What's wrong with this idea:

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7084749
you're better off buying the 14L or 24L then cropping and distorting the image back to normal. It'll work provided the smaller res works, but going the other way and you're making info up, not removing it.

But then I sacrifice shallow DOFs...

dshankar wrote in post #7084829
But then I sacrifice shallow DOFs...

You should ask airfrog to post up some of his 24L photos. There is no sacrifice in shallow DoF.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

So since I want wide shots, you guys recommend going for a 24L, and cropping in to get the 35L or 50L? I don't really need the resolution usually.

Damn - quit changing my mind about 24L vs 35L!!!

Well whatever - I'm on a crop camera so I would realistically need something in the 17-18mm range for WA. I just thought panos + foot zooming would compensate...

adam8080 wrote in post #7084078
That image could have been taken with a 14mm or many 1200mm images combine, but the perspective is where you are in relation to what you are shooting.

I disagree with the "or many 1200mm images combined [ed]" comment. The clouds would move between shots, causing a stitching nightmare and a Frankenstein result.

perryge wrote in post #7084651
Field of view doesn't change as you move. Only perspective does.

Perspective doesn't change with focal lengths, only field of view does.

In other words:

Perspective has nothing to do with focal length - it's determined by distance only.

Field of view has nothing to do with moving around - it's determined by focal length only.

AH! I took several hours but I finally understand. Thank you.

GSansoucie wrote in post #7085844
I disagree with the "or many 1200mm images combined [ed]" comment. The clouds would move between shots, causing a stitching nightmare and a Frankenstein result.

The example was used for the perspective, not the cloud movement...