How wide is wide enough?

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
User avatar
sury
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
Location: San Jose, California, USA

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby sury » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:25 pm

Dusty,
I see what you mean. In fact, on my recent trip to Peru, I felt wanting on the wide side than zoom more often.
I thought I would sorely miss the 70-400. I just had 16-80 on A77II. Very unlikely setup compared to my typical
outfit.

Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper

harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby harvey » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:28 pm

Note that there were two Minolta A Mount 17-35mm lenses, an f/2.8-4 (D) and an f/3.5 G

User avatar
Cogito
Grand Caliph
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:41 pm
Location: Chatteris, Cambridgeshire.

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby Cogito » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:50 pm

sury wrote:Tony,
Thank you for the examples. I thought I would see more distortion at these focal lengths.
Sury

Sury, the link I provided to Dyxum is really quite informative. If you click on a lens, towards the bottom of the lens description you'll see a link to "Dyxum Forum Sample Images". These are for the lens in question and should satisfy any distortion problems you have.
Tony
Be you ever so high, the law is above you. Lord Denning

User avatar
sury
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
Location: San Jose, California, USA

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby sury » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:38 pm

harvey wrote:Note that there were two Minolta A Mount 17-35mm lenses, an f/2.8-4 (D) and an f/3.5 G


Harvey,
Thank you. Did not know that two versions exist. I was looking at f/2.8-4 as recommended anyway.

Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper

User avatar
sury
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
Location: San Jose, California, USA

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby sury » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:48 pm

Cogito wrote:
sury wrote:Tony,
Thank you for the examples. I thought I would see more distortion at these focal lengths.
Sury

Sury, the link I provided to Dyxum is really quite informative. If you click on a lens, towards the bottom of the lens description you'll see a link to "Dyxum Forum Sample Images". These are for the lens in question and should satisfy any distortion problems you have.


Tony,
I did check the Dyxum images. I meant I thought I would see more distortion but was pleasantly surprised that your photos did not have any distortion. I am convinced. :)

Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper

User avatar
sury
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
Location: San Jose, California, USA

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby sury » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:53 pm

What with our nephew having a baby and all that excitement and tension (due to a premature new born), I was quite preoccupied and everything else was put on a back burner for now. Will take it up later.

Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper

User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2287
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby Dusty » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:41 pm

sury wrote:What with our nephew having a baby and all that excitement and tension (due to a premature new born), I was quite preoccupied and everything else was put on a back burner for now. Will take it up later.

Sury


What? No photos yet? It's already the 8th!

You're slipping, Sury!

Dusty
An a700 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses.

User avatar
UrsaMajor
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:36 am
Location: Southern California

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby UrsaMajor » Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:52 am

sury wrote:
harvey wrote:Note that there were two Minolta A Mount 17-35mm lenses, an f/2.8-4 (D) and an f/3.5 G


Harvey,
Thank you. Did not know that two versions exist. I was looking at f/2.8-4 as recommended anyway.

Sury

If you decide that you want a Minolta 17-35 2.8-4, let me know. I have one which seems to be in very good condition that I got several years ago in the original box as part of a multi-lens package deal. I have only used it a couple of times, as it never seemed to be as good a match for what I wanted to do as one of my other lenses. Now that I am shooting almost exclusively with my E-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras, I am even less likely to be using it, especially since I just shot a number of images a couple of weeks ago with the Sony 16mm pancake lens that I have found to be quite satisfactory for my needs, and the lens that is most frequently installed on my camera today is the Zeiss 24mm.

I'll be happy to sell it to you on the basis of shipping it to you for you to try, with payment expected if you decide to keep it, and you ship it back if you don't like it. Price would be the going market rate. (I have not looked, so I have no idea at the moment what that is.)

- Tom -

User avatar
sury
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 4951
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:58 am
Location: San Jose, California, USA

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby sury » Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:00 pm

Tom,
Thank you. Will let you know.

Sury
Minimize avoidable sufferings - Sir Karl Popper

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:31 am

All I can say on wider than 24mm is, greatly depends on what you do
I've found good use of the 11-16mm on a crop body for interior shots, whilst you could get there stitching it's extra work IMO
On FF the 17-35mm has worked well enough. I do think it's worth having a wider than 24m lens, how wide is wide enough? For me those 2 are wide enough
For general use out and about 28- something zooms 95% of the time do the job. I only really got the other lenses for interior shooting
Some like the 20mm prime.
Strangely I don't find UWA that useful for landscapes, it can work wonders for some shots. I'm using tele lenses more and more for that type of shooting to isolate areas of interest

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5694
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: How wide is wide enough?

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:45 am

Up until 1990 my widest lens was 28mm. In 1990 in Tokyo I bought a Sigma 24mm f2.8 (A-mount) and I still have it. I used it sometimes on my Minolta film SLRs and on my A700 I would sometimes use it because it was a very small 36mm-efl. In 1991 I bought a Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 (A-mount) and I still have that one too. 20mm gave me an ultrawide look that was fun sometimes. In 2006 I bought a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 (Canon EF-mount) which was 16-32mm-efl. And in 2008 I bought a Sony 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 for my A700. Since 2012 though I have been using m4/3 so back then I bought the Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 (18-36mm-efl). 20mm, 18mm, 16mm are all plenty wide for me. I don't use those focal lengths a lot, but they are fun to have sometimes and I occasionally make good use of them. Not for architecture or rooms, but more to get interesting perspectives (foreground/background and so on).


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron