Wide(st) angle lenses

[joshcomley]

Firstly my apologies for being such a newbie and asking two questions on here in one day! I do read as much as I can before asking, and honestly I've read and read until almost my eyes bleed, but sometimes you just need to ask.

I've of course also searched the forum here first but can't quite find what I'm after.

What first drew me to MF was landscape photography. I found some of the most impressive landscape shots I'd see taken were taken with MF, and discovered this was due - in part - to the larger sensor size being able to capture more of the view. Combined with a wide lens I figured MF would almost always outdo FF. But I was wrong: whilst one can affordably get 10mm lenses for FF (ignoring debate on quality for now), some of the best options I seem to be able to find for my (currently-being-built) MF rig just aren't as wide, and even allowing for the extra field of view from the increased sensor size, it still calculates to not-quite-as-wide as the widest FF lenses.

Of course lens width isn't everything... but I feel disappointed that FF seems to easily draw in a bigger picture with affordable wide lenses.

I have myself now an RZ67 Pro II with two lenses, and a Mamiya 645 AFDIII with one lens.

As far as I can tell, without going fisheye, the widest angle lens for the RZ67 is the 50mm (ideally ULD for corner sharpness), and for the AFDIII is 28mm, or 35mm if I'm going to be able to actually afford it

So I really have two questions:

- What really are the widest lenses I can use with these two cameras? Have I missed something?
- What do people who shoot MF use for very, very wide shots (other than fisheye, tilt shift and stitching)?

[Telecaster]

Because it was the most popular imaging format for so long—and because even though this is no longer true, CaNikon & 3rd parties still make most of their lenses compatible with it—35mm also has the largest available range of focal lengths. This includes boundary-pushing ultra wides. Note also that this style of photography is a relatively recent phenomenon.

-Dave-

[Theodoros]

Firstly my apologies for being such a newbie and asking two questions on here in one day! I do read as much as I can before asking, and honestly I've read and read until almost my eyes bleed, but sometimes you just need to ask.

I've of course also searched the forum here first but can't quite find what I'm after.

What first drew me to MF was landscape photography. I found some of the most impressive landscape shots I'd see taken were taken with MF, and discovered this was due - in part - to the larger sensor size being able to capture more of the view. Combined with a wide lens I figured MF would almost always outdo FF. But I was wrong: whilst one can affordably get 10mm lenses for FF (ignoring debate on quality for now), some of the best options I seem to be able to find for my (currently-being-built) MF rig just aren't as wide, and even allowing for the extra field of view from the increased sensor size, it still calculates to not-quite-as-wide as the widest FF lenses.

Of course lens width isn't everything... but I feel disappointed that FF seems to easily draw in a bigger picture with affordable wide lenses.

I have myself now an RZ67 Pro II with two lenses, and a Mamiya 645 AFDIII with one lens.

As far as I can tell, without going fisheye, the widest angle lens for the RZ67 is the 50mm (ideally ULD for corner sharpness), and for the AFDIII is 28mm, or 35mm if I'm going to be able to actually afford it

So I really have two questions:

- What really are the widest lenses I can use with these two cameras? Have I missed something?
- What do people who shoot MF use for very, very wide shots (other than fisheye, tilt shift and stitching)?

On the RZ you can't go wider than 50mm... On the AFDIII though (or AFD/AFDII/ DF/DF+/XF, or the Leica S, or even the Contax 645) you can go wider than 28mm by either converting a ....Samyang 24mm f3.5 TS, or by machining an adapter with aperture ring on it and use the Pentax 645 25mm f4....

[joshcomley]

On the RZ you can't go wider than 50mm... On the AFDIII though (or AFD/AFDII/ DF/DF+/XF, or the Leica S, or even the Contax 645) you can go wider than 28mm by either converting a ....Samyang 24mm f3.5 TS, or by machining an adapter with aperture ring on it and use the Pentax 645 25mm f4....

Thanks so much, this gives me enough to go on to research how to achieve this

[Zac Henderson]

While it would require a significant system change (and$$$), you also have the potential to use a technical camera with a full frame back. Rodenstock makes some very wide, exceptionally high quality lenses. The Rodenstock 23mm F/5.6 HR Digaron‑S Lens would be akin to approximately 18mm on a 35mm DSLR.

[BobShaw]

If you want a medium format camera for landscapes then that is good choice.
Unfortunately trying to make film cameras work digital you suffer dramatically if the sensor is smaller than the film.
On an RZ67 the film is 72mm wide, so a 50mm lens is really wide. Put a 40mm or so sensor in place of the film then the effective focal length is basically 72/40 x 50 or 90mm. No longer wide. Conversely 28mm lens on the AFD would effectively be wider than a 28mm on a 35mm camera. 28mm on a Hasselblad is really wide.

Using a technical camera is not really a solution. A lens on a technical camera needs to be basically it's focal length from the sensor and you would be hard pressed to get a 23mm lens mounted and usable 23mm from the sensor. It is difficult and costly even with a 35mm lens on a Cambo Wide DS. I tried.

[voidshatter]

If you want the widest angle of view then yes the Voigtlander 10mm for Sony FE mount is the best choice.

[Zac Henderson]

Using a technical camera is not really a solution. A lens on a technical camera needs to be basically it's focal length from the sensor and you would be hard pressed to get a 23mm lens mounted and usable 23mm from the sensor. It is difficult and costly even with a 35mm lens on a Cambo Wide DS. I tried.

Costly, yes but still a solution. While the image circle doesn't allow for much movement, Cambo certainly offers the Rodenstock 23mm HR Digaron-S in a fitted Cambo lens panel. Just mount it to the body and you're set. I've not tried it with the wide DS but certainly possible with wide RS. I've only personally used that lens with the Sinar Artec.

[Theodoros]

I believe this is called "the tower of Babel"... How did it get here after the O/P asked a simple question?!!!!  ...all the man really asked is if he can go wider by using lenses on his 2 MF SLRs...    He even stated what they are and that his budget is low...

[siddhaarta]

- What do people who shoot MF use for very, very wide shots (other than fisheye, tilt shift and stitching)?

Hi joshcomley,

Don't know if it qualifies for "very, very wide", but I have a Leica S and use the 24mm Super-Elmar, corresponding to 19mm field of view in FF-terms. Its a fantastic lens, I love it for landscapes.

I really am not interested in anything wider than that, but if I where, I would stay FF (Zeiss 15mm ZF/ZE comes to mind).

Hasselblad has also a 24mm. It covers up to 37x49 sensor size. I understand, it can even be used on the bigger sensors, so it should yield even wider than 19mm FoV, although with some vignetting.

[joshcomley]

I was away for a few days, but thank you for all the replies. It's as I thought: for landscapes, I won't ever quite get the frame of view on MF that is possible on FF, in that the widest available MF lenses end up being several mm shy of the equivalent widest angle FF.

I guess I'll have to go Large Format at some point to get my dream set-up but seriously, later I shall invest in a good FF set-up to replace my crop sensor I currently have, and for now will enjoy very much my MF experimentations along the way.

It is interesting to see what other possibilities there are outside of my own two cameras I'll look into finding a way to maybe adapt a Samyang 24mm as Theodoros suggested.

Siddhaarta, what camera do you use the 24mm Super-Elmar on?

[Theodoros]

It is interesting to see what other possibilities there are outside of my own two cameras I'll look into finding a way to maybe adapt a Samyang 24mm as Theodoros suggested.

The Samyang is very easy to convert... you just have to remove the mechanisms (only 4 screws to unbolt) and replace the rear part of the barrel with a shorter one (about 17.8mm shorter if the Samyang you choose is in Nikon mount) at M645 mount... you may use the rear mount out of an M645 extension ring as to use for lens mount...

[landscapephoto]

Hasselblad has also a 24mm. It covers up to 37x49 sensor size. I understand, it can even be used on the bigger sensors, so it should yield even wider than 19mm FoV, although with some vignetting.

Actually, the HCD24 and HCD28 do not cover much beyond the 37x49 sensor size. Hard vignette is visible on the H4D-60.

Still, the HCD24 is the widest option as far as MF digital SLRs go.

[IanB]

There is something else worth bearing in mind when you move up to MF (and I'm speaking in particular as someone who still uses film in 6x7cm!) - the increased resolution means that you don't actually have to force the format or focal length to get interesting results. With 35mm the old saying used to be to get as close to the subject as you can, but with MF you can hold back and be more relaxed and reflective. Similarly with wide angle lenses. I used to use 20 and 24mm lenses a lot in 35mm, but even though I have a 47mm (approx. 24mm) lens for MF I rarely use it - my 65mm (approx. 32mm) seems ample for almost everything.

I'd really recommend you go out and get a little more familiar with your camera before splashing out on non-standard kit - you may be impressed with what you can achieve. RZ67 is an excellent film camera - still. You may fairly quickly find that the shots you like were not necessarily taken with really ultra-wide lenses at all.

Of course, if you are using an MF digital sensor on your Mamiya 67 instead of film you have much less to play with, and all the available lenses will seem far too long - because they are... Might not be the right tool for the job. And that is probably the reason why (apart from the shocking expense), despite several years watching this forum, I still use film - it just doesn't really seem as if MF digital has "come of age" yet. Too many unresolved compromises so far. (Yes, I know - I'm weird, etc... flame away!)

[landscapephoto]

You are not weird and there is nothing to flame. I too have noticed that MF shines at regular focal lengths and that the extreme wide angles are not needed. 

[Theodoros]

You are not weird and there is nothing to flame. I too have noticed that MF shines at regular focal lengths and that the extreme wide angles are not needed. 

Ultra wide angles can't make an artist a saleable photograph, nor have an attractive look to other than seekers of "impressive" (nothing to do with photography as such whatsoever) but in the rare case they'll be needed by a pro, (just because the angle is wider than the equipment can cope with), they should be there... That's why all modern platforms offer a 24mm... (Pentax a 25mm  - same thing).

[landscapephoto]

The 24mm in MF format is equivalent to a 19mm lens, which is very wide but not "extreme". 24x36 cameras all have zooms going down to 16mm. "Extreme" is even wider than that: 14mm (Nikon), 12mm (Sigma and Canon) or even 10mm (Voigtländer).

[Theodoros]

The 24mm in MF format is equivalent to a 19mm lens, which is very wide but not "extreme". 24x36 cameras all have zooms going down to 16mm.

How is this related to the O/P or the subject here?

"Extreme" is even wider than that: 14mm (Nikon), 12mm (Sigma and Canon) or even 10mm (Voigtländer).

What "Extereme" is, is relevant to the individual's opinion and depends on his needs... I don't believe that anybody (qualified to do so) has advanced you as to be a "term definition master" for terms related to picture taking... has somebody? 

EDIT: Thanks for leting us know that there are 14mm, 12mm & even 10mm lenses available for 24x36mm format... we would never know if you wouldn't...   

[landscapephoto]

How is this related to the O/P or the subject here?

What "Extereme" is, is relevant to the individual's opinion and depends on his needs... I don't believe that anybody (qualified to do so) has advanced you as to be a "term definition master" for terms related to picture taking... has somebody? 

EDIT: Thanks for leting us know that there are 14mm, 12mm & even 10mm lenses available for 24x36mm format... we would never know if you wouldn't...   

There is no need to be insulting. Joshcomley, the original poster, seemed to be interested in MF lenses which would be as wide as the ones available for 24x36 cameras. He wrote: It's as I thought: for landscapes, I won't ever quite get the frame of view on MF that is possible on FF, in that the widest available MF lenses end up being several mm shy of the equivalent widest angle FF..

[Theodoros]

There is no need to be insulting. Joshcomley, the original poster, seemed to be interested in MF lenses which would be as wide as the ones available for 24x36 cameras. He wrote: It's as I thought: for landscapes, I won't ever quite get the frame of view on MF that is possible on FF, in that the widest available MF lenses end up being several mm shy of the equivalent widest angle FF..

I don't see anything insulting in my reply... the O/P's requirement is basically what it says and this is "how to get (significantly) wider with the cameras he is using and then at decent cost..." The FF alternatives are to be taken as a complain between formats, nothing more, nothing less... I suggested how he can go down to 24mm (15.5mm FF equivalent if full width 56mm is used - 18mm FF equivalent if 36x48 sensor is used), which is EXTREME WA for MF ...at least the most WA one can have and then you just STATED (not suggested an opinion)  of what "extreme" means to ... all others (!!!) like if you are qualified to set the standards... Isn't it the case?