17 mm lens on full frame: A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The...

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The camera brand and model were not told. The camera top picture shows that the 17 mm was the low end of a zoom lens. What can be said?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I cooked a filet of salmon and asparagus last evening. I reheated along with rice and enjoyed for a tasty lunch.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Time for a muli-exposure panorama.....

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

John_F wrote:

A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The camera brand and model were not told. The camera top picture shows that the 17 mm was the low end of a zoom lens. What can be said?

17mm has been replaced by 16mm in a lot of zoom lenses and they still be considered on the short end for ff cameras, wider focal length in zooms for ff cameras are rather rare. Example, the Canon 11-24/f4 is the only one featuring that focal length!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

John_F wrote:

A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The camera brand and model were not told. The camera top picture shows that the 17 mm was the low end of a zoom lens. What can be said?

Here are sone things that can be said:

One should not expect to capture “monumental landscapes” with a snapshot.

For monumental subjects, equipment alone will not suffice. Knowledge, experience, skill and creativity are all required.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

John_F wrote:

A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The camera brand and model were not told. The camera top picture shows that the 17 mm was the low end of a zoom lens. What can be said?

Without camera mount, very little can be said.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

John_F wrote:

A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The camera brand and model were not told. The camera top picture shows that the 17 mm was the low end of a zoom lens. What can be said?

He's probably right. But the answer is seldom a shorter focal length.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

The Nikon 14-30 lens does a great job but 17mm is no slouch at about 110 degree field of view.
As noted earlier an alternative is to do a 2 shot panorama with plenty of overlap. If it's a zoom lens, drop it down to a higher number like 24 to remove some of the warping/fish eye effect.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

A two vertical shot panorama, or as another poster suggested a multishot panorama.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The person has an eye for composition and I think her creativity is not flawed based on what she has done with other things. I sensed she was unhappy with what her camera and lens delivered. Not knowing the camera & model, we can’t know what exposure variable are at her disposal: fstop, shutter speed, ISO, WB, focusing controls. It might be an ancient model, I know not.

JD750 wrote:

Here are sone things that can be said:

One should not expect to capture “monumental landscapes” with a snapshot.

For monumental subjects, equipment alone will not suffice. Knowledge, experience, skill and creativity are all required.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

It also might not be a full frame camera.
That would explain the field of view complaint.

User ID

rehess wrote:

Without camera mount, very little
can be said.

Nonsense. The mount is irrelevant.
All 17mm lenses on all FF cameras
will project the same image [we're
ignoring that there might be a fish
eye 17 out there somewhere ... ].

"Very little can be said" ?

Very little is even worth saying. The
unnamed poster who declared that
a 17 falls far short of rendering his
majestic vistas is not any source of
advice. He is a user needing a clue
or two himself.

User ID

Hamltnblue wrote:

It also might not be a full frame camera.
That would explain the field of view complaint.

Possibly. The user might THINK he bought a
FF camera but the wrong item was shipped.

Happens every day ......

But seriously, what if it's a 17-55 DX zoom
at 17mm, and it's triggering the APSC crop
when used on a FF camera ?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

User ID wrote:

Nonsense. The mount is irrelevant.
All 17mm lenses on all FF cameras
will project the same image [we're
ignoring that there might be a fish
eye 17 out there somewhere ... ].

"Very little can be said" ?

Very little is even worth saying. The
unnamed poster who declared that
a 17 falls far short of rendering his
majestic vistas is not any source of
advice. He is a user needing a clue
or two himself.

Each lens formulation has its own combination of elements - choose a different combination and you have a different rendition. There is a reason the best lens designers are honored, and every design is patented.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

John_F wrote:

A poster said: “ I have a 17 mm lens on a full-frame camera and it doesn't begin to be wide enough to capture the monumental landscapes in front of me.” The camera brand and model were not told. The camera top picture shows that the 17 mm was the low end of a zoom lens. What can be said?

What it says to me is that it was probably a poster selling a wider angle prime or zoom lens.