Reading mode: Light Dark

UWA lenses & landscape photography

Go to last post
S

simonkit1

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
284
Reaction score
206
Location
North Wales, UK
Hope everyone is having a good Christmas !!

I'm currently re-considering UWA lens options although being honest I'm not 100% sure if I need one. The reason I say this is that I previously owned the Sigma 10-20 and never found it quite to my taste, distortion was a bit too heavy and I often felt that UWA just left landscapes feeling a little lost/distant (hope that makes sense).

I currently use a 17-70mm (pentax) most of the time but I'm thinking again about adding the option of UWA but with a 12-24mm. Perhaps the range would be more suitable for my needs than the 10-20 and the 12-24 should exhbit much less distortion than my current 17-70 in the 17mm focal range.

Although it's obviously up to me to make up my own mind I'd appreciate any thoughts on this from others into landscape photography - it's not really about the qualities of the 12-24/10-20 etc, more about the usefulness of UWA lenses for landscapes

thanks

Simon
--
http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

Landscape photographs of North Wales, Anglesey, Snowdonia, Lake District & the U.K
 
i've just bought a Canon 10-22, and love it! Here are some photos I've taken using it at 10mm (on a 400d, so effectively 16mm):









It does distort at the edges when wide open, but so long as you're careful in framing the pic you don't need to correct this in PP. People at the edges are silly though!

--

http://gallery.salking.co.uk
 
There is an ancient expression, "There is more than one way to skin a cat" which I think applies here. I do not have an UWA. If I had one, I'd use it for sure, but instead I choose to image UWA scene either by making a pano or using my TSE lens. In other words, I bought a TSE lens in lieu of a UWA figuring a finite budget and which would I use more often?

Neither a pano or a TSE is a 1:1 sub for a UWA but unless you buy it all, you have to compromise some places.
--

-----
-paul
 
@ctxsak: I love the first and the third one! Well done!

An UWA gives you a lot of opportunities, but it is very demanding. It is really a lens, which requires work to get into it and which requires time to create something interesting. The necessary photographic view is very different from the standard focal length. One needs to care about objects in the foreground, perspective distortion, your own shadow and the one of your tripod etc. Actually the foreground is often the most important part to care about.

Changing your position by a few inches may make the difference in many circumstances. Almost every time I take it with me, I take the tripod with me as well. Using a ball head is a pain. I use a 3 way head, which makes it much easier to level the lens.

You may start as well forcing heavy perspective distortion (2nd picture), which also often looks good. At least better than lower distortion, which often looks like "wanted, but not managed" (don't know the exact english phrase, if there is any). However frequent use of heavy perspective distortion gets as boring as using a fisheye too often. So it will probably not be a lens for frequent usage.

I find it very challenging to take good pictures, which do not look like UWA at the first glance. And often I don't find any good perspective for an UWA (but getting better in this).

If you enjoy learning and working with a lens, go and buy you one!

This picture was taken with the Olympus ZD 7-14 mm at 7 mm, which is 14 mm FF equivalent, summit of the stock pile of the Prosper Haniel coal mine in Bottrop, Germany:



Same lens at 9 mm (18 mm equiv.), historic Recklinghausen town hall, illuminated at the "Recklinghausen leuchtet (shines)" event, Germany:



--
http://www.solidaridad.de/
 
ctxsak said:
i've just bought a Canon 10-22, and love it! Here are some photos I've taken using it at 10mm (on a 400d, so effectively 16mm):
Click to expand...
ctxsak said:
Click to expand...
ctxsak said:
It does distort at the edges when wide open, but so long as you're careful in framing the pic you don't need to correct this in PP. People at the edges are silly though!

--

http://gallery.salking.co.uk
Click to expand...
Horribly conspicuous ca (or is it pf?) in the second image - to the point of unacceptability to my eye.
Roy
--
Trying...
 
I agree with the comments posted...an UWA needs careful use & more consideration than "standard" focal ranges. I think that it's usefulness also depends on the "landscape" that you photograph too.

The problem I had with the 10-20 was that the mountains I wanted as my subject actually became secondary/lost due to the need to ensure a strong foreground element, in a way the UWA meant that I had to change my "style" to something that wasn't always what I intended capturing. That's not to say I didn't manage some decent shots, just that I managed more bad than good.

Simon

--
http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

Landscape photographs of North Wales, Anglesey, Snowdonia, Lake District & the U.K
 
I have the Canon 10-22mm UWA lens, (amongst others), and it stays on my camera most of the time. I couldn't do without it for the type of shooting I do. The Photos below were all shot with that lens.
--
Greg







 
I am using a Canon SX110 and a GigaPan robot as my pseudo UWA, and as an example:

http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/37836/ which is comprised of 920 stitched photos (46 columns by 20 rows). The great thing about a GigaPan is that you can zoom in and see detail and you can see it as a curved panorama on a curved surface by viewing the GigaPan in Google Earth. Another view of the landscape can be seen here: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/fullscreen/37836/ which is totally mesmerizing when viewed on a 30-inch monitor (I found one at an Apple Store).

Another level of GigaPan panoramas is the hand-held panorama and as an example: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/39358/ which shows two women walking in a 360-degree panorama comprised of one row of 38 stitched photos.

Also, when you look at these two GigaPans:

http://www.gigapan.org/searchGigapansList.php?ids=21682,21602 it is very noticeable that they as well as the above GigaPans have one thing in common, blue sky. When I take a panorama, I take it in manual mode, and for a large panorama with lots of clouds and changing light levels, my final GigaPan does not look so good.

I am particularly impressed with the dramatic photographs that I see in this thread, but I can't afford the nice lenses that you are using. My Canon SX110 cost me about $200 new and the robot is about $300 and a tripod.

I guess that I am just addicted to stitching :)

David
Wendy From Chengdu: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/38916/snapshots/113053/
Rebecca, a Future MD: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/33657/snapshots/100546/
Miss Lillian: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/18256/snapshots/54167/
Jodi & Christina: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/27287/snapshots/83140/
Two Fleeting Ladies: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/15029/snapshots/44250/
Emily, a Cheerleader: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/35842/snapshots/106501/
Balanced Bulgarian: http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/9620/snapshots/26838/
 
simonkit1 said:
I'm currently re-considering UWA lens options although being honest I'm not 100% sure if I need one. The reason I say this is that I previously owned the Sigma 10-20 and never found it quite to my taste, distortion was a bit too heavy and I often felt that UWA just left landscapes feeling a little lost/distant (hope that makes sense).
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. It's a classic problem with UWA lenses. They can produce really exciting images, but getting the most out of them is difficult. Our eyes and brain don't perceive the world the same way UWA lenses do, so you have to re-wire your perceptions to use them well. Many subjects don't really lend themselves to the UWA treatment, and the ones that respond well aren't necessarily the ones you'd naively assume. If you can't get good results with your UWA lens, that may mean it doesn't suit your style, or it may mean you need more practice. Only you can decide for sure.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams
 
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