Wide angle and perspective

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Being a fan of wide angles I have a few and love what you can include for internal architecture but dislike the super wide perspective distortion. I now use a 15 for internal shots of rooms etc and prefer to the 18 which was not quite wide enough. My 12 is up for sale as the perspective is just too distorted presenting cloakrooms as ballrooms and most wide are darn slow too

 

21 is absolutely fine for me in terms of perspective, any guides rules of thumb regarding thinking about a larger format and something that approaches 15 with a perspective or look closer to 21 ?

 

Not that I really want to invest in another body, but have used film SWC before and like what it does

 

I wonder if an old S2 might be interesting ?

[erl]

Not quite sure if you are talking about 'perspective' or 'distortion' here. I am sure you know the difference.

Perspective is a function of the viewpoint of the lens (ie. where you stand).

Distortion is basically how much straight lines are bent by the lens. (Simply put).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

If you want a wideangle view with the perspective of an image taken from further away (with a longer lens)  the only real solution is to do panorama stitching.

[pgk]

Are you talking about 'projection'? Not all lenses appear to be quite as equal as they might be, but at the Field-of-Views which you are discussing there are limited choices and distortions of all kinds will be substantial. FWIW 'identically' shot images (tripod, nothing moved but lenses swapped over) from my 21SA and 21SE show the SE to be slightly wider and slightly more 'evenly corrected' but the difference is not substantial. I suspect that you will find differences between Ultrawides but wouldn't expect them to be great.

[jaapv]

I think he is talking about perspective distortion, whereby objects will appear trapezoid, increasing to the corners of a wideangle lens (like elongated heads, for instance).

[IWC Doppel]

Sorry for the poor explanation, the main problem for me is internal rooms look different than in the image than real life, ie they look huge, for me 21 is fine, 18 a bit distorted 15 quite a lot, 12 crazy. I wondered what a 24,21 on a larger format might cover in comparison.

 

Stitching is a good idea, but way too much effort for me to consider regularly tbh

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think he is talking about perspective distortion, whereby objects will appear trapezoid, increasing to the corners of a wideangle lens (like elongated heads, for instance).

 

Yes dislike this, but can live with it so long as I avoid people at the frame edges

[jaapv]

The distortion you are talking  of comes from the point in the room where you are standing -presumably with your back to a wall. That is not caused by the focal length of the lens. If you move to another format and choose a lens with the same angle of view as you were using before, the perspective will be identical, provided you don't move around.

[pgk]

Sorry for the poor explanation, the main problem for me is internal rooms look different than in the image than real life, ie they look huge, for me 21 is fine, 18 a bit distorted 15 quite a lot, 12 crazy. I wondered what a 24,21 on a larger format might cover in comparison.

 

Stitching is a good idea, but way too much effort for me to consider regularly tbh

 

20/21mm on FF equates to about 90 degrees field-of-view which is, form many reasons, IMO a 'sweet spot' of wide-angle lenses. I have nothing wider other than specialist fisheye lenses myself for the same reason. I think that you will find that any wider field-of-view on any format will give the same problems that you dislike. Sadly you are stuck with this.

[michaelwj]

I agree with wider than 20/21 looking a bit outrageous, no longer just wide but completely disconnected from reality, like the room no longer looks like the room.

 

I like wide angles for the ability to exaggerate the near-far perspective, but when you go too wide, it is just exaggerated to the ridiculous: the near object is now 20cm away, and the distant far object is a whole metre away!

 

You should get an SWC! The extra image height makes the difference.

[erl]

Or even a 40mm w/a on any Blad body, probably more versatile in other respects.

I agree the square format works wonders with the extra 'height'.

[luigi bertolotti]

Sorry for the poor explanation, the main problem for me is internal rooms look different than in the image than real life, ie they look huge, for me 21 is fine, 18 a bit distorted 15 quite a lot, 12 crazy. I wondered what a 24,21 on a larger format might cover in comparison.

 

Stitching is a good idea, but way too much effort for me to consider regularly tbh

I agree... for rooms (even with people inside, in positions "not too next to borders") 20/21 is the max wideangle that has a sense in 24x36  (not by chance the Hasselblad SWC was so succesful while the Zeiss Hologon15mm  camera not...  )

Going wider has no much sense unless one searches for a stunning effect... which is a different goal from a well taken picture in interiors.

[jdlaing]

I agree... for rooms (even with people inside, in positions "not too next to borders") 20/21 is the max wideangle that has a sense in 24x36  (not by chance the Hasselblad SWC was so succesful while the Zeiss Hologon15mm  camera not...  )

Going wider has no much sense unless one searches for a stunning effect... which is a different goal from a well taken picture in interiors.

Let me see if I can explain me feeling on this without getting to confusing.

 

I thought the same thing regarding 21mm until I tried 16 and 18.

I can use those two wider focal lengths and slightly correct distortion and get a 21mm finished product that looks better than using 21mm to start with and capture more real estate.

[pico]

You should get an SWC! The extra image height makes the difference.

 

Agreed, and the little bubble level on the SWC works very well, and if you need critical framing closer than infinity, or resolving foreground to distance, the ground-glass back with 90° finder works perfectly.

 

I do a lot of wide angle work, but not so much in 24x36mm format, although I am experimenting with the 10mm for the Leica M. I find it easier to use it and correct perspective in PP, and crop than using the 15mm.

 

While considering a larger forrmat, IMHO rule out Grandagon 35mm on 6x12cm. You will cover the area you want but with major compromises: centre filter required, rise required, f/stop of f/22 mandatory. Oi, it's such a pain. I wish I never bought it. The Plaubel Veriwide is better.

 

I just finished my third 47mm S-A over 4x5.

Edited September 20, 2016 by pico

[luigi bertolotti]

Let me see if I can explain me feeling on this without getting to confusing.

 

I thought the same thing regarding 21mm until I tried 16 and 18.

I can use those two wider focal lengths and slightly correct distortion and get a 21mm finished product that looks better than using 21mm to start with and capture more real estate.

 Do you mean that you take with , say, 18, then correct distorsions, then crop to 21 equivalent ? That's interesting... I remember to have made something of this kind when playing with my "odd" 18 on M (a Distagon for Contarex with adapter) and got nice end pictures (even if don't remember if the crop made the frame 21 equivalent...)

[jdlaing]

 Do you mean that you take with , say, 18, then correct distorsions, then crop to 21 equivalent ? That's interesting... I remember to have made something of this kind when playing with my "odd" 18 on M (a Distagon for Contarex with adapter) and got nice end pictures (even if don't remember if the crop made the frame 21 equivalent...)

 

Not quite. If I use a 16 or 18 I correct distortions and crop out the white borders that are the result but usually I get the image wider then 21. If I use a 21 and correct perspective or distortion then I get less than 21. For me the wider lenses work more to my liking.

[pico]

I just finished my third 47mm S-A over 4x5.

 

Here it is unfortunately without the viewfinder and wide-angle lens shade which I do have.

The base is being prepared for a quick tripod release. I should have it finished tomorrow.

 

 

4x5" back with 47mm Super Angulon.

Another here: http://www.digoliardi.net/super-wide-4x5-1.jpg

The wooden model is not as modular. The above back removes to clip onto a 6x9 roll film back.

The back looks oversize because it is a universal with ground glass and folding steel hood.

Edited September 20, 2016 by pico

[jaapv]

There is another aspect to this discussion. IMO using an ultra-wideangle to obtain a shot that should look like it has a standard perspective is putting the horse behind the cart. Such a lens should be used creatively, emphasizing the character - and that will produce stunning shots. A thread in this same forum has ample evidence. I think I will make it a sticky for a while.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253730-your-ultra-wide-angle-uwa-pictures-10mm-to-21mm/page-7?do=findComment&comment=3116117

[Jeff S]

View camera shifts, or tilt/shift lenses on smaller formats, afford great flexibility for addressing plane of focus, correcting verticals, etc.  But if stitching is considered too much effort, you probably wouldn't want to take the time and effort for camera/lens movements.  

 

BTW, stitching is now a piece of cake with updated versions of programs like LR, after following a few basic shooting principles.

 

Jeff

Edited September 21, 2016 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Matter of tastes. I often get more natural results at 21mm with corrected perspective than 24mm or 28mm uncorrected.