-frame sensor. Some sports photographers like this feature, too, especially if they're far away from the action.

Disadvantages of crop-frame sensors
Because of this 1.6x magnification factor, you can never be wide enough with your wide-angle lenses! You buy a 10mm lens hoping to get a 10mm field of view. But your crop-frame sensor gives it a 16mm field of view! The only way to get a 10mm view from a 10mm lens is to use a camera with a full-frame sensor.

This is the problem that WDWFigment is referring to when he said, "28-35mm is not going to be wide on a crop sensor". On your Rebel XT camera, the 28mm lens becomes 45mm-equivalent view. The 35mm lens becomes a 56mm view. Neither of these will give you the "wide-angle view" you're looking for.

That's why WDWFigment recommended the 11-16mm lens, which gives you a 17-26mm-equivalent view. This would be considered "wide angle."

Advantages of full-frame sensors
There are several advantages to owning a camera with a full-frame sensor. Because full-frame sensors are larger, they'll also produce lower noise / grain in your photos. So at higher ISOs (like ISO 1600, ISO 3200, etc), you'll see less noise in photos from full-frame cameras.

Full-frame sensors also give a shallower depth-of-field for any particular lens / focal length. Portrait photographers love this because it allows for more blurring of the background (called "bokeh"), separating the subject from the background.


For more information about crop-frame vs. full-frame sensors, see this tutorial from Cambridge in Color: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Hope that helps. Sorry for the super-long post. Hope it wasn't too confusing. It took me a while to figure this out when I first heard about this.

(yay! This was post #222 for me)

 

[ukcatfan]

I actually ordered the Tokina 11-16 last night but thought that might be too wide for some stuff???

You are correct. That is probably too wide for close shooting of people inside. There is a good chance of distortion at 11-17mm. You are on the right track with the original ones you mention as long as it is not large groups of people.

 

[C&B Young]

I want something good for low light/indoor no flash and have the 50mm 1.8 but I find that focal length is too long for most of my daily shooting, kids, around the house etc. I'm always backing up from stuff.

If you looking for something a bit wider than the 50mm but not ultra-wide, most people around here love the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Although I don't currently own it, it is next on my wishlist, and price-wise it runs around the same as the Canon 28mm 1.8.

 

[boBQuincy]

When Mark B wrote his "great myths of photography" (or something like that) perhaps the first item should have been about getting a "longer" lens with crop sensors. This one seems to be perpetuated in print, on the web, and in our heads, yet it is indeed a myth.

The reduced viewing angle is for real, we absolutely get about 60% of the view that a full frame would get. However, we get no additional magnification and no longer lenses. All we get is less of the frame than full frame. What we usually *do* is make a greater enlargement than we would with full frame, in order to fill a piece of paper or a xx by xx pixel image, leading to the idea that we have somehow also gotten a longer lens.

I am not picking on anyone in particular since this myth is very common and has been written on this board (and many others) a great many times. All I am trying to do is help clear up the confusion.

Anyway, to answer the OPs question, I would go for the wider lens or even something wider than 28 is the $$$ are available.

 

[mabas9395]

Go for broke (literally) and get the Canon 10-22. Great lens and tons of fun.

 

[disneyboy2003]

When Mark B wrote his "great myths of photography" (or something like that) perhaps the first item should have been about getting a "longer" lens with crop sensors. This one seems to be perpetuated in print, on the web, and in our heads, yet it is indeed a myth.

The reduced viewing angle is for real, we absolutely get about 60% of the view that a full frame would get. However, we get no additional magnification and no longer lenses. All we get is less of the frame than full frame. What we usually *do* is make a greater enlargement than we would with full frame, in order to fill a piece of paper or a xx by xx pixel image, leading to the idea that we have somehow also gotten a longer lens.

I am not picking on anyone in particular since this myth is very common and has been written on this board (and many others) a great many times. All I am trying to do is help clear up the confusion.

You're absolutely right. When I wrote my reply above, I used the words "crop" and "magnification" very loosely, interchangeably, and incorrectly. There is no actual magnification going on with crop-sensor cameras.

It is the smaller sensor (ie. a "cropped sensor") that gives the appearance of a longer focal length. Again, no magnification is involved.

The Rebel XT has a 1.6x crop factor.

Hope I got all the technical terms right this time.

 

[handicap18]

Looking for a wide angle lens.

Can't decide between Canon's...

28mm 1.8 usm
35mm 2.0


Anything to consider? Is there much difference between the 28/35 w/ photographing people closer up..facial distortion?

I'd like it for our upcoming DL trip.

Any other good lens to recommend?

Thanks

If you already have the 50mm and think its a little to long, then I would probably go with the 28mm f/1.8. That will do very well on the indoor rides and night parades at Disney and you can even use it for a walk-around lens at times. Its a very nice prime lens focal length to have a crop dSLR body.

I don't know anything about it. So you might want to find some reviews at amazon or dpreview or some place like that. But as for a focal length, that's what I'd go with (I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for my Nikon).

 

[sdshutterbug]

I just wrote a post crop sensor vs. full frame on my blog (see the signature for link)....Sorry for the shameless self promo!

My two cents...I don't own either of the lenses you mentioned but I know a little bit about them as I considered them before I purchased my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (which is a great lens!) Although the 28mm is more expensive, I would get it over the 35mm because it has Canon's USM, which makes for fast/silent autofocusing. The the 35mm does not have this so it may hunt quite a bit in low light, and it makes it more difficult to get good shots of people who are constantly moving. It's also 1/3 stop faster! For about the same price you can get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is even faster!

 

[DisFam95]

That's why I LOVE the Dis boards!!

Thanks so much for all of your wonderful answers and detailed explanations .

Of the 2 I mentioned I think I'm going w/ the 28...but now might consider the Sigma 30 since it's 1.4 vs the 1.8 of the 28mm. Oh decisions!!!!!

Oh and I had no idea you could rent lenses.

 

[WDWFigment]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022011sigma8mm16mm.asp

Depending on how this thing performs, I may be selling the Eleven from Heaven (Tokina 11-16) for this puppy. 8mm?! That's insane!

 

[Code]

Yeah, that's pretty wild, just hope it's a better performer than the 12-24 is on full frame. Wonder what the price will be!