Poll on *Really* Wide Angle Lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by BC, Aug 5, 2005.

  1. BC

    BC Guest

    If a rectilinear 8-28mm zoom or perhaps rectilinear primes in the
    6-10mm range were available, would you be seriously interested? Focal
    lengths listed are in full-frame 35mm equivalents, so for a DX format
    the above-mentioned zoom would have an acutal focal length range of
    5.33 - 18.67mm). Distortion would be nearly zero, as would
    illumination falloff.

    BC, Aug 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. BC

    eawckyegcy Guest

    I would only consider this optic if, and only if, in addition to no
    illumination falloff, no distortion, it also reduced diffraction
    effects to zero and possessed absolutely no aberrations of any kind.
    Additionaly, the focus motors would also have to be perpetual motion
    machines -- let them be powered by the vacuum energy.
    eawckyegcy, Aug 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. BC

    Charles Guest

    as long as it didn't cost too much.
    Charles, Aug 5, 2005
  4. Brian, at first sight it sounds very attractive. However, from using a
    14mm ffl lens on a 35mm film body, and getting to know the serious
    geometric effects inherent in rectilinear drawing (especially in the
    corners) I would be quite wary of what the images looked like. I felt
    that 14mm was about as far as I would wish to go in that format -
    indeed, it's one for occasional use only. For a smaller sensor DSLR,
    then make that 9 or 10mm, of course.

    Not saying I would rule it out, simply that I would view it with some
    curiosity and a genuine open mind, but would have some expectations of
    not liking the images too much. Even accepting you could cure the
    illumination and linearity (and I'm sure it could be done) this drawing
    problem is, as you know, completely inherent in the geometry of the
    situation; you can get the lines straight or the area right, but not

    And, of course (as someone already said) it would depend to some extent
    on the price.

    What I really would like would be a 10-12mm ffl lens that worked on my
    10D and cost about £400. Dream on ....

    *If I'm wrong, and there is a way of squaring this particular circle,
    then all bets are off, of course!

    David Littlewood, Aug 5, 2005
  5. BC

    wavelength Guest

    Anyone can find a use for any lens, even distorted ones like a lensbaby
    or fisheye. Don't see why someone couldn't use something like this.
    wavelength, Aug 5, 2005
  6. BC

    wilt Guest

    I never wanted anything for my 35mm SLR wider than 20mm, and I only
    used that once in a very long while. So having a 10-22mm for my 20D is
    more than enough for me, and I doubt that I would use wider than 12mm
    most of the time, unless I was after the 'dramatic' or 'unusual'
    perspective of the 10-12 range. Equivalent to 16mm in the 35mm FF
    format, 10mm probably won't get that much use from me, but I never had
    it so easy to get at before (in a zoom, rather than having to always
    switch lenses).

    wilt, Aug 5, 2005
  7. BC

    Brian Baird Guest

    I like wide angle, but damned if I'd go past 15-16mm equivalent for
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  8. With, DSLR, why not just take multiple shots and stitch them together?
    Panorama software is much cheaper than an expensive lense. Is there
    something I am missing? (I am a newbie to all of this cool stuff!)
    Nicholas Wittebol, Aug 6, 2005
  9. BC

    Brian Baird Guest

    You can get some neat shots from the perspective effects present when
    using a wide angle lens... and there's times where it isn't practical or
    easy to take multiple shots to stitch things together.
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  10. Ahhhh...I see. I'm learning...slowly! ;-)

    Nicholas Wittebol, Aug 6, 2005
  11. BC

    David A Guest

    I concur.........*High quality* panorama's (of the stitched variety) aren't
    exactly a cake walk - key word is high quality.
    David A, Aug 6, 2005
  12. Doing that is (a) a pain*, and (b) results in a cylindrical projection,
    which can result in serious distortion**. If you get a dSLR that takes a
    standard mount, then the Stigma 12-24 will mount on a cheap film body, and
    you can use that for your extreme wide angle work. I didn't do that because
    I was afraid I'd spend too much time shooting 12mm shots on film and not do
    any digital<g>.

    *: Although it's not bad. I find that if I shoot on a tripod, Panorama
    Factory will stitch nicely with no intervention, as it did in the image

    *: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/47227687/large

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 6, 2005
  13. BC

    Mike Ross Guest

    On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:00:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"

    That's exactly what I did. Except the idiots at Sigma neglected to fit
    an aperture ring on the lens, so there's no way to adjust the
    diaphragm on my old manual film bodies. Indeed it remains stopped all
    the way down, unless you put a 'kludge' against the pin before
    mounting the lens. Unsatisfactory, but the only way to get a 12-24mm
    zoom on my old Canon F-1!

    Mike Ross, Aug 6, 2005
  14. BC

    Brian Baird Guest

    Have you tried Panorama Tools (ptools)? That gives you the option of
    rectilinear projection for your final output.
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  15. It's on my list of things to do. But note that the image above is way beyond
    what can be reasonably done with rectilinear projection. I should figure out
    how the angles work out, but it seems to me that with anything wider than a
    normal lens, as soon as you rotate the camera, you are beyond what
    rectilinear projection can handle.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 6, 2005
  16. BC

    Brian Baird Guest

    It's my understanding Panorama tools will stretch/compress the image to
    make it fit.

    You'll have to trim for the jaggies, but it does seem to work very well
    from what I've seen.
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  17. Yes. That I understand. My point was that rectilinear projection itself is
    limited. Beyond a certain point, you need to go to a cylindrical (or
    spherical) projection.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 6, 2005
  18. BC

    Alfred Molon Guest

    No problem obtaining high quality seamless panoramas, when using the
    Panorama Tools with the layered output. People are even doing seamless
    360° panoramas.
    Also, the final resolution will be substantially higher, because you
    stitch together many images. And the geometrical lens aberrations will
    have been corrected.
    Alfred Molon, Aug 6, 2005
  19. Only if you ask for cylindrical projection, surely? I've seen programs
    which allow spherical and rectilinear projection as well.

    David J Taylor, Aug 6, 2005
  20. Yes. I was talking about what is, for me, the most common case: stitching
    together a few wide angle images in a single row to create a generic
    panorama. Rectilinear will be common for people using stitching to get
    higher resolution, spherical for folks doing VR stuff.

    Another thing is that the distortion is only really a problem in "panoramas"
    with a wide angle yet a more conservative (less "panoramic") aspect ratio.

    Another problem with panoramas: the local pro shop will only print panoramas
    as crops on a larger print, and you get charged for the whole larger print.
    Sigh. Time to figure out how to use roll paper.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.