Reading mode: Light Dark

Wide-angle lens vs stitching a panorama

Go to last post
I'm usually stitching panoramas using from 3 to 7 shots taken at 100-135mm. It's always a "passive" landscape. Shorter focus makes the process more complicated due to subtle chromatic and geometric edge distortions - you may have then smeared unpleasantly looking areas distincly visible on large prints.
hyslopc said:
With the D60's 1.6x multiplier, your average lens collection just
doesn't go wide enough for some shots. As such, I've taken it as a
given that I need a really wide-angle lens, and have been planning
on getting a Canon 16-35.

However after seeing some of the panoramas posted here lately, I'm
starting to wonder how necessary a lens like this really is. For
those situations where you want a really wide shot, why not just
take 2-4 close shots and stitch them together lately? I would
think that the majority of wide-angle shots are taken of beautiful
scenes (eg landscapes, architecture). In these sort of shots, you
want the best image quality possible, and I would think that
carefully stitching 4 x 6MP images with a medium-range zoom would
give you a vastly better result than, say, a single 6MP shot taken
with the Canon 16-35 at 16mm.

Of course this means investing a lot of time in learning how to
stitch really well, which seems is not that easy, and if there is a
lot of action in the picture, stitching doesn't work - but how
often do you want to take really wide-angle action shots?

I'm thinking out loud here, so pls tell me if I'm not thinking
straight. I'm starting to wonder whether I could get better
results stitching from a 20mm prime at 1/3 the price of the 16-35.

--
D60, 28-135 IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
 
hyslopc said:
With the D60's 1.6x multiplier, your average lens collection just
doesn't go wide enough for some shots. As such, I've taken it as a
given that I need a really wide-angle lens, and have been planning
on getting a Canon 16-35.

However after seeing some of the panoramas posted here lately, I'm
starting to wonder how necessary a lens like this really is. For
those situations where you want a really wide shot, why not just
take 2-4 close shots and stitch them together lately? I would
think that the majority of wide-angle shots are taken of beautiful
scenes (eg landscapes, architecture). In these sort of shots, you
want the best image quality possible, and I would think that
carefully stitching 4 x 6MP images with a medium-range zoom would
give you a vastly better result than, say, a single 6MP shot taken
with the Canon 16-35 at 16mm.

Of course this means investing a lot of time in learning how to
stitch really well, which seems is not that easy, and if there is a
lot of action in the picture, stitching doesn't work - but how
often do you want to take really wide-angle action shots?

I'm thinking out loud here, so pls tell me if I'm not thinking
straight. I'm starting to wonder whether I could get better
results stitching from a 20mm prime at 1/3 the price of the 16-35.

--
D60, 28-135 IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
I am also having the same delema choosing a lens for my D60. Canon must have realised that people need the wide ability to shoot wider angles are introducing a new lens in the L series which will be 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. Taking the 1.6 x factor into consideration this results in around 38mm.

I think I will go for this lense as it seems the most versitile in the L range and then worry about the wider angle lenses later on down the track.

My original choice was for the 16-35 mm, although I have a budget to stick to and the new 24-70 seems like it will provide the greater versitility.
 
Jeffrey Behr said:
3. Zoom lenses can be difficult or impossible to use properly on a
pano head...the lens's nodal point (NP) is quite far forward
because of the zoom's optical construction. I sold my Canon 28-70
because its NP is about 5" forward of its mount, and that's very
Click to expand...
can you tell me what was your exact measurement for the 28-70's nodal point? from the lens mount? thanks.
 
By constructing a panorama you are effectively increasing the number of pixels per inch. For landscape photography this is really the way to go. The detail on panoramas is absolutely stunning.

Having said that I bought a 20mm lens and am pretty happy with it as an all-purpose lens. I am, however, having a few problems with getting panoramas to work. 20mm is still pretty wide, even on the d60. If you are thinking about getting a prime lens, then I would consider getting something a little bigger. I have found that the 20mm usually gives me too much coverage on sweeping landscapes. It can be very nice when you want to include a sky that has some beautiful clouds, but then getting the panorama to work is a bear. I am thinking of buying a 28-70 mm zoom to handle my panorama as well as general photography. I figure the 20mm mm and the 28-70mm will be pretty good for most of my needs.

Jay
 
I like to use a sharp 50mm or mid range tele (135mm 2L) for shots that are to be stitched for a detailed landscape image. I have the Canon 20mm 2.8, but it just isn't sharp enough to give me the detail I want for large prints. Sample image stitched from 8 frames taken with the 135 2L (full size also available):
http://www.pbase.com/image/6743001
 
Your choice is highly dependent upon the end product.

If this is a final print 8in by 24in then a 16-35mm or your 28-135mm used in portrait mode and stitching the resulting frames will probably suffice.

If you want print 13in high by 36in panoramas which can stand close scrutiny then you have no choice, in my opinion but to use a outstanding zoom or a prime.

In a recent trip to the Catskills I shot a number of panoramas with a 16-35mm and a 50mm and printed them 13in by 36in. The difference was clearly in favor of the 50mm.

I find that primes in the range 28-85mm cover most of my needs. Typically I would take 6-8 shots.

BTW I have not found a great advantage by using a panoramic head for any subject more than 0.5 miles away. A firm tripod with good levelling is good enough.

Hope this helps
hyslopc said:
With the D60's 1.6x multiplier, your average lens collection just
doesn't go wide enough for some shots. As such, I've taken it as a
given that I need a really wide-angle lens, and have been planning
on getting a Canon 16-35.

However after seeing some of the panoramas posted here lately, I'm
starting to wonder how necessary a lens like this really is. For
those situations where you want a really wide shot, why not just
take 2-4 close shots and stitch them together lately? I would
think that the majority of wide-angle shots are taken of beautiful
scenes (eg landscapes, architecture). In these sort of shots, you
want the best image quality possible, and I would think that
carefully stitching 4 x 6MP images with a medium-range zoom would
give you a vastly better result than, say, a single 6MP shot taken
with the Canon 16-35 at 16mm.

Of course this means investing a lot of time in learning how to
stitch really well, which seems is not that easy, and if there is a
lot of action in the picture, stitching doesn't work - but how
often do you want to take really wide-angle action shots?

I'm thinking out loud here, so pls tell me if I'm not thinking
straight. I'm starting to wonder whether I could get better
results stitching from a 20mm prime at 1/3 the price of the 16-35.

--
D60, 28-135 IS, 550EX
Click to expand...
 
I have stitches some hand held images using my olympus E-10 and got amazing results. Others that were se on a tripod did not work out as well.

go to panoguide.com and learn more

the results are wonderful

khaled
 


This was a single-shot at 16 mm with my D60. My monitor is a bit out of whack ... it looks plenty bright enough to me. I'm working on that. Anyway, with the clouds and all, I have no idea how I could go about stitching this back together ... and with the hundreds of photos I took on this trip and plenty of others, I'm just not willing to do the pano thing.
 
depending on how large you want to print it. I've done the same with some of my shots as I find the canon stiching software looks bad other than for web sized posts. That's a great looking frame also! Is this from an action you made or did you get it off a web site? Dying to find it- really adds to yout shot.
danny
 
dannyjl said:
depending on how large you want to print it. I've done the same
with some of my shots as I find the canon stiching software looks
bad other than for web sized posts. That's a great looking frame
Click to expand...
Fortunately, I don't really want to print this one... Actually, most of what I print is in a more "normal" size/ratio: 8x10, 10x15, et cetera. Long wide short ones just don't do it for me...
dannyjl said:
also! Is this from an action you made or did you get it off a web
site? Dying to find it- really adds to yout shot.
danny
Click to expand...
Actually, I saw the instructions on this site. I posted a message in this forum about how to make the frames ... do a search for frames and mats, or something to that effect, and you'll turn it up.
 
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