Ultrawide Club (24mm & Under)
Hey gang!
I'd love to see what everyone's been shooting at ultrawide, I've recently just acquired the Irix 11MM Blackstone f/4.0 and am still getting my sea legs. Ultrawide is a whole new ballpark for me especially with my previous subject choices. Cheers!
These were shot on APS-C Nikon D7200/3500 in 2019 when I was a few early months into my photography journey/hobby. The Rokinon 14mm F2.8, I kinda regret selling it.
Uploaded files:
Great examples, @sprucebruce . I had the Rokinon 14mm as well for the longest time. It was actually the second lens I got for my Pentax K-3 (after the 18-135) as a gift from my sister. Really cherished it. I sold it late last year only because I hadn't touched it for a long time. But like you kind of regret it. It doesn't command that much of a price but is a top performer in my book and very handy when you need it.
UWA was my thing for a while. I shot several: 24mm 3.5 takumar, FA* 24mm f2, Rokinon 24mm f1.4, Pentax DA 15mm Limited, and more I'm forgetting... I do regret that 24mm being sold. It's a tough one to find used for K mount.
Rokinon 24mm f1.4
IMGP1803_01 by Snappiness, on Flickr
FA* 24mm f2
Pentax FA* 24mm F/2 on Pentax K-1 by Snappiness, on Flickr
15mm f4 limited
Pentax 15mm Limited by Snappiness, on Flickr
Rokinon 14mm f2.8 on APSC
_2012343 by Snappiness, on Flickr
Rokinon 14mm f2.8 on FF
Milky Way Over Road 14mm by Snappiness, on Flickr
I really like the shot with the neon signs @sprucebruce, it's got a super cool vibe to it.
And that shot of the highway and the trees both at night are spectacular @james-warner-b.
Really great stuff! I tried my hand at some landscape photography with the 11mm but nothing panned out. 11mm does capture everything, and I mean everything.
Quote from HeggenDazs on February 15, 2022, 2:53 pmI really like the shot with the neon signs @sprucebruce, it's got a super cool vibe to it.
And that shot of the highway and the trees both at night are spectacular @james-warner-b.
Really great stuff! I tried my hand at some landscape photography with the 11mm but nothing panned out. 11mm does capture everything, and I mean everything.
That's why I parted ways, IDK about James experience, but I struggled getting a good composition at times. But when you nailed it, man the results were great for a sub $300 lens when on sale or used. I find 24mm is my widest preferred FoV for shooting at this point. I'd like to try out a 20mm sometime.
There was a 24mm F2 on Pentax Forums Marketplace, even had your video review linked to it @james-warner-b if you've haven't come across it yet. I can't remember the price though
Neat thread!
The widest lens I have is my 17-50 Sigma, followed by my 18-135. Sometimes I find myself wanting more (less?). I always appreciate the APS-C crop factor until I want to go wide. 🤔 A wide angle prime is on my wish list, just not sure what I want yet since I'm so inexperienced at shooting wide. The Sigma may be all I actually need, although fisheye lenses look FUN, as do 15mm Limited starbursts!
This is with my K10D and 18-135 @18mm. I think the K10D looks really nice at ISO 800 in B&W, very film like to me. I guess I blew out the highlights in this shot, something I didn't even notice until now. Always learning.
Nice shot! Fortunately you don't have to worry about crop factor on the 17-50 because that is the crop equivalent for that lens, I believe. So it should be a nice wide shooter.
Quote from HeggenDazs on February 15, 2022, 3:25 pmNice shot! Fortunately you don't have to worry about crop factor on the 17-50 because that is the crop equivalent for that lens, I believe. So it should be a nice wide shooter.
I was confused. Thank you. I only became aware of various sensor sizes and crop factor recently. So it's only when you put an APS-C lens on a full frame body that you have to make the conversion (divide by 1.5), and vice versa with a full frame lens on APS-C (multiply by 1.5). I think.
yeah it only gets more confusing with lenses that work on both APS-C and Full-frame since some show their APS-C adjusted equivalent and some don't. Fortunately that 17-50mm is just APS-C so it's easier to know for sure.
Quote from HeggenDazs on February 15, 2022, 6:44 pmyeah it only gets more confusing with lenses that work on both APS-C and Full-frame since some show their APS-C adjusted equivalent and some don't. Fortunately that 17-50mm is just APS-C so it's easier to know for sure.
I think more often than not the numbers listed on the lens are the actual 35mm numbers. Even for lenses only designed for a specific format. APSC only lenses, M43 lenses, Nikon 1 lenses, etc. Meaning, that you would take the number on the lens and apply your crop factor, IF you wanted to know the 35mm equivalent. A big if. I'll get to that later, lol
There are a few exceptions, but I have seen that only on older cameras/lenses and even then they usually have both. A good example are the original four thirds lenses that had text for both the 35mm number and the equivalent. That was kind of helpful. I think they did it mostly for marketing, because the format was new and the numbers people were seeing made no sense to them at the time.
For example, the Pentax DA Limited series is just designed for APSC but all those numbers are 35mm numbers, meaning the DA 15mm limited on APSC has a similar field of view to the FA* 24mm on FF. And if you mount the DA 15mm limited on FF, you'll get some vignetting, but the field of view is the same as a FF 15mm lens on FF.
I think it's just too confusing and what's made it more confusing is the emphasis people have put on this lately. If you only live in APSC or M43, then I feel like you can just refer to that 35mm number and whether or not it's the same field of view as the same number on a FF body seems kind of irrelevant to your photography unless you wanted to do some exact replica between sensor sizes. You know what 18mm looks like on your APSC, and that's what matters. If that makes sense.
For DoF sake I guess it's handy. For instance, the Ricoh GR has a 28mm equivalent lens and people often talk about it that way, but on the lens itself it says 18.7mm or something. So while the field of view looks more like 28mm on FF, the DoF is more like 18mm on FF. Which is awesome actually for street photography, it's intended purpose, as it's quite easy to get most everything in focus. Easier than a 28mm lens on FF, even if the field of view comes out about the same between the two.
