Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Dick Roadnight on October 06, 2010, 10:03:40 am
-
People often deride kit they have not got, never have had and will never get... often because they cannot afford it or prefer to spend the cash on a new BMW.
I have always hated Wide Angle lenses, and the images they produce, and seldom see a landscape that, I think, would not have been better if it had been taken with a longer lens.
...but, for architectural photography, I think that there are times when you need a very wide lens,,, and I have been watching eBay for an Apo-Digitar 47XL for over a year... and I got it today.
Kapture Group say they will make a P3 lens board for it, and I hope to use it with an eShutter next year.
I might be able to get it to work with the the P2 lensboard that My Super-Angulon 47 XL is in.
There are some buildings locally for which this lens would be ideal (the Shakespeare Hotel, Stratford-Upon-Avon and the Lord Leyster Hospital, Warwick) and I hope to get out some week soon and use it.
... but will I become a WA enthusiast?
What wide-angles do you use for what subjects?
-
47 really isnt super wide.
I feel the same way about wide angle lenses. The widest I use is a 35 digital, but I see many architectural photographers using wider than that. I just hate the look.
In my opinion, less is more when it comes to architectural photography. As an architectural photographer shooting interiors, most of the time is spent setting up the shot, moving furniture, moving things to different spot of the image to add to flow of the composition. There is a sweet spot for any given interior; it is extremely rare that it is wider than 35mm. I feel that showing too much, is one of the main downfalls for failed architectural photographers.
-
I completely agree that 35mm on 35 is as wide as one can go and still look normal. We refer to the 24 as the "bathroom and staircase lens", we too use our wider lenses only as a last option. Or when shooting one point perspective and nothing is too close to the lens. Enthusiast? No. Sometimes it is the (only) right tool for the job.
Have fun with it, but if it starts looking "wonky" look for another option.
Dave
-
Agree wholeheartedly. The 35XL on my WDS is as wide as i go. I would much rather stitch a couple of shots from that together than waste money on a 24mm Rodenstock. IMO it's just not natural at all in the corners. Everything just gets stretched out of proportion and you're really no better off than using a 17mm TSII on something like a Hartblei.
-
I have to say I hate rules and generalisations and don't hesitate to use superwides when I feel they're appropriate.
This is a case where it works. This is more of an artistic purpose.
I was thinking more along the lines of documenting architects' work. Where accuracy is an important issue. Having a window that takes up a quarter of the frame wouldn't be ideal for this type of work.
-
I go as wide as the 35mm on my P65+. If I need wider I pull out the 17 TS-e and the 5d2. Those get the job done when you HAVE to tell the WHOLE story, but I don't care for the look and feel that the totally misrepresent the architecture.
All in all, at least with interiors (most of what I shoot) my new 43mm gets 80% of my work done.
Cheers,
CB
-
The 35 mm is my most used lens on an aptus 75 - I use the 23mm quite a lot as well, even stitched.... I like wide angels and as CB saids, sometimes you have to tell the whole story. Of course you have to "tame" the view when stitching with a 23 mm ;)
I think that 75 % of all my work is done with the 23mm and 35mm.
the new 28mm is tempting - have anyone tested?
/adam
-
Thank you all for your replies...
The Apo-Digitar 47XL is a 100 degree lens, but you have to stitch to get all of it. Is there anything much wider that is not a fish-eye?
I have bought on eBay the Sinar P3 sliding back that replaces the holder, so I hope to be able to use tilt as well as shift.
-
I sometimes use a Schneider 47mm with my P2 - you need a recessed lens board. You also need a bag bellows for any movements. I use it with the Schneider electronic shutter, and I don't know if a copal shutter would be accessible in the recessed board. It's a sharp lens but not very wide.
Ben
-
When they work and are used by someone who knows the lens, the results can be amazing.
Most of the time though, I think any wider then your binocular vision is too wide to look good and starts to look unreal, especially if it is not a one point.
-
I go as wide as the 35mm on my P65+. If I need wider I pull out the 17 TS-e and the 5d2. Those get the job done when you HAVE to tell the WHOLE story, but I don't care for the look and feel that the totally misrepresent the architecture.
All in all, at least with interiors (most of what I shoot) my new 43mm gets 80% of my work done.
Cheers,
CB
You are known for your beautiful interior images. They never have that extreme "wide angle" look. This gives furnishings an elegant solidity, where they sit comfortably in the space instead of feeling like they are flying towards the center of the frame. Anyone trying to learn interior photography could do allot worse than studying your approach.
-
the new 28mm is tempting - have anyone tested?
yes, but just very quickly.
Attached the light falloff on a P45 centered and at 15mm lateral shift - the latter shows at least 4 stops falloff, probably more.
Schneider will provide a centerfilter (glass, so "analogue").
It is very sharp right from f5.6 in the center. And still quite good at the edges within the film plane of the P45 at f11 and f16.
Movements are limited, IMO, as sharpness falloff is significant. I'd consider 5-7mm shift (lateral in horizontal composition, i.e. on the long side) "usable" with the P45. Unless there is only sky or so in the respective area so that sharpness is not an issue... in this case you might use more movements. So on a full frame DB movements are most likely very limited. Maybe it is a bit better on Dalsa sensors but actually I don't think so.
Stitching with a 47XL or 43XL to gain the equivalent field of view of the 28mm is clearly better (re sharpness)... but of course stitching is not always possible.
As to "usable"... better try it out by yourself...
-
With a 100 degree lens,
If the image circle is over double the format length,
and a building is as tall (above eye level) as your maximum distance from it,
you get the full benefit of the format (pixels)
as you don't have to crop
This is the case with the Apo-digitar 47XL, and I think it makes it a very useful lens for architectural exteriors?
-
yes, but just very quickly.
Thanks a lot tho_mas!
the light fall off reminds me of my old 24mm....
I know I have to test for my self, but will you describe the sharpness fall off, as comparable to the 35XL or better/worse
did you noticed any obvious distortion? that's where the digitars is normally very good performers - it's annoying that I have to use the Alpa lens correction tool all the time with 23mm - it's a very good tool though, but it adds an extra step in the workflow.
and yes the 47XL is a fantastic lens ;)
thanks adam
-
I know I have to test for my self, but will you describe the sharpness fall off, as comparable to the 35XL or better/worse
I don't know the 35XL but I would expect the 35XL being better. The 28XL gets not only soft (so that you can counter with additional sharpening); it gets really blurry ... I think this is due to the lens sitting extremely close to the sensor.
did you noticed any obvious distortion? that's where the digitars is normally very good performers
not in the crappy test shots I could take in the front yard at Cambo. According to Schneider it's 0.3%... which is fantastic, IMO.
I think this lens will have its place! I guess you wouldn't use large movements with such a lens anyway.
But I have no experience with lenses that wide (except of stitching occasionally with the 47XL) and someone experienced in working with ultra wides might get much better results, of course.
and yes the 47XL is a fantastic lens
yes, it is. However I just swapped it for the 43XL which is noticably better at f8 than the 47XL. At f11 and f16 the difference is not so much (as far as I can tell from first shots); the 43XL obviously provides slightly more contrast at the edges, but, again, the real improvement is the performance at f8... IMO.
-
i hate wide angle look, but as a pro, if the client ask me to show the building in one image, then i will take the lens that can do it... but most of time, i favor 45 and 55 lenses... then 35xl... then stitching... this morning, i had to shoot a staircase, the stitching with the 35 was the only way to do it, my taste is an other story...
-
Dick please post some pics when the lens is up and running.
-
i hate wide angle look, but as a pro, if the client ask me to show the building in one image, then i will take the lens that can do it... but most of time, i favor 45 and 55 lenses... then 35xl... then stitching... this morning, i had to shoot a staircase, the stitching with the 35 was the only way to do it, my taste is an other story...
I feel that if I am trying to make the grade as an arch photog, I will have to have a 90ish degree lens, even if I can normally do without it.
-
This thread would have been so much more informative if everyone had been specific on what format/sensor size, delivering what angle of view, they were using their lenses. Just saying "I use a XXmm", as some people did, is telling less than half the story.
-
Using the HASSELBLAD V-SYSTEM and also the SWC , I did not really like wide angle photography .
Then , after I bought the CFV-16 some years ago , I was fighting the crop factor of 1.4 for the CFV-16 .
Now , some years later I am very much in architecture photography and somehow , I now love wide angles .
So I ended up with an ALPA12SWA and the fantastic RODENSTOCK DIGARON-S 4,5/28mm + a CFV-39 .
A real wide angle combo .
But I also have an APO-GRANDAGON-N 4,5/45mm which I got adapted for use with the ALPA .
It gives me surprisingly sharp images and has a rather big image circle . Good for stitching .
Sometimes , I doubt , that so called digital lenses are really required , if the pixel size of your back is 6,0 or 6,8 micron
and your maximum prints are not bigger than of A2 size .
-
This thread would have been so much more informative if everyone had been specific on what format/sensor size, delivering what angle of view, they were using their lenses. Just saying "I use a XXmm", as some people did, is telling less than half the story.
Yes, thank you, the lens angle of view, format angle of view and stitch/tilt ability are very relevant... I should have asked this in the original post... but assuming all the lenses mentioned are Schneider Apo Digitar, is the info available where on the Schneider web site? I downloaded some info some time ago, but do not know where to find current info.
-
This thread would have been so much more informative if everyone had been specific on what format/sensor size, delivering what angle of view, they were using their lenses. Just saying "I use a XXmm", as some people did, is telling less than half the story.
Well, I dont think many are using a 1.3 crop for architecture. So you can probably assume that we were talking full frame or a 1.1x sensor
-
Well, I dont think many are using a 1.3 crop for architecture. So you can probably assume that we were talking full frame or a 1.1x sensor
645 or 40 * 50mm, or thereabouts... but the format is less relevant if the lens has accessible spare image circle for shift-and0stitch.
-
Or 6x9cm, or 4x5 inch.
I don't like to assume.
Even going from a P30 to a P65+ means a big shift in apparent crop factor from 645, never mind the larger formats.
-
My local City has a very good art gallery, I was struck by the fact that painters do not feel the need to get everything in but paint to look natural, buildings always looked right the urge to make a cart or person appear out of proportion with the background was non-existant. I think it makes you look at the picture not the effect of the picture which can hide what the picture is trying to portray. Then again I shoot an awful lot on 17mm on 35mm and sometimes 12 mm the effect does please clients and if the client is pleased I am pleased.
Kevin.