Reading mode: Light Dark

Wide Angle Primes... fairly useless?

Go to last post
that reminds me of another question... Who is buried in George Washington's tomb? Let's see, who could that be?

Relatively speaking, is it safe to say that wide angle
lukewarm said:
primes are the most useless of lenses?
Click to expand...
Let's see, everyone that uses wide primes find them to be useless? :-)

It does not follow either that those do not use them find them to be useless on an apriori basis. For myself I shoot mostly at the 400-700mm but find my 28 2.8 quite useful, quite sharp at the center and corners and very easy to carry.

Cheers!

Eduardo

--
http://www.delsolar.org:82/
 
Great work! I jsut purchased the 20mm f/2.8 to compliment my 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.8. I'm very impressed with what it's delivered for me so far, it's most likely going to share the 'workhorse' title with my 28 f/1.8.

Thanks for sharing!
 
no...it's an opportunity to learn what works ....some of the members here have no experience with photography and want some guidance or suggestion.
--
jypsee in Michigan again
http://www.stonelakephotography.com



...we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances we don't altogether know, filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand.
Bill Bryson; A Short History of Nearly Everything
 
I don't know his name; I made the picture in an open air laundromat in Florida and the clients were mostly Mexican migrant workers.
--
jypsee in Michigan again
http://www.stonelakephotography.com



...we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances we don't altogether know, filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand.
Bill Bryson; A Short History of Nearly Everything
 
I love how close I can focus with the 20; I also use the 50 f/1.4 but not as often as the 20. On the 20D it's a great combo.
Mary in Michigan
LMitch said:
Great work! I jsut purchased the 20mm f/2.8 to compliment my 28
f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.8. I'm very impressed with what it's
delivered for me so far, it's most likely going to share the
'workhorse' title with my 28 f/1.8.

Thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...
--
jypsee in Michigan again
http://www.stonelakephotography.com



...we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances we don't altogether know, filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand.
Bill Bryson; A Short History of Nearly Everything
 
you mean illegal imigrants?

harry priesser is mexican, but he's legal and lives in california (the last i knew). his grandfather was german and skipped off to mexico after the war.

i met harry in the air force. he was kind of troubled and got a general discharge. after a few drunken years we lost touch. so even though that image is from florida, that could still be him.

do you have any other images of the scene?
jypsee said:
I don't know his name; I made the picture in an open air laundromat
in Florida and the clients were mostly Mexican migrant workers.
--
Click to expand...
 
lukewarm said:
Canon seems to have a fairly limited selection of wide angle
primes, and most of them are fairly old models. I've looked at
reviews for the 28mm, 24mm, and 20mm lenses.

All of these lenses seem disappointingly soft, but are pretty fast.
However, except for very specific and rare instances, it seems
rather pointless to have a wide angle lens at with the extremely
short depth of field you get from f1.4 or f2.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the popular 17-40L zoom lens is
actually sharper than ANY of the canon primes of 28mm or wider.
Wide angle lenses are primarily used for landscape and
architectural photos --- where corner-to-corner sharpness is at a
premium, and exceptionally large apertures are almost always
pointless. Relatively speaking, is it safe to say that wide angle
primes are the most useless of lenses?
Click to expand...
I am from Pentax camp and believe that in Canon gear there is no lens like 31mm Lt 1.8. I mean wide lenses. Moreover, if some say that resolution of Canon wide angels is so so that it means on FF loss of detail will be very high. So to get very sharp landscapes, one has to cut the image and then benefits of FF for the price etc are worthless. I do not want to be Troll etc but maybe it i swise that pentax 645D will have 1.3x crp and new lense with 30M sensor. all in all I think Canon should upgrade plenty od new lesnes for flat sensor or to change the geometry of it,
Alek
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top