Wide angle lenses. Too much of a good thing?

On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were beginning to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look interesting. This plagues many images today. Is it a legitimate way, distorting human perception, to make something inherently boring into something not boring? Does the image
then become "good?" Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in absolute photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.


It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

--
Mike Headon
R69S R850R
IIIc IIIg FT FTn FT2 EOS450D
e-mail: mike dot headon at enn tee ell world dot com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On May 29, 2019, Mike Headon wrote
(in article ):

On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were beginning
to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look interesting. This
plagues many images today. Is it a legitimate way, distorting human
perception, to make something inherently boring into something not boring?
Does the image
then become "good?" Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in absolute
photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.

It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

However, there are times when having a WA handy can provide interesting
results, especially when it comes to landscapes. In this case I used a 14mm
f/2.8. It is best to have some idea of just how a lens might work in a given
situation and what you are trying to achieve. I consider my 14mm f/2.8, 16mm
f/1.4 and my 16-55mm f/2.8 among my very best glass with the 16-55mm living
on my camera most of the time. For the times I want, or need to go long I
have my 100-400mm.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-CxCCWs6/0/970e4306/O/i-CxCCWs6.jpg

....and one shot with the 16-55mm a little less wide at 24mm.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-V42pG4Q/0/87e5cde6/O/i-V42pG4Q.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Mike Headon
wrote:


It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

the first and biggest mistake is to blindly follow what a magazine
article tells you, almost always written by someone who is paid to
shill whatever the article is claiming is good.

buy whatever lenses are appropriate for the type of photography you
want to do, which will be different for different people. there is no
single answer.

those who want to shoot landscapes, interiors or many other scenarios
where a long focus lens is clearly the wrong lens would be foolish to
purchase one.

for most people, the best choice for their *first* lens is a general
purpose wide-tele zoom, and after using it for a while, see how it's
limiting what they want to do, if it is at all.

On 5/29/2019 6:56 AM, Mike Headon wrote:
On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were
beginning to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look
interesting.* This plagues many images today.* Is it a legitimate way,
distorting human perception, to make something inherently boring into
something not boring?* Does the image
* then become "good?"* Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in
absolute photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.


It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

My spokes-cat #Squiky finds the distortion issue interesting. ;-)
She also objects to being called a poor subject. ;-)


https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vrw8rc593...resting%29.jpg
:-)
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 5/29/19 9:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2019, Mike Headon wrote
(in article ):

On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were beginning
to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look interesting. This
plagues many images today. Is it a legitimate way, distorting human
perception, to make something inherently boring into something not boring?
Does the image
then become "good?" Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in absolute
photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.

It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

However, there are times when having a WA handy can provide interesting
results, especially when it comes to landscapes. In this case I used a 14mm
f/2.8. It is best to have some idea of just how a lens might work in a given
situation and what you are trying to achieve. I consider my 14mm f/2.8, 16mm
f/1.4 and my 16-55mm f/2.8 among my very best glass with the 16-55mm living
on my camera most of the time. For the times I want, or need to go long I
have my 100-400mm.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-CxCCWs6/0/970e4306/O/i-CxCCWs6.jpg

...and one shot with the 16-55mm a little less wide at 24mm.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-V42pG4Q/0/87e5cde6/O/i-V42pG4Q.jpg


I concur with the landscape situation. In both of SD's fine examples,
the wide angle justs provides a more expansive view. The perspective of
the image is pretty much what you would expect to see.

My first "extra" lens was a 28mm wide angle, back in high school. I did
all the common perspective distorting shots, then put it away (and
finally sold it when I became a collector, and wanted to keep my
collection "pure"!).
I still sometimes use my 35mm, 28mm, and a few times, my 18mm. But only
when I can't take some steps back. I try to avoid the distortion of
lines running off into the distance.

--
Ken Hart

On Wed, 29 May 2019 15:37:42 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 5/29/19 9:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2019, Mike Headon wrote
(in article ):

On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were beginning
to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look interesting. This
plagues many images today. Is it a legitimate way, distorting human
perception, to make something inherently boring into something not boring?
Does the image
then become "good?" Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in absolute
photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.

It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

However, there are times when having a WA handy can provide interesting
results, especially when it comes to landscapes. In this case I used a 14mm
f/2.8. It is best to have some idea of just how a lens might work in a given
situation and what you are trying to achieve. I consider my 14mm f/2.8, 16mm
f/1.4 and my 16-55mm f/2.8 among my very best glass with the 16-55mm living
on my camera most of the time. For the times I want, or need to go long I
have my 100-400mm.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-CxCCWs6/0/970e4306/O/i-CxCCWs6.jpg

...and one shot with the 16-55mm a little less wide at 24mm.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-V42pG4Q/0/87e5cde6/O/i-V42pG4Q.jpg


I concur with the landscape situation. In both of SD's fine examples,
the wide angle justs provides a more expansive view. The perspective of
the image is pretty much what you would expect to see.

My first "extra" lens was a 28mm wide angle, back in high school. I did
all the common perspective distorting shots, then put it away (and
finally sold it when I became a collector, and wanted to keep my
collection "pure"!).
I still sometimes use my 35mm, 28mm, and a few times, my 18mm. But only
when I can't take some steps back. I try to avoid the distortion of
lines running off into the distance.

I first encountered wide angle lenses many years ago when in the
course of work I had to take photographs in confined spaces. Since
then I have always had a zoom lens with a good wide angle as part of
my kit. My current lens on a full frame camera is a 24~70 (plus
others) and I find I use the wide end of the range more often than I
do the wide. To some extent that is a consequence of the style of
photographs I tend to take.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:43:13 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 5/29/2019 6:56 AM, Mike Headon wrote:
On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were
beginning to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look
interesting.Â* This plagues many images today.Â* Is it a legitimate way,
distorting human perception, to make something inherently boring into
something not boring?Â* Does the image
Â* then become "good?"Â* Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in
absolute photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.


It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

My spokes-cat #Squiky finds the distortion issue interesting. ;-)
She also objects to being called a poor subject. ;-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vrw8rc593...resting%29.jpg
:-)

My guardian of the electronic food bowl prefers 200mm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8th7gqu0l3...03208.jpg?dl=0
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/29/2019 8:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 11:43:13 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 5/29/2019 6:56 AM, Mike Headon wrote:
On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were
beginning to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look
interesting.* This plagues many images today.* Is it a legitimate way,
distorting human perception, to make something inherently boring into
something not boring?* Does the image
* then become "good?"* Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in
absolute photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.


It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

My spokes-cat #Squiky finds the distortion issue interesting. ;-)
She also objects to being called a poor subject. ;-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vrw8rc593...resting%29.jpg
:-)

My guardian of the electronic food bowl prefers 200mm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8th7gqu0l3...03208.jpg?dl=0

Nice kitty photo. For what it's worth, my #Squiky photo was (hopefully) an
obviously Photoshopped ultra wide caricature. :-)
~~
My first wide angle lens was not the first "extra' lens in my bag.
I added an (absurd) fish eye to my kit in the late 60's.
For what it's worth, here's the only shot I could dig up from
way back then, part of my laser diode research lab.
[scan from a slide]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m1fqheysia...Lab%20009b.jpg
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 5/30/19 12:00 AM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 May 2019 06:56:30 UTC-4, Mike Headon wrote:
On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were beginning to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look interesting. This plagues many images today. Is it a legitimate way, distorting human perception, to make something inherently boring into something not boring? Does the image
then become "good?" Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in absolute photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.


It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

--
Mike Headon
R69S R850R
IIIc IIIg FT FTn FT2 EOS450D
e-mail: mike dot headon at enn tee ell world dot com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I read one thing that said (I don't know if it's true) that the primary landscape lens 30 years ago was the 50mm and that it wasn't uncommon to use 100mm.


Depends on what camera...
On a 4"x5", a 135mm would be normal, so both the 50mm and 100mm would be
wide.
Even on a 6x6cm, 50mm would be wide. I would think that for the time
frame of "30 years ago", a 6x6cm camera would not be unreasonable.

--
Ken Hart

On May 29, 2019, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 5/29/19 9:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2019, Mike Headon wrote
(in article ):

On 29/05/2019 07:43, RichA wrote:
Alfred Stieglitz said in 1945 he didn't like the way people were beginning
to use "distortion" to try to make poor subjects look interesting. This
plagues many images today. Is it a legitimate way, distorting human
perception, to make something inherently boring into something not boring?
Does the image then become "good?" Stieglitz was part of Group 64 who believed in
absolute photo realism, the highest resolution and contrast in images.

It was over 50 years ago that I bought a wide-angle lens for my Canon.
My wife-to-be gleefully read out an article in Amateur Photographer
saying that getting a WA was the first mistake amateurs make - they
should get a long-focus lens to concentrate on the subject rather than
make the picture more cluttered!

However, there are times when having a WA handy can provide interesting
results, especially when it comes to landscapes. In this case I used a 14mm
f/2.8. It is best to have some idea of just how a lens might work in a given
situation and what you are trying to achieve. I consider my 14mm f/2.8, 16mm
f/1.4 and my 16-55mm f/2.8 among my very best glass with the 16-55mm living
on my camera most of the time. For the times I want, or need to go long I
have my 100-400mm.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-CxCCWs6/0/970e4306/O/i-CxCCWs6.jpg

...and one shot with the 16-55mm a little less wide at 24mm.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-V42pG4Q/0/87e5cde6/O/i-V42pG4Q.jpg

I concur with the landscape situation. In both of SD's fine examples,
the wide angle justs provides a more expansive view. The perspective of
the image is pretty much what you would expect to see.

My first "extra" lens was a 28mm wide angle, back in high school. I did
all the common perspective distorting shots, then put it away (and
finally sold it when I became a collector, and wanted to keep my
collection "pure"!).
I still sometimes use my 35mm, 28mm, and a few times, my 18mm. But only
when I can't take some steps back. I try to avoid the distortion of
lines running off into the distance.

I feel that much of the argument over focal length boils down to that
intangible, taste. That and the manner the photographer uses any glass to
produce his/her images. While different lenses lend themselves to a
particular genre there are no hard and fast rule restricting a particular FL
to a particular genre. For example, landscape shooting doesn’t necessarily
need to be locked into WA, or UWA when having a longer lens handy can produce
something a bit different.

In the case of these shots I went out to 200mm.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-zNqRfzp/0/a117cf59/O/i-zNqRfzp.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LdTXfNn/0/b962bf70/O/i-LdTXfNn.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck