how can 7-14 lens be good for travelling if?...

retiredbutcycling

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
Location
CA
it is as hard to get a good picture set up as i've read. it seems that one has to take lots of time considering the foreground and background and side bending and whatall. how does that translate into a good travelling lens, where one is snatching pics as they come?
 
The 7-14 is a very versatile lens, I t can be used for many types of photogaphy, but maybe a 14-45 is a better choice, depends on what you like to photograph

My opinion is that all lens are good for any thing, depends on the photographer

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
 
I find that the main issue is avoiding having people near the edge of the frame. How useful it is depends on destination. I wish I had my 7-14 when I visited Italy, particularly in Roma & Venezia.
 
A hotshoe bubble level can do wonders for avoiding/mitigating those converging verticals and tilted horizons.

On the upside, depth of field can't be beat :) - good for landscapes and maybe street photography (at longer focal lengths, keeping people in the center of the frame as the previous poster suggested)

--
Don't bash the gear, bash the photog!
 
"good for travelling" means pocketable/ small. Not snapshot-able. I carefully compose many of my pictures, even when travelling.

The 7-14 is good for travelling when you like UWA and know how to use an UWA lens. Otherwise you'd better keep the money in your pocket and go with the more "standard" zoom ranges like the 14-45 or 14-140.

many people that shoot UWA only take a percentage of their shots with this kind of lens. When travelling, I use an UWA for about 20% of my shots, tele for about 20%, lowlight (pancake) for about 20%, and the rest goes to "standard" zoom reach.
--
Regards,
Gravi

Olympus E30 & E410 and a bag full of lenses and stuff
 
it is as hard to get a good picture set up as i've read. it seems that one has to take lots of time considering the foreground and background and side bending and whatall.
What you're describing is kinda the point of photography as opposed to just pointing and hoping you capture something half-decent. I would suggest that if you're not doing that for nearly all your photos, you don't need to spend the amount of money you've invested into this kind of camera, and you're better off with a quality P&S or camera phone.
how does that translate into a good travelling lens, where one is snatching pics as they come?
Traveling has nothing to do with snatching pics as they come. There's always time while traveling to compose a good photo.

I urge you to consider taking a course in composition from your local photo experts. It'll change your entire outlook on photography, and it'll help you get the most from your gear.
 
"Traveling has nothing to do with snatching pics as they come. There's always time while traveling to compose a good photo.

I urge you to consider taking a course in composition from your local photo experts. It'll change your entire outlook on photography, and it'll help you get the most from your gear."

Here, here! I hate those street shooting threads, where people click at random and hope a decently composed shot will emerge - and almost never does.

Try and find some thirty/forty year old National Geographical mags and look at the pix (or get one of their compilation books). You'll find that most of the non-nature shots are with wide angles. The reason is that the wide angle gives a greater sense of depth.

I have just travelled, from the UK, for two weeks in South America. 100% of my daylight shots were with the 7-14 and I have some stunners. The odd time I wished I'd got a longer lens I took the shot and cropped it later in the PC.

I also took the pancake and I used that after dark as (a) it was less intrusive and (b) the extra few stops often came in handy.

Composition. Ah yes, I remember when it was considered important. Again, find some thirty/forty year old copies of the Amateur Photographer. You'll be reminded of all those pages of photos where the compositional strength was illustrated by lines and diagrams. Camera tests were a rarity. Now must photo mags are dominated by them.

Tony
 
it is as hard to get a good picture set up as i've read. it seems that one has to take lots of time considering the foreground and background and side bending and whatall.
It's the same with any UWA lens, and whether it takes "lots of time" just depends on your experience. After experimenting a bit you'll get a feel for where the camera needs to be to get the shot you want. You'll learn where distortion will enhance a shot, as well as ruin a shot.
how does that translate into a good travelling lens, where one is snatching pics as they come?
I think the reason a lot of people gravitate for UWA lenses while traveling is because they usually want to fit "everything" into the frame, for better or worse. UWA lenses give options for getting it all in, even if you don't have the luxury of moving back far enough to get it all in with a lens that would provide more flattering distortion characteristics, etc. But that's the nature of traveling - sometimes you're just along for the ride, so having that flexibility can be a good thing. Just be sure to practice a little before you go.

--
Sam Bennett - http://www.swiftbennett.com
 
I would suggest that if you're not doing that for nearly all your photos, you don't need to spend the amount of money you've invested into this kind of camera, and you're better off with a quality P&S or camera phone.
... but well said. A good reminder to all of us -- anyway, to those of us who think we can just snap away because "film is cheap."

I do agree that shooting well with an UWA lens requires extra care and discipline, and that it's a good lesson what it's all about. I'm workin' on it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix
 
Let me put it this way: with the Canon 5D, when I'm using the 24-105L IS as my standard lens, most of my vacation/travel shots are at 24mm or 28mm. The 7-14 includes these focal length equivalents, and adds the range equivalent between 14mm and 24mm. Shots at the maximum zoom are at 28mm, which produces no more keystoning distortion than an equivalent lens on a full-frame; it's not what I'd call ultra wide. It's only when you get down to near 7mm that you have to pay extra attention to keeping the camera level, and making sure that you don't have a lot of empty space in the foreground--but then the same goes for shots with other lenses. I have the GF1 and the 7-14, 20mm, and 45-200 mm. I like all three lenses, but the 7-14 is probably my favorite.

Bob
 
thanks again for the helpful advice! i feel less scared now! scared that i have wasted money! :-) but in any event, i will have fun playing with it.

at the present, i seem to be most interested in using the long lens, so trying to train my eyes to see differently should be fun.

although when i first got the gf1 and used only the 20 mm for a week in bangkok, i seemed to adjust to it quickly, so i hope the same goes for the 7-14.

today i have ordered a couple books on composition, the photographer's eye, and within the frame.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/retiredbutcycling
 
A hotshoe bubble level can do wonders for avoiding/mitigating those converging verticals and tilted horizons.
That's why I think this lens is better suited to the Olympus cameras: they have a built-in dual axis electronic level (much handier than a bubble level when handholding the camera) and built-in stabilization (because the lens lacks optical stabilization).

Cheers!

Abbazz
--
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource: http://artbig.com/

 
I think some of the replies to the OP question here are a bit elitist. It has to be admitted that when traveling, time or rather the lack of it does impose some restrictions of photographic opportunities.

The lighting at a particular time of the day is often wrong & people can be uncontrollable. If on top of that you have to cope with learning to use a new lens & avoid image distortion he may well be right in questioning his choice of his main lens ?
--
Keith-C
 
A hotshoe bubble level can do wonders for avoiding/mitigating those converging verticals and tilted horizons.
That's why I think this lens is better suited to the Olympus cameras: they have a built-in dual axis electronic level (much handier than a bubble level when handholding the camera) and built-in stabilization (because the lens lacks optical stabilization).
I'm using a E-P1, but with bubble level mounted all the time. The built in solution adds another display type where you have to cycle through, plus it has to be adjusted from time to time.

BTW: You'll get better pictures with such a level, irrespective the lens you are using.
 
it is as hard to get a good picture set up as i've read. it seems that one has to take lots of time considering the foreground and background and side bending and whatall. how does that translate into a good travelling lens, where one is snatching pics as they come?
Such an UWA will give great picutures of landscapes (clouds!) and architecture. But please dont't point it at people. ;-)
And, as said, the camera should be held perfectly horizontal.
 
it is as hard to get a good picture set up as i've read. it seems that one has to take lots of time considering the foreground and background and side bending and whatall. how does that translate into a good travelling lens, where one is snatching pics as they come?
Such an UWA will give great picutures of landscapes (clouds!) and architecture. But please dont't point it at people. ;-)
While the 7-14 is not the ideal "portrait lens," it can work well for pictures of people in an environmental context. Here's one I took at 7mm. I dare say a longer focal length in the same position would not have communicated as much about the place and the situation where the photo was taken.

Bob

 
it is as hard to get a good picture set up as i've read. it seems that one has to take lots of time considering the foreground and background and side bending and whatall. how does that translate into a good travelling lens, where one is snatching pics as they come?
From some of your later posts, perhaps you are a more thoughtful photographer than I first thought. One needs to consider foreground-background relations in any photo. That is much of what separates photographers from camera owners. There may be more to look at in a wide angle view, but the basic problem is the same. Perhaps "snatching pictures" led some of us astray. There is no reason one cannot work quickly AND thoughtfully, if one has enough practice and experience, just that the two do not often come together in amateur photography.

Specific to the wide angle, handling the lens will become second nature if you use it enough -- although some people adapt to wide lenses more quickly than others. Put it on the camera and go out for few days photography before your trip and you may find you adapt very quickly.

One tip I picked up many years ago -- I think from Garry Winogrand -- was to look at all four corners of the frame before pushing the button. If you get the corners right it is surprising how often the middle will take care of itself.

Also, there is no law that says horizons have to be straight, verticals cannot converge or you cannot use wide angle "distortion" as part of photographic composition. You will not have to look very hard to find photographers doing all those things to good effect.

Happy traveling.

G.

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com
 
"Here's one I took at 7mm. I dare say a longer focal length in the same position would not have communicated as much about the place and the situation where the photo was taken."

Nice shot.

A few years ago I specially bought a wide angle prime for portraits of people in their working environment. Different needs to 'flattering' portraiture.

Tony
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top