Wide Angle for landscapes - not often best?

EdinburghGary

EdinburghGary

Reply not Report
Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,271
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys and gals!

For some time now, I have been using my wide angle to do a lot of landscapes and other than the mull sunsets I took, and a few from earlier in the year, I feel like the wide angle lens is not the best choice MOST of the time.

Using the 14 to 24 on full frame, unless I am totally next to a pretty good focal point (church, gate, nice tree etc), landscapes feel pointless on it - so much gets taken in, that you really can't get the impact which you can clearly see...

Am I making any sense? In short, I feel my wide angle lens for landscapes is pretty useless unless I have some very nice focal points close enough to warrent NEEDING to go wide...

What I don't get...

A 10 stitch panorama from a telephote to me is wider, but seems to work a lot better.

I am really struggling to get this across, argh frustrating :bang:

Gary ;)
 
No, it makes sense to me. I see it that a wide angle landscape shot necessitates some decent foreground interest or a full-depth lead-in line to provide perspective, otherwise there's often a sea of nothingness.
 
Im getting you Gray, and was thinking exactly the same. In fact thinking of selling the sigma 10-20 to put towards maybe a Nikon 17-55 2.8 and another lens with further reach. I went out at the weekend using just the wideangle and wasnt all that impressed with how they came out. Didn't express what I was seeing.
 
Don't worry, I get it. :)

Welcome to the world of full frame Gary. I bought a Sigma 15-30mm to try with the 5D and to be honest I'd rather shoot with the 24-105mm! Why?

The wider you go, the more distortion you get, hence the longer focal length stitched IS going to be better IMHO. Pyhsics says so. (well, that's what I think anyway!)
 
Oh plus I end up cropping half he pics I take with the wide angle:thinking:
 
marky_h said:
No, it makes sense to me. I see it that a wide angle landscape shot necessitates some decent foreground interest or a full-depth lead-in line to provide perspective, otherwise there's often a sea of nothingness.
Click to expand...

Glad you get what I mean. So, last night I was up a hill, lovely view (in my eyes) of EDI looking down on it from the Pentlands. I was in a pretty barren location to be honest, and had the dog on my own - but I really struggled with the wideon ;) I mean, the scene was perfect, lovely clouds, sky, amazing rolling hills etc - but nothing immediatly in my view to use some of the space the wide angle captures...

Now I didn't appreciate this until I got home, and thinking back I am certain the telephoto (70 to 300) and a panorama would have captured it wonderfully...

Wierd!

Gary.
 
I wish I had the skill to write a good Wide angle versus Stitching article, you know, to should clueless gits like me how and why you should choose the right lens! :D

I just think at times, big landscape, lots of sky, hills, nice view....wideon. Oops :D
 
A wide angle lens (i've got a Canon 10-22mm) can be really creative, but as with anything, it doesn't work all the time. Certainly, you need some foreground interest. I tend to get the best results in cities, but I have done some decent-ish landscapes with it.

Its just a case of picking the right tools for the job. In Namibia last year, I was doing landscapes with a 200mm.
 
May I ask Gary what software you use for pano and stitching? Im yet to try it but its my next step.
 
I am finding it too wide some times but i love the effct you can get by being so close!
 
mobilevirgin said:
A wide angle lens (i've got a Canon 10-22mm) can be really creative, but as with anything, it doesn't work all the time. Certainly, you need some foreground interest. I tend to get the best results in cities, but I have done some decent-ish landscapes with it.

Its just a case of picking the right tools for the job. In Namibia last year, I was doing landscapes with a 200mm.
Click to expand...

Going to have to go over your flickr with a fine toothcomb, some lovely shots!! :suspect:

Nice :D
 
devitt said:
Im getting you Gray, and was thinking exactly the same. In fact thinking of selling the sigma 10-20 to put towards maybe a Nikon 17-55 2.8 and another lens with further reach. I went out at the weekend using just the wideangle and wasnt all that impressed with how they came out. Didn't express what I was seeing.
Click to expand...


Sold my 10-20 and use the 17-55 all the time for landscape and stuff.....:thumbs:
 
Also though, landscape work best with foreground interest in my opinion. A beautiful scene is not always a good picture.

I think foreground interest is quite often needed
 
Don't beat yourself up over your wideon mate :)

I've only just got the Nikon 14-24, and not had a proper go of it yet for traditional landscape type shots, though I do know what you're getting at (field of view is essentially too great, even at 24 on full frame).

It's something of a specialist lens in many ways, but is great for interior and architectural shots. And the image quality it kicks out is very very good. I'm still astonished at the difference in quality between this and say my nikon 18-70. I know there's a huge difference in price, so there should be, but even so. You don't know what you're missing til you try it do you.
 
visualisetheworld said:
Also though, landscape work best with foreground interest in my opinion. A beautiful scene is not always a good picture.

I think foreground interest is quite often needed
Click to expand...


Agreed, but there are some absolutely STUNNING examples. Again, I will use HimUpNorth - he can't really have a focal point (I think?) from that height, yet what a talent!!

Others too, the chap that entered a competition and came second, he did one with amazing rolling green hills, was one of the best landscape shots I have seen...

G.
 
Dangleman said:
Don't beat yourself up over your wideon mate :)

I've only just got the Nikon 14-24, and not had a proper go of it yet for traditional landscape type shots, though I do know what you're getting at (field of view is essentially too great, even at 24 on full frame).

It's something of a specialist lens in many ways, but is great for interior and architectural shots. And the image quality it kicks out is very very good. I'm still astonished at the difference in quality between this and say my nikon 18-70. I know there's a huge difference in price, so there should be, but even so. You don't know what you're missing til you try it do you.
Click to expand...



I love it, no complaints other than this one - and its not a fault with the lens, just what I am using it for :D I love my scottish gas pic, the crammond mansion and my lotus elise paint job shots - all done with it, and I would not change them.

Landscapes it would appear require much more thought with this lens :D

Gary.
 
very good point, but they are simple landscape susing shape and oclour for effect, alotof skill in those, Him Up North shots are stunning
 
EG I understand what your are saying, and agree with you. It's something I've done in the past, but not used to a great extent. Maybe it's time start using it again
 
I see your dilemma - tell you what, at no extra cost to yourself, I'll swap your D3 for my D300...

10mm on a crop sensor is equivalent to 15-16mm on the crop sensor, so you're pretty close to those of us struggling along on a crop. I always find that unless you're doing "big sky" type shots with a wide angle, you really do need some foreground interest as well.

In the end, I suppose it's all down to the exact type of shot you are trying to achieve, and your preferred method...
 
I know what you mean. I rarely use a wangle for landscapes, unless I'm right on top of the action. I have already posted this in another thread but I'll post it here again:

demo5_small.jpg


Bigger picture.

180 degree pano shot at 12mm.

Most of my panos are 50mm or more:

panorama2.jpg
 
Ooh - just seen this thread EG

It's a bit like saying "300mm f2.8 is not always best for motorsport"

Course it's not, if the subject if standing in front of you!

I had a presentation at our camera club a few months back and it was all landscape work, although my 12-24 featured highly, so did my 18-70 & my 70-200 and a few of them with a 1.7x converter on too

A feature of using super-wides really is that they NEED a strong and close foreground interest to lead you in - for me, that's the whole point of them - not that you can capture a few more degrees of width in a beach scene, but that the sand and its grains are visible up close too

If the impact of a foreground isn't there, the super-wide is the 'wrong' lens

DD
 
You need to use it on a big ol' lump of granite, whether natural or built.

I usually prefer buildings taken with a tele from a high spot at a distance, but then the owners often won't recognise the view. Inside, or outside in a built-up area, wide angle is your only option for capturing large expanses.

You might want to try the WA for close quarters papping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top