Opinions Appreciated! Wide angle arena photography with Dig

[zebron]

I just bought a Digital Rebel and I love it so far. I will be doing the grand opening photoshoot for an OHL hockey teams' refinished arena in a few weeks time and will need a very wide angle solution to do so.

Right now I am using a Kodak 4800 w/ wide angle lens to get me down to about 16mm. I would obviously much prefer to use my new Rebel, which is only a 28mm equivalent with the lens it comes with.

The option that I have thought of so far is to buy a new lens like a Sigma 14mm/2.8 and risk my wife freaking out (again!). Perhaps there is some other solution out there. Even the 14mm lens will give me the equivalent of a 22mm lens after the digital correction, which I figure would be good enough, just expensive.

Has anyone out there thought of a creative solution that involves adding a wide angle lens on the 58mm threads of the Rebel's EF-S lens? Step up and step down rings are an option as well, although I would obviously like to avoid vignetting...

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated! :)

Cheers,

Zebron

[bnowak]

Zebron,

I don't know exactly what kind of quality and other requirements you have but a solution I've been reading about from some folks is to stitch 3 fotos taken from differente angles using a tripod.

I've seen some results posted in DPReview and they look pretty good to me.

[zebron]

Thanks for your reply bnowak. That is a good thought, and one I have considered, but I will be shooting the photography while the arena is at full capacity. Stitching images is a good solution for landscapes, but people tend to inconveniently move around. Unless I asked the entire arena to sit still for 30 seconds, I don't know how effective that solution might be! :) It is precisely because people are involved that I need such a wide angle field of view... I could place the Rebel vertically on my tripod, stitch the images, and then correct any mistakes in Photoshop, but that is a definite risk for such a time sensitive shoot...

Any other ideas out there, or should I just shell out for the 14mm?

Z

[justme_dc]

Why not use a 15mm fisheye? it's WAY cheaper than the 14mm and has a wider angle of coverage 114deg for the 14mm and 180deg for the 15mm before the crop. I use my fisheye constantly. I love it.

[zebron]

Hmmm.... The 15mm fisheye might work, and is only 1/2 the price of the 14mm. My only experience with fisheye photography is with an 8 mm fisheye lens I used to use with my Nikon 880 Coolpix. I was not happy with the quality of photography, especially after correcting the fish eye for print. Can anyone testify as to the print quality of the Sigma 15mm fisheye? The final print will be approximately 2.5 feet across, but may be enlarged even further down the road. I still wish there was an easier add-on lens solution...

Thanks in advance for any advice,

Z

[SemieE]

I just picked up my Canon 20mm USM today and even at an effective 32mm, it's a hell of a lot wider than the 50mm 1.4 I first purchased with my 10D. I think I'm going to love it. *goes off to play with it*

[magicpixel]

Shooting multiple images and stitching them is probably your best option.

There's no reason it needs to take long at all to get the shots you need - nowhere near the 30 seconds - no need to ask anyone to sit still. Look around on the web - people are getting great shots using this technique with and without live subjects :)

Overlap generously and any significant movement between frames can be dealt with when you stitch the images - which btw I wouldn't do in Photoshop straight, but via something like PanoTools initially which will correct any distortions and generate a layered psd file including masks... ideal for tweaking the merge in P'shop.

Additionally plan where you shoot - don't let potential joins fall over areas in your image that could be problematic... like stuff that is moving and close to the camera. Ideally take some test shots in the location before the event.

Plus all the usual stuff for multiple images - set focus, exposure and white balance to manual

The benefits of going this way is that you're going to end up with a lot more data vs trying to shoot it in one shot, which will then be able to print larger before the image quality goes to the clapper - and all without having to buy any extra lens... the ultra-wides are not noted for their crispness anyway, and any wide angle converter you screw on the front is only going to make things worse - especially if you intend printing to reasonable size.

Just my opinion from the information you've given.

pete

[Andy_T]

Another cheap solution to try out *might* be the Canon WC-58 Wide angle converter (58 mm threads).

Should bring your 18-55 lens down to 14,4 -> 22,4 mm in 35 mm equivalent.

However, you certainly would have to test it out (go with your Digital rebel to a Canon dealer and take some photos with the lens added), as it might bring added distortion (especially to an already wide angle lens), chromatic aberration and lens flare.

It performs reasonably well on Canon's prosumer digital cameras. Check out the link to Kazutoku's page for its performance on the G range: http://kazutoku.cside21.com/G1andG2/report1_eng.htm#conv

Regards,
Andy

[zebron]

Hi guys,

Thank you all for your advice. I will test out the WC-58 solution and compare it with stitching. If I am happy with either of these solutions I will use my Rebel instead of the old Kodak. Fortunately I will have an opportunity about a week in advance to take light meter readings and a few test shots in the arena itself.

Thanks again for all posted advice, I will be sure the post the final image here! (late October)

Cheers,

Z

[justme_dc]

zebron wrote:Hmmm.... The 15mm fisheye might work, and is only 1/2 the price of the 14mm. Can anyone testify as to the print quality of the Sigma 15mm fisheye?

On film I have had chromes from a Sigma 15mm used in media up to 28X36. I think they held up pretty well. It's all subjective though.

If you want I could send you a large jpeg shot with the 15mm on a 10D via email for you to examine. Just ask...

[zebron]

Hello all, I just purchased the Sigma 15mm and it seems to be doing the trick. I tried the WC-DC58 as well but there was too much vignetting. The stitching program that I use is calculating the lens as approximately 19.5mm. Is there any calculation that can be used to accurately confirm whether this is a correct figure for the lens? I do not know how to apply the 1.6x frame factor on to a 15mm fisheye.

Thanks again for everyone's advice,

Z

[stuartf287]

I have the 14 mm Sigma lens and love it, although I am considering buying a used EOS film body just so I can see how wide it really is on a full frame camera. I used to use a 17 mm rectilinear lens and a 16 mm fisheye on my Pentaxes so 14 mm full frame is intriguing.

You might consider getting an 8 mm fisheye (delivers a circular image on full frame). I haven't gone this route myself, but have seen 8 mm fisheye shots "defished" in Photoshop that look pretty good and which are wide indeed. A circular fisheye should give you close to a full frame image on a 1.6 crop EOS.

Please let us know what you decide to do and how it works out.

[stuartf287]

I have the 14 mm Sigma lens and love it, although I am considering buying a used EOS film body just so I can see how wide it really is on a full frame camera. I used to use a 17 mm rectilinear lens and a 16 mm fisheye on my Pentaxes so 14 mm full frame is intriguing.

You might consider getting an 8 mm fisheye (delivers a circular image on full frame). I haven't gone this route myself, but have seen 8 mm fisheye shots "defished" in Photoshop that look pretty good and which are wide indeed. A circular fisheye should give you close to a full frame image on a 1.6 crop EOS.

Please let us know what you decide to do and how it works out.