Former Film SLR users: What wide angle lens did you have?

[slin100]

Ever since jumping into digital SLR photography, I've always seen the common refrain that 17mm on a 1.6x (APS-C) format camera is not that wide. That got me wondering, how many former film SLR users have owned wide angle lenses wider than 28mm?

I still have my old FD mount equipment (an A-1, AE-1 and F-1N), and my widest FD lens is 28mm.

[Steve Parr]

Ever since jumping into digital SLR photography, I've always seen the common refrain that 17mm on a 1.6x (APS-C) format camera is not that wide. That got me wondering, how many former film SLR users have owned wide angle lenses wider than 28mm?

I still have my old FD mount equipment (an A-1, AE-1 and F-1N), and my widest FD lens is 28mm.

Same here. The widest I had was a 28mm. Back then, I think when you thought "wide angle", you automatically thought "28mm". At least I did...

Steve

[CyberDyneSystems]

35mm was my "Wide"...

[robertwgross]

20mm on a film Canon.

---Bob Gross---

[J Rabin]

24 mm Olympus from back in 1970's.

[Huckaback Photo]

Ah !
the days of Film gets a mention, nearly 3 years since I last shot film.
When on 35mm I used 2 systems Canon & Olympus.
widest Canon was 24mm f2.8 then a 35 to 135
Widest Olympus 16mm full frame fish eye, 17mm tokina, 24mm f2.8, 35mm shift (Schneider pa curtagon), 35mm Novoflex macro .

The swap to Digital invovled getting a 14mm f2.8 and the 17mm to 40mm this has covered all but the fish eye.
one last point I use both a 1.6 x body and a 1.3x body so effectively each wide varies accordingly,
put the 14mm on the 1D mk2 and thats seriously wide (care needed with subjects at the edge of the frame etc).

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[Carzee]

Still got my 24mm Zuiko and my OM-1N...

[thomasrhee]

IMO, the definition of what constitutes wide-angle has changed over the years. It used to be that even a 35mm was considered a wide-angle lens whereas these days it's considered a "normal" lens.

The last film body system I had was a Contax system which I sold off not too long ago. My widest lens with this system was a Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 which was plenty wide for me.

[mdr]

Sold my 20-35mm USM when I bought the 20D with 17-40mm L. Miss the wide angle 20-28mm, but use my EOS 3 when really needed.

[RichardtheSane]

I was a 20mm wide angle film user...

So that is what I miss, but the 1D MkII is looming closer....

[primoz]

My widest lens was and still is 16-35. It was really cool before now it's still kinda ok but at least 1d has only 1.3x and not 1.6x. And if this is not enough I still shoot film. It's not that I would start to hate it after I got digital. :)

[Carzee]

Here's my nicest photo so far from that 24mm (http://i2.pbase.com/u25/pulp_depiction/large/40700825.march_ract_pipesdrums_hvgardens_sept04.jp g)...

[Andy_T]

I used a Sigma 24-50 on my NOINK 601, and it was wiiiiide :D

Best regards,
Andy

[Tom W]

I had a 35-80 f/2.8 Tamron zoom on my older manual Canon FT (until it literally wore out). Later, when I went EOS, 28 mm was my widest.

[Tom W]

I used a Sigma 24-50 on my NOINK 601, and it was wiiiiide :D

Best regards,
Andy

I don't think people realize just how W-I-D-E 24 mm is on a full-frame camera. I thought 28 was pushing it when I first got mine. It seemed like I could never get close enough to use it.

Now, I'm enjoying the virtues of the fisheye lens. :)

[PhotosGuy]

20mm Nikkor. I loved that lens, & still use it.

[nat869]

I had some cheap aftermarket 28mm lens for my Olympus OM-1. Was good for me at the time.

[slin100]

I do think the demand for ultra-wide (my definition, fl 24mm or wider on a full frame) has gone up since the film days. I would have never contemplated getting a 20mm or, much less, a 16mm lens for my film SLR. I almost bought a FD 24mm but settled for the 28mm because it was much cheaper. But, now, you can easily get 16mm full-frame equivalent with an EF 10-22mm on a 20D. It's amazing.

[PhotosGuy]

I do think the demand for ultra-wide (my definition, fl 24mm or wider on a full frame) has gone up since the film days. I would have never contemplated getting a 20mm or, much less, a 16mm lens for my film SLR.
For me it was used to control the perspective, as opposed to trying to cover a landscape (which it sucked at since everything in the distance would be SO small.) Here's an example:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66358

[rdenney]

IMO, the definition of what constitutes wide-angle has changed over the years. It used to be that even a 35mm was considered a wide-angle lens whereas these days it's considered a "normal" lens.

Well, 35mm is no farther from the 43mm true normal for 35mm format than is 50, and especially not 55, which came as "normal" on many 35mm cameras.

But I think the real reason is that as better and better extreme wide-angle designs became available (made possible--as with hyperzooms--by computer design, low-dispersion glass, and better coatings), photographers have explored their artistic potential. That has broadened the perspective, so to speak, of photographers, giving them a bigger box of tools.

My FD Canon system includes a 35, a 24, a 20, and an 18-28 zoom. My EF-mount film system included a 28-70, an 18-35, and a 14. (My medium-format system includes a 45--equivalent to a 24--and a 30mm full-frame fisheye, and I'm lusting for the Pentax 35 on my 645; also I use a 47 Super Angulon on 6x9, which is equivalent to a 21). The 14 was the departure in this crowd--I found it too extreme and quite difficult to control (though later I found it useful for the 10D). Thus, I think my normal desired widest lens is about .42 times normal (18mm in 35mm).

My widest since getting the 10D is the 12-24 Sigma EX zoom. At 12, I'm not complaining about not having anything wide enough. I also added the Zenitar 16mm fisheye, having learned the value of full-frame fisheyes from my medium-format 30mm lens. And I still have the 14.

Rick "who likes it wide" Denney

[MadTony]

I had a 24mm wide end on my film camera.

[Jon]

Canon FD mount Sigma 16 mm fisheye, 18 mm f/3.2 and 24 mm f/2.8 from a Ritz warehouse sale. They're all YS mounts, so I need to hack an EOS T adapter to get the fisheye on the EOS (or not, maybe).

[chtgrubbs]

Before switching to autofocus cameras, my most heavily used lenses were the Nikkor 24/2.8 and the 35/2. I used the 35 as my normal lens and the 24 as a wide. and there were time when I wished for a
20mm. When I switched over to autofocus I went with the 28-80 F/2.8-4 L Canon and the Tamron 20-40 SP zoom for wide angle. I still use both on my 10D, but the 20-40 isn't wide enough. I will just have to save enough lunch money for a 1Ds Mk II :)