wizard Posted August 14, 2006 Share #21 Posted August 14, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is it about a grimace on the face of the helmsman ? or is it a scenic shot ? or is it about a yacht going fast ? IMHO it doesn't tell me anything. To me it is about fierce winds (cf. his hair being blown backwards) and trying to cope with them while at the same time trying hard to steer the yacht. You need the surroundings to understand the situation, at least in my view, and the wide angle adds dynamic to the shot. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 Hi wizard, Take a look here Who wants wideangle ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
craigrmurray Posted August 14, 2006 Share #22 Posted August 14, 2006 Anthony: When I shot news in the '80s, my "normal lens" was the 24mm Elmarit-R, and that was because there was then no 24mm for the M series. My second body carried an 80 Summilux-R, the third a 180 Elmarit. Sometimes I carried a fourth M4-P with a 21mm Super-Angulon (all this in the days before really good zooms). Somehow the 28mm has never worked for me -- it's not wide enough to capture much more than the 35mm, plus one either needs an aux. viewfinder, or else it's difficult to frame in M cameras so equipped. The 35mm on the M seems like what everyone else considers the "normal" view of things, 'cause the 50mm seems like a short telephoto to me. I remember that lots of news guys preferred wide-angle because it seems to have more impact on the printed page. One unfortunate fact of todays' newpapers is an ever-shrinking physical format (high cost of newsprint), and the picture-unfriendly trend started by USSR (excuse me ) USA Today back in the '80s -- namely -- more, but smaller color pictures. Back in my day, a large, four-column (ca. 8.5" wide) picture (B&W) above the fold (remember, it must catch the eye when displayed in a newspaper vending machine) was usual for a page-one pic. Very graphic. A wide-angle lens shot close to the subject, IMHO, just has more impact. On the other hand, that really compressed shot from a long lens (300mm or greater) often has similar visual impact. The point is, pix shot with 28-105mm lens look too "normal"; their look is not enough outside the perspective of everyday visual reality to have the impact of very short and very long focal length lenses. Anyway, just thought I'd put in my two cents... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcemanYQQ Posted August 14, 2006 Share #23 Posted August 14, 2006 I could live with 24mm, and 90mm on a conventional M. Throw in a 35mm, and I would be set. I am considering the possibility of shooting some of my architecture with the M8, and am therefore considering the 15mm, or the 12mm from Voigtlander. I know there are issues, but they will work for my needs. The approx. 21mm provided by the rumored 16mm may be enough. This new lens, is it a zoom, or are they offering 3 new lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 15, 2006 Share #24 Posted August 15, 2006 "is it a zoom, or are they offering 3 new lenses?" Completely unknown except by people who can't talk. An Italian dealer price list was quoted (on another forum and then repeated here - usual web-rumor exponential growth) as listing a 16-18-21 f/4 tri-focal lens (not zoom - no in-between focal lengths). The post on the other forum neither confirmed nor denied whether there would be, in addition to the tri-focal (if real), one or more single-focal-length ultrawides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted August 15, 2006 Share #25 Posted August 15, 2006 I have to jump into this thread with my two cents, because I most definitely want wide-angle! Since the transition to digital sensors from film, with the unavoidable crop factor, it has been us wide-angle shooters who have really lost out. To answer the original poster, I have only two R lenses: a 90mm Summicron and a 28mm Elmarit. I would say 80% of my shots are taken with the 28. It has become my "normal" lens. Well Iv'e not really had an answer to why people want wideangle. Some have said they do, the pictures shown all having intense distortion, and many too much depth of focus for my liking. So I know they are used simply by the M8 questions but why ? Does it pack more into the frame ? Does it make people fat ? Does it bend trees and make roads look longer ? All to your liking ? As others have pointed out above, we each see differently and shoot in unique styles. Since you ask, the reason WHY I shoot wide is because my eye sees wide. They say the 50mm focal length most closely approximates normal human vision, but I seem to have much wider peripheral vision than most. For me the 50 and even 35 is too claustrophobic. Since I shoot a lot of landscape and wilderness as well as travel photography, the extreme depth of field is not a liablitity, but rather a benefit. But I have to disagree that a wide must necessarily imply distortion, at least not with a 28. I have taken many shots where there is no visible distortion at all... it depends on how you compose and hold the camera, and how close you shoot to foreground subjects. Plus with a wide-angle, you can always crop down to obtain a telephoto crop, unfortunately the reverse is not true with telephoto lenses, we cannot regain what is outside of the frame. For this reason I am most excited by the new 16:9 format of the D-Lux 2 (LX1 and 2). From what I am reading by owners of this camera, they are rediscovering the joys of wide angle composition, and many now shoot with the lens always set at full 16:9. It affords a new way of seeing and composing, plus one can always crop down later. With cropped sensors, we owners of wide angle glass lose this option. I will probably get myself a D-Lux 3 when announced to tie me over until Leica finally releases a full format R10 so I can resume using my 28 Elmarit as it was designed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 16, 2006 Share #26 Posted August 16, 2006 I think one important thing to consider here is that it is useful if a camera allows a photographer to have choices. Whether or not a given photographer wants to use a certain focal length is an individual decision but the wider a range of lenses a camera can work well with, the more flexible it can be. A 21 on the R-D1 (using an accessory finder) gives me a 32 mm EFOV which is just about the widest I care to shoot handheld. But that's just me. On a tripod I sometimes shoot as wide as 12 mm. There's no such thing as a superior focal length. I happen to love the 35 - 50 mm range that some photographers avoid at all costs. Different strokes... Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted August 16, 2006 Share #27 Posted August 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) A 21 on the R-D1 (using an accessory finder) gives me a 32 mm EFOV which is just about the widest I care to shoot handheld. But that's just me. Sean That's just me too. But on a DSLR that doesn't seem wide at all. Is this "just me" or do other folks experience this feeling? Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 16, 2006 Share #28 Posted August 16, 2006 I find these responses very interesting, especially as the seem to conflict with the use our LPP group makes of its lenses. I know there are certain situations where it is imperative that a wide angle is used but they seem to be for professional purposes rather than anything artistic. I suppose the most notable exception to that is Bill Brandt's pictures taken with his Woolworths camera, but these are almost abstract. I don't think HCB ever used wide angle but he got very close to faces on occasions. As some have said it is a personal thing but then I don't like modern abstract minimalist paintings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 16, 2006 Share #29 Posted August 16, 2006 My 28 Elmarit is my normal lens too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 16, 2006 Share #30 Posted August 16, 2006 Andy - When you say normal do you mean the one you leave on the camera, or just that its always in your kit ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 16, 2006 Share #31 Posted August 16, 2006 It's the one I leave on the camera and the one that I am constantly putting back on the camera if I am using something else... It's just the way that I see is mostly closely reproduced for me by the 28. To be frank, it's also my most expensive lens, so I like to get my money's worth out of it Unlike some others here, I like depth of field in my shots (depending on what I am shooting, of course) and am not one of those who think that Leica lenses should only be used wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 16, 2006 Share #32 Posted August 16, 2006 That's interesting but beware muscle waste in your focussing finger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted August 16, 2006 Share #33 Posted August 16, 2006 most pj shoot wide all the time, begrudgingly carry tele for the shot they absolutely can't get close to. wide expresses more accurately what the human eye sees. HCB shot with wide lenses as well as the 50 this has been discussed here at lengths in the past. i shoot wide (15-50) 99% of the time because i don't like the compressed look of a tele except in bird shots and macro. i also find the a piper examples of wide applications to be excellent and a great argument for wide. cheers......b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted August 16, 2006 Share #34 Posted August 16, 2006 ps-reason why i like wideangle.....cv15 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/3237-who-wants-wideangle/?do=findComment&comment=31745'>More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 16, 2006 Share #35 Posted August 16, 2006 I find these responses very interesting, especially as the seem to conflict with the use our LPP group makes of its lenses. I know there are certain situations where it is imperative that a wide angle is used but they seem to be for professional purposes rather than anything artistic. I suppose the most notable exception to that is Bill Brandt's pictures taken with his Woolworths camera, but these are almost abstract. I don't think HCB ever used wide angle but he got very close to faces on occasions. As some have said it is a personal thing but then I don't like modern abstract minimalist paintings. Hi Anthony, I hope the following is interesting. Here's a starter list of artists who worked/work with wide angle lenses (almost all with Leicas): Brandt (with a Leica) Winogrand (primarily wides) Robert Frank Cartier-Bresson Helen Levitt Josef Koudelka Danny Lyons Larry Clark Just a sampling, actually. It's a very long list. Please forgive my ignorance but what is an LPP group? Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 16, 2006 Share #36 Posted August 16, 2006 An interesting reading: The Best Lens for a Leica ...Mike Johnson's arguments in favor of wide-angle (35mm), A question: Is it the Summicron 35mm ASPH as good as the Summilux 35mm ASPH at the same apertures? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 16, 2006 Share #37 Posted August 16, 2006 Lee Friedlander also used Leicas. Friedlander and Winogrand employed wide-angles, 35mm and 28mm. I think 28mm is a difficult lens to handle for street photography, but Winogrand used that focal a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 16, 2006 Share #38 Posted August 16, 2006 Sean - I've not noticed any HCB wideangles although I may have seen a 35mm,certainly nothing wider than that. I have a couple of his books so I will have a look. the LPP is the Leica Postal Portfolio now called the Leica Society. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted August 16, 2006 Share #39 Posted August 16, 2006 A question: Is it the Summicron 35mm ASPH as good as the Summilux 35mm ASPH at the same apertures? With the obvious exception of f1.4, yes, definitely so (the differences are so subtle that you will not notice them in normal picture taking). Someone in this forum said 'There is no such thing as a bad Summicron', and boy he IS right. Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted August 16, 2006 Share #40 Posted August 16, 2006 I use 35mm more than anything else. Partly now that I have a 35'lux ASPH I better use it. I picked up a CV25/4 in May and like the results, wider than a 28, but easier to control that the CV21/4 I also have. I'd love to try a 15 just for fun as it seems to be so wide it just gets funny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.