Which Wide?

[billco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Going to Europe next year and wondered if purchasing the 28mm would be acceptable for shooting great pictures inside cathedrals and such; or will I kick myself for not having a 24, or 21, or even 18?

 

Has anybody had great results in churches with a 28, or is wider more appropriate?

 

Thanks.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Going to Europe next year and wondered if purchasing the 28mm would be acceptable for shooting great pictures inside cathedrals and such; or will I kick myself for not having a 24, or 21, or even 18?

 

Has anybody had great results in churches with a 28, or is wider more appropriate?

 

Thanks.

 

IMHO: yes. See some examples here: (M9 and WATE 16-18-21mm)

 

Zenfolio | Sander van Hulsenbeek Photography | Antique Rome

Zenfolio | Sander van Hulsenbeek Photography | Rome 2010

 

And while you are preparing: think about some tasteful use of HDR, eminently suited for this kind of use.

[billco]

Pictures are stunning!

 

Do you ever have issues with available light and the f4 speed? Were all the indoor shots taken without flash? Do you use the Universal Finder?

 

Thanks.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Thanks! Just holding tight against a wall, or so. Never with flash! Kills the athmosphere IMHO. I use the Leica Brightline finder 18mm.

[markgay]

I understand it depends how much post processing you want to do.

 

Some people use their M9 for standard lenses only and keep the wides for their film bodies where there are no problems with strange-coloured edges.

 

I'm about to experiment with Titanium lenses in the hope that the blessed metal .... no, that's a provocation ))

[vanhulsenbeek]

I understand it depends how much post processing you want to do.

 

Some people use their M9 for standard lenses only and keep the wides for their film bodies where there are no problems with strange-coloured edges.

 

No such thing with the WATE on the M9!

[gyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Going to Europe next year and wondered if purchasing the 28mm would be acceptable for shooting great pictures inside cathedrals and such; or will I kick myself for not having a 24, or 21, or even 18?

 

Has anybody had great results in churches with a 28, or is wider more appropriate?

 

Thanks.

 

I carry a 'fast film camera' with me when travelling as well as a 'normal' one, for decades the fast one had a 35 f/2 on it for available light interiors, as it was the fastest/widest you could get with good quality. For the last few years its been a 28/1.9 Ultron which gives that bit extra field of view which is often useful. Paradoxically the fast camera is usually the M3, with a separate viewfinder obviously, but it works better with the long focal lengths than the M6ttl, and I can't see the 28 frame on that anyway with my glasses on!

I know a Summicron would be 'better' but since its only at full aperture if the shutter speed gets down to a 1/30 the extra resolution would be lost in the camera shake, and I dont have any other use for the focal length, its not one I like for general stuff, I prefer to go down to 24 or 21 if 35 isn't wide enough.

 

Gerry

[vanhulsenbeek]

It looks like this thread is moving towards film camera's, where the OP originally posted in M9 Forum!

[billco]

It looks like this thread is moving towards film camera's, where the OP originally posted in M9 Forum!

 

Thanks. Yes I am about to pull the trigger on purchasing an M9 (if I don't chicken out) and wondered which lens for shooting inside churches, etc. would be most appropriate.

 

Also, being new here, I don't know why they moved my post.

[euston]

Going to Europe next year and wondered if purchasing the 28mm would be acceptable for shooting great pictures inside cathedrals and such; or will I kick myself for not having a 24, or 21, or even 18?

 

Has anybody had great results in churches with a 28, or is wider more appropriate?

 

Thanks.

 

Yes, 28mm is just fine for interiors. I’ve had good results with the Elmarit 28 ASPH. I’ve also just acquired a 21mm lens for interiors. I’m still getting used to it but results so far are promising. Here are a couple of similar pictures of Winchester Cathedral which may give you an idea of the field of view you get with each lens. Don’t take too much notice of the colours. They were shot a year apart and I seem to have processed the colours differently.

 

If I could only have one, I would choose the 28mm. I find it useful as a general purpose wide angle lens. You can use it for almost anything with decent results. The 21mm is a more specialised wide angle lens. Controlling perspective distortion can be tricky which makes it a less obvious choice for street shooting, for example.

 

Leica Elmarit 2.8/28 ASPH

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Zeiss Biogon 2.8/21

[lars_bergquist]

A 18mm f:4 lens is perfectly useable even in Medieval gloom. I didn't own a M9 camera when this picture was taken – I just had the first one in Sweden on order – so the picture was made on ISO200 film in a M4P!

 

The old man out of the Dark Ages

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[brill64]

you would find a 28 to be very useful and extremely versatile but if you are only intending to shoot massive interiors, you should probably pack something like a carl zeiss 12 or if it must be a leica lens, a wate 16-18-21 (incredible) or an 18/21. just one for now though..

[gyoung]

It looks like this thread is moving towards film camera's, where the OP originally posted in M9 Forum!

 

In this case Film and Digital are the same, so no arguements for once

 

As long as its full frame (as per M9) not a cropped one!

 

Gerry

[iShutterbug]

Going to Europe next year and wondered if purchasing the 28mm would be acceptable for shooting great pictures inside cathedrals and such; or will I kick myself for not having a 24, or 21, or even 18?

 

Has anybody had great results in churches with a 28, or is wider more appropriate?

 

Thanks.

I toured a variety of European castles, cathedrals and museums last year and I came away thinking that for interiors 16-18-21 f/4 (with the viewfinder and full frame) is ideal for M9 at higher ISO (so you can stop down). In general, inside, it's very close quarters and often dark, or dark with shafts of bright light coming in through the windows, exposure is tricky but with digital you can monitor it. If you're touring you don't know what time of day you'll be there, how much time you'll have to shoot/wait around for crowds to leave the area, etc., so having a choice of focal lengths quickly is very important and the faster the better. I would include a very small table-top tripod (mine was confiscated at the Vatican and at the end of the tour I had to walk all the way around to the front again to retrieve it, that was a long way and it was hot outside)(from that experience I entered cathedrals, museums, etc., with camera outside bag and tripod inside, they never looked in, once inside I never had problem surreptitiously using small tripod bracing against railings, walls, etc.). I also shot another brand digital camera with (ff) 16-35 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L IS and got great shots inside and out, it was a breeze. When I go again I will have 14mm f/2.8L and 17mm f/4L tilt-shift lens with me because I want the best results. I strongly recommend doing some practicing at your home-town churches and sights beforehand.

 

Don

[FrozenInTime]

In this case Film and Digital are the same, so no arguements for once

 

Actually I would argue otherwise:

 

On digital, it's easier to do a bit of perspective correction in photoshop.

 

Also with digital stitching, otherwise impossible vistas are possible: combining a dozen 28mm frames is quite easy for objects like cathedrals, which don't move too quickly.

However when handholding, ensuring overlapped frames around a nodal point, takes a bit of practice.

 

With either film or digital, the wider the lens, the easier your life will be.

There are times, where, if you want to eliminate converging verticals, even the 12mm is not wide enough.

 

Though beware that as you go beyond 90mm angle of view, the correct drawing of geometries leads to elongation of near objects.

In such cases the cylindrical mapping of a stitched image can look more natural than an ultra wide rectilinear frame.

[gyoung]

Actually I would argue otherwise:

 

On digital, it's easier to do a bit of perspective correction in photoshop.

 

Also with digital stitching, otherwise impossible vistas are possible: combining a dozen 28mm frames is quite easy for objects like cathedrals, which don't move too quickly.

However when handholding, ensuring overlapped frames around a nodal point, takes a bit of practice.

 

With either film or digital, the wider the lens, the easier your life will be.

There are times, where, if you want to eliminate converging verticals, even the 12mm is not wide enough.

 

Though beware that as you go beyond 90mm angle of view, the correct drawing of geometries leads to elongation of near objects.

In such cases the cylindrical mapping of a stitched image can look more natural than an ultra wide rectilinear frame.

 

The OP's question related to choice of lens, actually no camera was mentioned but I assumed M and full frame rather than cropped (M8), in which case its entirely irrelevant whether origination is film or digital. My recomendation was as much based on the possibilities for hand held available light shots with an F/2 aperture available rather than the angle of view, I would prefer a 21 but an f/2 21 wasn't available when I bought it, and I doubt I could ever afford the 1.4. In any case depth of field beyond f/2 would probably be too limited for general shots of interiors.

 

What you are talking about is post processing, and all the possibilities you mention are just as relevant to a scanned film image as to an image from a digital camera.

Indeed its just such possibilities that have meant I make more use of my lovely Leica lenses

... and the Nikkor 35 PC hasn't had an outing in several years, in spite of the reflex camera being easier to use for formal architectural stuff.

Let us not forget that all such manipulation was possible in the darkroom, even if it was FAR more difficult (and the results often less satisfactory) than with Photoshop.

 

My comment was, of course, tongue in cheek,

and not intended to start yet another pointless film versus digital debate/arguement

 

Best Wishes, Gerry!

Gerry

[tobey bilek]

You can get wide real fast. 18 almost is 90 deg horizontal. Stand in a room corner, and it sees almost the whole room.

 

The wider you , the smaller things appear in the frame.

 

A 35 and 24 are most useful to me. Otherwise 35 alone. You can always make a panorama which you need to practice at home first..