Do You Need an Ultra Wide-Angle Lens for Landscape Photography
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2024
- Deciding to purchase a new lens can be daunting, especially for a specialty lens like an ultra wide-angle. Join me as I define the difference between wide-angle and ultra-wide-angle lenses. Moreover, I'll discuss the basics of using a wide-angle lens and show examples captured at various focal lengths. Lastly, I'll cover a few of the main pros and cons of the ultra wide-angle lens.
Links to mentioned videos:
If I Could Have Only One Lens • If I Could Have Only O...
Photographer/Videographer - Michael Scott
Music - Black Water by Loving Caliber
Website - www.scottymanphoto.com
Contact - scottm@scottymanphoto.com - Розваги
I just purchased the Sigma 10-18mm F2.8 for my X-T5 and I love the unique images that these UW lenses can produce. One can really get creative with the environment, not to mention the usefulness of these lenses indoors in building. They make for great architectural shots both indoors in confined spaces, and outdoors where you want to capture the entire building/skyline etc.
Yes, they have their challenges such as barrel distortion, but this can be correct in post.
The Sigma 10-18mm F2.8 and Fuji 18-55mm F2.8-4 are all I need for my landscape and portrait needs.
It's always a pleasure to hear from someone happy with their lens. The other day, I mentioned the importance of being satisfied with one's gear. However, some suggest that ultra-wide-angle lenses are unacceptable for landscape photography because they are unrealistic. I beg to differ; it comes down to the photographer and personal preference. Art is in the eye of the beholder. As for myself, I treasure my 14-24-mm, and it's a pleasure to use when I have opportunities to unleash its power. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for watching.
Excellent video, mate. I agree with the sentiment: let the landscape determine the lens.
Thanks for watching! I do love the 14-24!
@@ScottymanPhoto For the work you do, it sure makes a lot of sense. Love those arches.
@@peterfritzphoto Thank you, Peter! As always, I appreciate your support!
Loving my Sony FE 12-24mm F/2.8 GM and my 16-35mm F/2.8 GM II, all I need
That's a good focal range for almost anything you're faced with. Thanks for watching, Richard!
BTW, there are some spectacular images here, mate!
Thank you, Peter! You're too kind 😃
Nice presentation Michael
I use a few wide angle lenses.14mm ,20mm,16 35mm ,17 40mm.
I only use these lenses after researching the area before heading to the
chosen location.Most of my images are taken in the 24mm focal range.
The wide lenses are used to,what I call ‘’match the hatch’’.
The area I wish to photograph dictates if I need to use a wide angle lens.
Take care
Hey, Glenn! Thanks for stopping by! Good to hear from you. True, for the best composition, it's best to let the situation dictate the lens. Take care, buddy!
Great video, Michael. UWA lenses definitely are great tools for really exaggerated scenes. BTW that rock at 2:32 could be a super interesting subject on a UWA at sunset! I must say though that my uber-UWA lens (the Canon 11-24) is my least used lens. Not because of the huge size, but because it is such a rare instance where stretching perspective to 11 - 13mm is the right choice.
Hey, Brian! Good to hear from! Yeah, I think most people would probably agree with you. However, when you need it, it's a great tool to have in the bag. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care, buddy!
Great video.
Thank you, Phil! Glad you enjoyed it!
I got rid of mine 14 to 24 because of the filter instead now use a 17 to 35 that has a 77 mm filter screwing and is a lot lighter. There are times I wish I've still had the old lens but couldn't justify carrying the filter, the only filter I use these days is a polarizer on water with no sky. It's so easy the dark in the sky and post production.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Although I'm glad that I purchased the 14-24 now, I did consider the 16-35 f/4. With my arch photography, an extra couple millimeters goes a very long way. Good to hear from you! Thanks for watching!
Well-presented! Useful! Thanks!
I noticed, during a 2015 road trip across the US South, from SE Texas to the DC/Chesapeake and southern PA areas, I tended to use my 24-70/2.8G ED, on a D700, for almost everything, usually setting the zoom about somewhere between 28mm and 35mm, or, about 40mm. These two areas, along the zoom range, just looked right. I used my 14-24/2.8G, on a second D700, mostly at night, among the monuments in DC. So, my ultra-wide-angle zoom was good to have with me, but, I wondered whether the weight and bulk was worth the effort of hauling it about. I did, thankfully, keep my bag small, just large enough for one camera, with its lens, at a time. I kept the “primary” camera on a supple, wide strap, worn cross-body.
Our next road trip, in 2016, also across the south, from SE Texas to GA, had a reason to shoot macro at one location. My macro system being Canon, I brought a 35mm f/2 lens, and the 100mm Macro L. Bad weather did limit stopping for landscape vistas, but, 35mm sufficed for everything landscape-ish, plus general shooting, and I do not feel that I missed anything. During multiple subsequent day trips, within Texas, I have used a 40mm Voigtlander or 45mm Nikon lens, both “pancakes,” without feeling that I was missing any shots.
By 2019, I had added the Leica M system. For a multi-thousand-mile trip, taking largely scenic routes, to the NJ/NYC area, then into Upstate NY, and a more-direct return route along a scenic areas, I used a 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss Distagon ZM lens for the vast majority of the images, including landscapes, and an amazingly competent yet compact film-era Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 ZM lens for a few quick landscapes at one location. My much-loved 50mm Leica M lens stayed in the bag. (50mm lens was a “people” lens, for me, at that time, and this was a solo road trip, with time constraints.)
Since my 2019 road trip, I have been experimenting locally, with short telephoto lenses for landscapes, and only recently have been looking into how to stitch panoramas, using series of images captured with the optically very-well-corrected Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar, a recent addition. I hope to get away from this flat coastal plain, starting in April, and get into some rolling, hilly, and perhaps mountainous terrain. I would especially like to return to a TN portion of the Natchez Trace Parkway, in weather likely to produce misty conditions, in the steep terrain, if I can time it right.
Looks like you've done your fair share of traveling! Someday I'd like to go back to Natchez Trace and explore that entire area. Really nice place! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
As ultra wide lenses strongly emphasize the foreground it should better be interesting. This can often be the case in cityscapes, but rarely in landscapes. Ask yourself: Are these rocks, roots or flowers really so special that they should fill the frame -- or is my real motive the mountain chain in the background?
As for myself, I think it depends on the composition. One never knows when the situation will arise, but when it happens, it can be magical. Thanks for watching, and thank you for sharing your thoughts!
i neeeeed one 😈😈😈
Well, if I win the lottery next week, I’ll mail you one out the next day 😃
@@ScottymanPhoto haha thanks, I think Ill be buying the sigma 8-16mm
@@leocasi405 Good choice 👍
I have 16-35mm and always missing those few wide angle mm so I was crawling for 14mm but my 16-35mm did all I need. For big scenes I tried to cheat and do pano but it's not the same. Sobi got 14mm f4 from Loawa the size of nifty Fifty lens. Those both works like charm 🤙
A 14mm prime is a great choice. I could probably live without the extra 15-24mm, but that 14mm is fantastic for so many applications in landscape photography. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for watching! Take care!
I love ultra wides, but you need foreground or symmetry to make it work well. To me either of these two makes it key to having good shots, versus just capturing everything you see in a boring way.
Absolutely 100% true! An image without balance lacks interest, regardless of what's in the composition. Foreground is a key element with an ultra wide-angle lens! Great comment! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for watching! Take care!
Yes..and I'll tell you why
I sell images and yes I take lots with my zoom lenses but guess what sells for prints and canvasses...wide angle shots
I'm a professional landscape photographer and wide angle shots sell and look better on prints
It's all about balance 😮
35mm is what human eye sees
That's a good point! I wonder if the wide-angle sales could be attributed to the availability of prints. The market is saturated with the mundane images. Seems like less people shoot ultra wide. Nevertheless, when done right, a wide-angle print can be quite breathtaking! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Great Video! May I ask...what are your thoughts of using wide angle, versus 4x5 view cameras that offer tilt/shift movements...in comparison with simply a wide or ultra-wide lens. ...or some of the specialty tilt/shift lenses and or adapters. I agree with you about ensuring foreground elements are in an image. It's surprising to me how I see so many landscape images that do NOT include foreground elements. ...whereas foreground elements were the rule in the "heyday of the 4x5 field cameras". 🤔
Honestly, my dream lens would be a tilt-shift at approximately 14-35mm. Indeed, I would already own a tilt-shift lens if not for the cost and the fixed focal length. I thought about the Nikon 19mm f/4E, and I may still buy it one day. Anyway, I guess I’ll keep shooting with what I have for now. Thanks for the excellent comment, and thank you for watching!
@@ScottymanPhoto Thank you for replying! I've wondered quite a bit about modern images, compared with "old" 4x5 images...since I've seen a lot videos on landscape photography...that show foreground content completely lacking in so many of the images. Photographers do the best they can, of course.
I wonder about the Fotodiox tilt shift adapters...maybe coupled with a medium format Mamiya for a large image circle. But that setup might end up being a full half the cost of the Nikon you described. :)
@@TrilobitesRTasty I have no experience with Fotodiox adapters; they may do a fine job, and they're not that expensive. On the other hand, I've considered buying a Mamiya or a Pentax 67ii. Who knows, maybe one day. Take care!