when do you use the 14-24 lens?
Jan 6, 2020 23:13:00 #
I have a 12-24. and I know the one time I leave it at home will be the time I want it.
Jan 7, 2020 00:41:33 #
bobfitz wrote:
In addition to what others have said, I
would use it to photograph medium to
large groups in tight spaces.
.............
In addition to what others have said, I
would use it to photograph medium to
large groups in tight spaces.
.............
You "would use it" for groups ? Did you
mean that you "do" use it for groups ?
Or not. I tend to suspect it's "not". But
acoarst, I could be wrong about that.
Thing is, ultrawides make seriously bad
group photos, really awful. But OTOH, if
you're compelled to photograph a dozen
peeps in a small restaurant booth, you
just gotta do what you just gotta do :-(
=======================
Below is hardly a really crowded group.
But there is a person near the edge and
this is "only" 16mm WA. A 14mm would
make her look even worse ! And if this
had been a forced cramped-for-space
group shot, she'd be even closer to the
edge. Just check out her shoulder and
hand. And this is "only" 16, not 14mm.
-
Jan 7, 2020 02:59:18 #
Jan 7, 2020 06:48:52 #
User ID wrote:
You " i u would /u /i use it" for gro... (show quote)
In the hands of someone who understands the strengths and weaknesses of ultra wide lenses, they can be quite useful for groups - as long as you keep the camera level, subjects in the center of the image and use longer subject-camera distances. Volume anamorphosis and extension distortion can be problematic. Below is a shot taken with a 10mm lens on a D200, cropped, and the second is the uncropped version. Yes there are elements of distortion and anamorphosis, but it would be hard to characterize the result as seriously bad or really awful. Not a go-to choice, but handled well, not awful either.
That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to use an ultra-wide for groups. The one ultra-wide lens that had correction for anamorphosis was the Biogon. I had a Zeiss 38mm Biogon cannabilized from a broken Hasselblad Superwide C mounted on a lensboard and used with a 21mm viewfinder on a Sinar standard, with a grip on the bottom and a 6x7 rollfilm back. An unusual setup, but it took amazing pictures of everything with no perceptible distortion. The 21mm, 25mm and 28mm Biogon lenses for Contax shared similar characteristics.
Jan 7, 2020 11:24:01 #
Since it's been a while since I used the lens I thought I'd try it out. As I recalled, there was little distortion even at the wide end. So I took a photo of a window which gave me a grid to check distortion. I see a little bit of barrel distortion but not as much as I would expect from a fisheye lens. Putting it into LR and using a built-in lens profile correction gets rid of most of the barrel, but not perfect. If I were really obsessive about it I think it could be fairly easily corrected in Photoshop.
The front of the lens was about 17" from the center of the window framing. Lens was set to 14mm. The field of view is about 30" vertically.
The front of the lens was about 17" from the center of the window framing. Lens was set to 14mm. The field of view is about 30" vertically.
Jan 7, 2020 17:52:23 #
Here is one I happened to have on my phone. I have a bunch on the computer, but in comparison it's not used as much as some other lenses.
Jan 7, 2020 21:51:20 #
home brewer wrote:
I am starting to question how often i will use my f.8 14-24 lens and if i want to lug around a seldom used lens that weighs 35 oz. For those that use that lens or a similar lens; when do you use it? Would you post photos.
I use my Tamron f2.8 17-50 DX lens on my D90 most of the time. It’s usually wide enough when I need wide and normal when I need normal. With the crop factor it’s a 25.5 to 75.
Jan 7, 2020 23:03:10 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
Applying the "crop factor" to the wrong parameter.
No change in f/ number.
No change in f/ number.
Yes but the depth of field (DOF) changes due to the smaller sensor. There is greater DOF on a smaller sensor for a given f-number. I have heard it said you multiply by the crop factor. So at f8 on an APS-C sensor the DOF would be about equal to f12 on a full frame.
I can't defend that with tests I have done, but I can say qualitively, DOF is definitely greater on a smaller sensor at a given f-stop setting.
Jan 7, 2020 23:04:50 #
MauiMoto wrote:
Here is one I happened to have on my phone. I have a bunch on the computer, but in comparison it's not used as much as some other lenses.
I LIKE that!! ;)
(I like motorcycles I ride dirt and street)
I only wish you had checked "store original".
Jan 8, 2020 00:15:05 #
Gene51 wrote:
In the hands of someone who understands the streng... (show quote)
No rectilinear lens can correct for anamorphosis
cuz it's not a lens aberation or flaw. It's the result
of oblique projection.
Once upon a time, all my fave snapshot cameras
produced anamorphosis:
Minolta SR with "mirror-up" 21/4.0
6x6 SWC with 38 Biogon
6x12 Graflex XL with 58 Rodenstock
4x5 Technika with 47 Super Angulon
4x5 Graflex XL SW with 47 Super Angulon
4x5 Brooks Veriwide with 47 Super Angulon.
4x5 Graflex XL with 58mm Rodenstock
Some "historian" may post that some of my
4x5s didn't exist. There are some quite rare
adapters involved. Also, altho these cameras
used 4x5 film, adapters cropped away about
3/16 inch of image from all 4 edges. I used
hangers to process, so that loss happened to
all my 4x5 BW anywho.
All these rigs exhibited anamorphosis due to
oblique projection, extreme toward corners.
There was no rectilinear distortion. A "brick
wall shot" would show perfect straight lines.
But the nicely squared up bricks in the outer
regions would be visibly larger than bricks in
the center.
If you wanna get rid of anamorphosis, just
use a fisheye. Fisheye images are not really
distorted. It's our preconceptions that are
really distorted. You cannot project the 3-D
real world onto a flat plane without dealing
with reshaping it to "fit" where it cannot fit.
Today my fave [aka "only"] version of those
snapshot insane-a-wides is an 8mm CCTV
lens on m4/3. My only echo of all my earlier
shallow bodied extra-ultra wide rigs. Just as
"back in the day" it's an adapter that does
the trick :-)
Jan 8, 2020 06:52:40 #
Jan 8, 2020 07:22:15 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
User ID wrote:
You " i u would /u /i use it" for gro... (show quote)
Just a few seconds adjustment in PS.
Jan 8, 2020 07:24:44 #
Jan 8, 2020 07:37:21 #
chippy65
Loc: Cambridge
always worth a try if it is the only way to accommodate a large group in a small area
not ideal......but better to attempt a result than no photo of an unrepeatable gathering
not ideal......but better to attempt a result than no photo of an unrepeatable gathering
Jan 8, 2020 09:03:00 #
home brewer wrote:
I am starting to question how often i will use my f.8 14-24 lens and if i want to lug around a seldom used lens that weighs 35 oz. For those that use that lens or a similar lens; when do you use it? Would you post photos.
I use it for landscapes. milky way shots , and carry it like a walk around when at new places . Takes great shots from a close perspective . Reenactments , air shows on large and small planes on the tarmac . Try carrying it around for a week you will see new images you never would or could have taken close up ... it will impress you ..
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.