Just an idea, but I think it is the future; are we all that enslaved to the super-wide? And if so, why?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good question! Perhaps it's because the super-wide gives us a perspective in one glance that we cannot achieve by looking at the real scene, without turning our head from side to side.
There are certain things the eye can do that the camera (in a single shot) cannot.
When the eye gaze moves from a bright part of a scene to a dark part of the same scene, there's an almost instantaneous enlargement of the pupil to take in the detail in the dark part of the scene. The camera has a fixed aperture. To mimic this effect of the eye, we have to take multiple shots at different exposures and digitally blend the images.
When viewing a really wide-angle scene, the eye cannot take in the full width of the panorama, in full detail, without some head turning. We get an experience of the vast width, without turning our head, but detail is lost (significantly) in our peripheral vision.
Dynamic range limitations of DSLRs fall short of what the eye can see clearly. Wide-angle lenses do not.
When trekking recently in Nepal, I started out with the Canon 24-105mm lens attached to my 5D. This seemed to be the most versatile combination.
However, the landscape scenes in Nepal are sometimes so vast and wide that 24mm on FF 35mm is not wide enough.
Fortunately, I was carrying the Sigma 15-30mm zoom, so when the occasion arose, I would change lenses. However, having changed lenses for a particular scene, it did not make sense to change back to the 24-105mm untill the occasion required it.
Here's a problem. When trekking in Nepal, one can never predict what's round the bend.
I'll use a few shots here to illustrate my point.
The first is a scene of a suspension bridge. I changed from my 24-105 to the Sigma 15-30 to take this shot. I'm quite pleased with it. I used f16 to get maximum DoF without serious loss of resolution. I guessed the hyperfocal distance and my guess appears to be fairly accurate. I took only one shot, I was that confident.
[attachment=2160:attachment]
Let's examine this shot. It's a Sigma lens on a FF camera. How are the corners?
Not too bad! There's some resolution loss in the extreme corners, but really not a major issue. Below is a 100% crop of the bottom left corner.
[attachment=2161:attachment]
What about the distant horizon, I hear you claim?
It's also quite good. And to think, I did all this without reference to DoF charts.
Here's a 100% crop of the distant horizon. If you think this crop is better than the whole scene, I will understand.
[attachment=2162:attachment]
However, having an ultra-wide lens on a FF camera can be a disadvantage. What happens if 5 minutes later a photographic opportunity occurs which requires a longer focal length?
Basically, you're stuffed. This was a major problem in Nepal, so I fixed the problem by carrying 2 cameras around my neck, the 20D with 24-105 lens and the 5D with 15-30 lens.
As a matter of interest, shortly after I took the shot of the bridge, I came across the following scene, still having the 15-30mm attached to my 5D.
I remember the internal decisions I went through. If I change lenses, I might miss the shot. This guy is running at a fairly fast pace.
I decided to stick with my inappropriate lens and wait till the horseman reached the right distance. The trade-off is, I only got one shot. And here it is, at 30mm, the maximum focal length of my lens.
[attachment=2163:attachment]
For those of you who are very concerned about composition, you might have noticed in the horeseman shot there's a boring, blank area of sky in the top left corner.
Not so! There are interesting power lines there.
[attachment=2164:attachment]
Oops! I forgot to mention. The first shot of the brdge was at f16 and 15mm. The second shot of the horseman was at f30 and f8.
