Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Apr 2009 (Wednesday) 05:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Could you live w/o the UWA?

 
sugarzebra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,289 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:23 |  #31

Although the 10-22 is a great lens and fun to use, I replaced mine with the 16-35 and am very happy with it. It all depends what your primary use is going to be.


Scott

Website & Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rcaq
Member
74 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Europe
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:25 |  #32

I thouhgt I could - my whole rig consisted of the 135L for a yr...then I had the 85L... telling myself that I could use the P/S for other stuff..since most of my work covers the longer range... sooner or later I ended up getting the 17-40L..which was replaced by the 24L


Official Website: http://www.rcaq.net/ (external link)
Blog: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rcaq/ (external link)
5D2, 24L, 50 1.2 AI

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:27 |  #33

I've lived without one for awhile, but I realized I need one for tight forested valleys. I checked my focal plot software, and I am slamming up against 17mm quite often in tight areas, almost always bunched up river valleys in treed settings. That said, there's no way it will be my most used lens, just nice to have.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdenney
Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney
2,400 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2003
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:28 |  #34

cdifoto wrote in post #7735785 (external link)
I have an ultra-wide but seldom use it.

I have lots of lenses I seldom use. But when I need them, nothing else will do.

For the OP: If you want to dabble with a wide field of view, I have found that it is actually easier to understand a fisheye than a rectilinear ultra-wide. The reason is that the rectilinear projection is actually rather unnatural, and works best when rendering unnatural subjects (such as buildings). For natural subjects, including people (but notably not including trees), the spherical projection of a fisheye is actually more natural and pleasing.

The horizon and perhaps trees are the only lines in a landscape that really must be straight to maintain realism. If you compose the image so that the necessarily straight lines go through the center of the frame, they will render as straight with a fisheye. For example, I usually compose so that the horizon runs through the center of the frame, but then crop it to move it off-center if I need to for the composition. Or, I choose a composition that doesn't depend on a straight horizon, such as this one:

IMAGE: http://www.rickdenney.com/images/st-helens-coldwater-ridge-l.jpg

In this image, the logs on the ground all point through the center of the image, and thus remain straight. The horizon is above the center and therefore bows upward, but that bow follows the shape of the mountain and so it's not noticeable.

My vision of landscapes usually requires some relationship between the extreme foreground and the background, and making that work usually requires a very wide lens or some other tool, such as lens movements. So, I do a lot of work with ultra-wides and fisheyes.

My point in bringing up the whole fisheye thing? A Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye (which is full-frame on a 24x36 sensor) is under $200, even with a chipped EF-compatible mount permanently installed. The above image was made with a Zenitar. Stopped down a bit, it's plenty sharp. That's a fairly small price to pay to see if your viewpoint can make use of it. It's cheap enough to have around even if the mood only strikes infrequently.

My first ultra-wide in medium format was a 30mm Arsat fisheye. It took me a while to finally get it, but when I did I started to understand how useful it was.

Rick "who could not live without ultra-wides, both rectilinear and fisheye" Denney

The List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:34 |  #35

I could live without it, but its super, super helpful in a lot of situations.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Webber
Goldmember
3,186 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Corralejo, Fuerteventura....Canary Islands Spain
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:43 |  #36

Never, my 10-22 is the tool of my business.


Canon 7D, 40D,100-400 IS L, EFS 15-85 IS, EFS 10-22-With Faulty USM, 055XPROB+488RC2, 430 & 580 II Flash, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8-:cool:
Photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sebr
Goldmember
Avatar
4,628 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sweden/France
     
Apr 15, 2009 14:47 |  #37

I could live without UWA.
I have a 10-22. It is not that I don't like it and I don't really want to give it away, but it is not my primary lens for what I shoot.


Sebastien
5D mkIII ; 17-40L ; 24-105L ; 70-200L II ; 70-300L ; 35L ; Σ85/1.4 ; 135L ; 100macro ; Kenko 1.4x ; 2x mkIII ; 580EXII
M5 ; M1 ; 11-22 ; 18-150 ; 22/2.0 ; EF adapter; Manfrotto LED
Benron Tripod; ThinkTank, Lowepro and Crumpler bags; Fjällräven backpack

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dawud
Senior Member
392 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Belgium
     
Apr 15, 2009 15:16 as a reply to  @ post 7736570 |  #38

I recently sold my 17-40, had a bit of a remorse on a shoot, but I think I used it for 5% of the time. The cash I got from it has been spend wel! :D


Camera • lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Apr 15, 2009 15:49 |  #39

DL.Photography wrote in post #7736529 (external link)
Off topic, joemama, your avatar is hilarious.

To not waste a post.....I completely agree with you, UWA rocks.

It took me a moment to see that


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kruzkal
Senior Member
393 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
Apr 15, 2009 16:04 |  #40

I picked the 16-35 II over the 24-70 as my fist lens moving to full frame. That's my vote.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yohan ­ Pamudji
Goldmember
Avatar
2,994 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Mississippi
     
Apr 15, 2009 16:04 |  #41

rdenney wrote in post #7736631 (external link)
I have lots of lenses I seldom use. But when I need them, nothing else will do.

Same here. I use my 17-40L for probably 5% or less of my shots, but when I need it I need it. I could live without it if I absolutely had to pare down my lenses, but I'd much rather not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Here ­ and ­ There
Member
Avatar
193 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Apr 15, 2009 20:46 |  #42

I could live without it, but life wouldn't be as fun. :p


XSI gripped - Canon 10-22 - Canon 35 f2 - Canon 100 macro - Canon 100-400

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Double ­ Negative
*sniffles*
Avatar
10,533 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Mar 2006
Location: New York, USA
     
Apr 16, 2009 08:20 |  #43

Live without an UWA? Hell no! I love wide. I like 14mm, 15mm, 16-35mm... No such thing as "too wide" when you need it, especially on digital crop bodies.


La Vida Leica! (external link) LitPixel Galleries (external link) -- 1V-HS, 1D Mark IIn & 5D Mark IV w/BG-E20
15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L
16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
Avatar
6,742 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: New York
     
Apr 16, 2009 08:25 |  #44

I had a 10-22 when I owned a cropper. Had 2 17-40s for full frame. Just never used them, so I sold them. I find 24mm on my 5D to be as wide as I need for most of my shots. I am currently looking for a 15mm Fish-eye, but that's more for the niche photos, and not for my main shooting style


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,564 posts
Likes: 97
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Apr 16, 2009 08:29 |  #45

Not me. I have come to kind of see in wide angle, and capturign foreground interest while leading the eye to a larger, more distant subject is very satisfying. I really like wide angle photography, and after having an UWA for 3.5 years, I couldn't give one up now.


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)
---------------
Canon EOS R5 | R6 | RF 24-105mm f/4L IS | RF 35mm f/1.8 | RF 50mm f/1.8 | RF 85mm f/2 | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 12-24mm f/4 | Sigma 135mm f/1.8 | Tamron 35mm f/1.4 | TTArtisan 11mm Fisheye

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,483 views & 0 likes for this thread
Could you live w/o the UWA?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kubo456
834 guests, 240 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.