Reading mode: Light Dark

Which FX lens for serious, high IQ multi-row panoramas to print large?

Go to last post
Sara Valentine said:
jfriend00 said:
anotherMike said:
For this you want:

1) A high resolution body (D850)

2) The *flattest* field mid range focal length you can possibly find (meaning, no field curvature at all), with the most even across the frame resolution performance, so there are no dead spots or zones of strange field curvature dips. And that lens is simply the Sigma 40/1.4 Art. Nothing I know of has a flatter field, and nothing I know of is sharper. Don't think, for a second, that you "know" what it renders like, because it doesn't render like any other Sigma art, because it's different. Be very aware that this is a huge and heavy lens, but if you want max quality in a lens that would beat about everything out there for super high IQ single frame or pano work, well, that is the one. If that lens is too wide for you, consider the Sigma 85/1.4 Art or 105/1.4 Art, although the last one is nearly 200/2 sized.

-m
Click to expand...
I'll look at the Sigma 40/1.4 and 80/1.4. That big aperture is such overkill for landscape work, but I guess nobody makes super sharp f/4 primes for landscape work.
Click to expand...
You're going to shoot at f/4?
Click to expand...
No, I would probably shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 depending upon the strength of the lens.

But, I wasn't asking someone to manufacture an f/8 lens. I'm just saying that an f/4 lens that was really high quality at f/5.6 and f/8 could be a great lens for landscape work and could be a fraction the size, weight and cost of these f/1.4 lenses when f/1.4 has little utility at all for landscape work. So, if you buy one of these because they are great at f/5.6, you're lugging around and paying for a lot of extra glass that isn't needed for your task.
 
Reilly Diefenbach said:
jfriend00 said:
I have a D750 (and may rent a D850) with the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 and Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. We are planning a long trip through the Swiss and French alps this summer (Wengen, Zermatt, Chamonix -
Click to expand...
If only I'd had the D850 back in 2005 :^) Do not on any account miss the Aiguille du Midi!


Grandes Jorasses
Reilly Diefenbach said:
big mountain panoramic views) and I have ideas about making some serious panos that I could print quite large.
Click to expand...
You haven't said how large, but a well shot D850 pano single row will be tacks from two feet away at about 4X12 feet.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
The Tamron is a super sharp lens, but probably too wide for stitching panos as it "pushes" the background too far away. I'm sure I will use it for lots of single shots.

My Nikkor 24-120 f/4 isn't bad, but there are certainly better optics out there.
Click to expand...
A zoom will work in a pinch or for non critical panos. The middle frames will be fine, but the ends will tend to be soft.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
So, I'm thinking that I will probably do some two row panos, perhaps 2x5 or 2x6 and I'd like to use some middle focal length so the far away details are a bit larger. I don't know exactly what focal length I'd really end up at? Anyone have any ideas? Does 50mm sound about right? When I last did something like a multi-row pano in Zion, I used 55mm DX which would be roughly equivalent to 82mm on FX which would point to perhaps an 85mm prime? But, obviously it's a bit scene dependent exactly what focal length you want. Any general advice here?
Click to expand...
The longer your FL, the more trouble you will have keeping the foreground in focus. Long strippy panos with no foreground don't usually put the viewer at the venue to a convincing degree, imo. Focus stacking is a big pain and mostly doesn't survive close scrutiny. I recommend any Nikon 1.8 prime from 20 mm-50, especially the ones with nano coat for fat, juicy rendition and relatively modest cost. The difference between most good primes is negligible at f8. Pano shooting is all about tons of detail by means of brute quantity of pixels, and we don't have to rely on a particular prime lens to make any difference to said detail. A Gigapan shot with a Canon Powershot will blow away any normal D850 pano series for detail and potential print size by simple virtue of a vast quantity of pixels. I suppose one could argue about rendition, but I'd rather not...

I've been shooting panos since the days many years ago when I taped 4X6 prints together end to end. Not for me the narrow slices of big landscapes, I've got to have width and it's got to be tack sharp edge to edge and undistorted by superwide bloat. From the majestic waterfalls of the Great Northwest to the Grand Canyon to the fjords of Norway, It's been a long road, but a rewarding one.

I highly recommend the 28 1.8 G set to f 7.1. Wide, but with very little distortion. Excellent bite. Ample field curvature makes it easy to get the ground in front of you in sharp focus without having to resort to hyperfocal twiddling. Field curvature does not affect overall sharpness at all at longer distances. Focus on the mountain and blaze away with confidence. Flare resistance is as good as it gets, and that can be a very big factor if the sun is in or near the frame. For scenes that can use a longer focal length, any good 50mm at all will work fine.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
So, I'm wondering if I should rent or buy the 24-70 f/2.8? Or rent or buy a prime because it's sharper?
Click to expand...
Get a good prime or two. The 24- 70 will have soft corners and weigh a ton. And don't forget a good polarizer. That will make for a far greater improvement than any lens could ever do.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Any thoughts on what would most likely be the right focal length range for this? If you were going to have one or two primes for this, what two would you take?
Click to expand...
28G and 50 Art.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking a similar lens choice, something out of the Nikon 28 1.8, 35 1.8, 50 1.8 and/or 50 1.4 or older Zeiss "classic" lines: 25/2, 25/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/2, though the 35/1.4 looks like it performs better stopped down than the 35/2 but is much bulkier.
 
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Given the same angle of view, the geometry remains the same from 20mm to 300, with the variables being pixel count and depth of field. Pick your angle of view and fill it with as many panels as necessary for the desired sharpness at whatever print size and viewing distance with whichever focal length lens will accomplish the desired pixel count, but if you're including much foreground with a lens over 50mm, be prepared for focusing problems that may not have a good solution.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I'm digesting this. So, you're saying that if I capture a pano that spans 140 degrees field of view across and say 60 degrees up/down that I get the exact same perspective in the merged image whether I shoot it with a 20mm or an 85mm? Obviously, I'd be stiching a lot more images with the 85mm lens and the final result would have more pixels, but the perspective of the image would be the same? Something tells me this should be the case, but somehow I feel like I need to go record the same pano at 20mm (one row) and 60mm (multi-row) and examine the two merged images to see for myself.

So, if that's the case, then is it true that the only reason to use longer focal length lenses for multi-row panos is to end up with more pixels in the final merged pano?

I guess for single row panos, you might want a longer focal length lens just to get the reach you want for the image in general if the subject is far away.

Wouldn't DOF be easier using wide angle lenses? What other differences would there be shooting the same resulting angle of view pano with 20mm vs. 60mm?
Reilly Diefenbach said:
I highly recommend sorting your equipment choices out in the yard with a zoom lens at various FLs before your trip of a lifetime. Keep it as simple as possible, my view.
Click to expand...
I will likely go find some local scenery to practice on as I've not done a lot of panos and much better to spend a couple days practicing here.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
At some point, even for detail freaks such as myself, there comes a point where enough pixels is enough, e.g. 25,000 X 8256. Multi row for me is useful for tall subjects shooting up, as in waterfalls, or down, like Bryce Canyon. There will usually be some Photoshop geometric corrections required in post for multi row shooting up or down.
Click to expand...
Yes, understood.
 
For places like the Swiss Alps I would want a 70-200mm f/4 lens along with a pano rail (like the RRS 192 rail with 90 degree clamp) and a camera mount so I can have the camera body vertical. In a vertical orientation I can as much height as possible with a single row set of images and stitch them into a very large horizontal picture.

Wide angle lenses are seldom a good choice for mountain vistas as they create perspective distortion that makes far objects appear much smaller, in effect turning mountains into mole hills.
 
I guess I was expecting he'd use a D850 and wanted "hi IQ", and that to me means try and stay as far away as diffraction, and use a lens that is so well corrected (my 40/1.4 Art example) that you could shoot it at F/5.6 and not have any worries across the frame.

But yea, if he's not going for the upper end of the goals, and he may not have to with a big pano, then something else. I see too much loss of subjective bite at F/11 for me to hang there - unless I absolutely have to for DOF reasons. I really prefer to see if I can deal with F/6.3 to F/7.1, but sometimes DOF requirements won't let me get there. And I've had to spend mega bux on lenses good enough to allow me to shoot those apertures and maintain quality across the frame too.

-m
 
anotherMike said:
I guess I was expecting he'd use a D850 and wanted "hi IQ", and that to me means try and stay as far away as diffraction, and use a lens that is so well corrected (my 40/1.4 Art example) that you could shoot it at F/5.6 and not have any worries across the frame.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the point of my question. That's what I'm looking for.
 
jfriend00 said:
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Given the same angle of view, the geometry remains the same from 20mm to 300, with the variables being pixel count and depth of field. Pick your angle of view and fill it with as many panels as necessary for the desired sharpness at whatever print size and viewing distance with whichever focal length lens will accomplish the desired pixel count, but if you're including much foreground with a lens over 50mm, be prepared for focusing problems that may not have a good solution.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I'm digesting this. So, you're saying that if I capture a pano that spans 140 degrees field of view across and say 60 degrees up/down that I get the exact same perspective in the merged image whether I shoot it with a 20mm or an 85mm? Obviously, I'd be stiching a lot more images with the 85mm lens and the final result would have more pixels, but the perspective of the image would be the same?
Click to expand...
Yes of course, you shoot them from the same vantage point.
jfriend00 said:
Something tells me this should be the case, but somehow I feel like I need to go record the same pano at 20mm (one row) and 60mm (multi-row) and examine the two merged images to see for myself.

So, if that's the case, then is it true that the only reason to use longer focal length lenses for multi-row panos is to end up with more pixels in the final merged pano?
Click to expand...
Yes, but since you enlarge more your DoF will be smaller.
jfriend00 said:
I guess for single row panos, you might want a longer focal length lens just to get the reach you want for the image in general if the subject is far away.

Wouldn't DOF be easier using wide angle lenses? What other differences would there be shooting the same resulting angle of view pano with 20mm vs. 60mm?
Click to expand...
If you shoot with a 20 you get the DoF of a 20, with 60 the DoF of a 60. Unless you decrease the size of the 60 pano to that of the 20 pano, then both DoFs would be the same.
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 said:
I highly recommend sorting your equipment choices out in the yard with a zoom lens at various FLs before your trip of a lifetime. Keep it as simple as possible, my view.
Click to expand...
I will likely go find some local scenery to practice on as I've not done a lot of panos and much better to spend a couple days practicing here.
jfriend00 said:
At some point, even for detail freaks such as myself, there comes a point where enough pixels is enough, e.g. 25,000 X 8256. Multi row for me is useful for tall subjects shooting up, as in waterfalls, or down, like Bryce Canyon. There will usually be some Photoshop geometric corrections required in post for multi row shooting up or down.
Click to expand...
Yes, understood.
Click to expand...
 
I shoot my serious panos on a Gigapan Epic 100 motorized head with a Leica M240 or M10 and a 90mm Apo-Summicron-M ASPH 90mm, all this on a Gitzo Systematic 3-series leg set with leveling base. In Nikon I'd use a Z6 or Z7 with a 85mm f/1.8S. For truly massive panoramas, the 300/4 PF would be an intriguing option. I wouldn't dream of doing this with a manual head. 50mm would be the longest.

You can use my calculator to estimate the pixel count of the resulting panorama (it's really meant for 360º or single-strip 360º):

https://blog.majid.info/panorama-size/

If you're going to rent anyway, and shoot in bright daylight, you might want to get a Ricoh GRIII or a Sony RX1RII instead of a heavy DSLR.

If you are going to be hiking the Alps, you need something compact and lightweight. I'd suggest the pocketPANO Vario:

https://www.pocketpano.de/english/pocketpano-vario/

--
Fazal Majid (www.majid.info)
 
Last edited:
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Where needed, a rotating ballhead with variable clickstops, a leveling base, a nodal rail on top. A lot less shaky than a full on pano head which I used to use ten or so years ago double row when I didn't have 8000 pixels short side. Mostly handheld if there enough light for an appropriate shutter speed. The leveling indicators in the viewfinder work very well.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
jfriend00 said:
anotherMike said:
I guess I was expecting he'd use a D850 and wanted "hi IQ", and that to me means try and stay as far away as diffraction, and use a lens that is so well corrected (my 40/1.4 Art example) that you could shoot it at F/5.6 and not have any worries across the frame.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the point of my question. That's what I'm looking for.
Click to expand...
So you'll be getting a Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 (as that kind of lens doesn't exist otherwise for less than 600 grams)?
 
Last edited:
Flashlight said:
If you shoot with a 20 you get the DoF of a 20, with 60 the DoF of a 60. Unless you decrease the size of the 60 pano to that of the 20 pano, then both DoFs would be the same.
Click to expand...
In this case, the pano done with the 60 at the same aperture would have less DOF than the one with the 20. I recommend using a 35, or maybe a 28 if deep focus is needed in the pano.
 
pluton said:
pluton said:
If you shoot with a 20 you get the DoF of a 20, with 60 the DoF of a 60. Unless you decrease the size of the 60 pano to that of the 20 pano, then both DoFs would be the same.
Click to expand...
In this case, the pano done with the 60 at the same aperture would have less DOF than the one with the 20. I recommend using a 35, or maybe a 28 if deep focus is needed in the pano.
Click to expand...
It won't if you cover the same field of view with both panos and view them at the same size.
 
Good Morning,

My mis-spent youth was used, almost entirely, climbing in this region.

For stuff that will fit in your pocket and wont break the bank you may wan to consider: Nikon's 60mm D macro and or the 85mm 1.8g. Both provide excellent sharpness and both together weigh less than the 24-120 (I have and use each of them on a regular basis). The 24-120 is fine, just dont use it wide open. If you prefer to go down the higher route consider the Z7 and the 24-70 2.8S. This will provide the quality you want with less weight and bulk.

The 300 f4 PF is also worth considering.

Have a great time.
 
anotherMike said:
For this you want:

1) A high resolution body (D850)

2) The *flattest* field mid range focal length you can possibly find (meaning, no field curvature at all), with the most even across the frame resolution performance, so there are no dead spots or zones of strange field curvature dips. And that lens is simply the Sigma 40/1.4 Art. Nothing I know of has a flatter field, and nothing I know of is sharper. Don't think, for a second, that you "know" what it renders like, because it doesn't render like any other Sigma art, because it's different. Be very aware that this is a huge and heavy lens, but if you want max quality in a lens that would beat about everything out there for super high IQ single frame or pano work, well, that is the one. If that lens is too wide for you, consider the Sigma 85/1.4 Art or 105/1.4 Art, although the last one is nearly 200/2 sized.
Click to expand...
I think I am looking for something not quite as wide as 40mm for a variety of reasons, but not as long as 85mm.

What do you think of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens? Not quite as expensive as the 40/1.4 and seems to get excellent reviews and test results. In the DXOLabs lens database , it puts the Nikon 50's to shame in pretty much all categories. In the detailed analysis at Photography Life, it seems to do very well only really getting bested a little bit by the $4000 Zeiss Otus 55mm (in their testing at that focal range).

While the Sigma 50 is quite good wide open, I'm also very interested in the f/5.6 and f/8 results for pano work. The Sigma 50 looks to have very good edges at f/4 and above. It's also got pretty low distortion which is particularly relevant for pano work.

Any thoughts on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens?
 
Reilly Diefenbach said:
jfriend00 said:
I have a D750 (and may rent a D850) with the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 and Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. We are planning a long trip through the Swiss and French alps this summer (Wengen, Zermatt, Chamonix -
Click to expand...
If only I'd had the D850 back in 2005 :^) Do not on any account miss the Aiguille du Midi!


Grandes Jorasses
Reilly Diefenbach said:
big mountain panoramic views) and I have ideas about making some serious panos that I could print quite large.
Click to expand...
You haven't said how large, but a well shot D850 pano single row will be tacks from two feet away at about 4X12 feet.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
The Tamron is a super sharp lens, but probably too wide for stitching panos as it "pushes" the background too far away. I'm sure I will use it for lots of single shots.

My Nikkor 24-120 f/4 isn't bad, but there are certainly better optics out there.
Click to expand...
A zoom will work in a pinch or for non critical panos. The middle frames will be fine, but the ends will tend to be soft.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
So, I'm thinking that I will probably do some two row panos, perhaps 2x5 or 2x6 and I'd like to use some middle focal length so the far away details are a bit larger. I don't know exactly what focal length I'd really end up at? Anyone have any ideas? Does 50mm sound about right? When I last did something like a multi-row pano in Zion, I used 55mm DX which would be roughly equivalent to 82mm on FX which would point to perhaps an 85mm prime? But, obviously it's a bit scene dependent exactly what focal length you want. Any general advice here?
Click to expand...
The longer your FL, the more trouble you will have keeping the foreground in focus. Long strippy panos with no foreground don't usually put the viewer at the venue to a convincing degree, imo. Focus stacking is a big pain and mostly doesn't survive close scrutiny. I recommend any Nikon 1.8 prime from 20 mm-50, especially the ones with nano coat for fat, juicy rendition and relatively modest cost. The difference between most good primes is negligible at f8. Pano shooting is all about tons of detail by means of brute quantity of pixels, and we don't have to rely on a particular prime lens to make any difference to said detail. A Gigapan shot with a Canon Powershot will blow away any normal D850 pano series for detail and potential print size by simple virtue of a vast quantity of pixels. I suppose one could argue about rendition, but I'd rather not...

I've been shooting panos since the days many years ago when I taped 4X6 prints together end to end. Not for me the narrow slices of big landscapes, I've got to have width and it's got to be tack sharp edge to edge and undistorted by superwide bloat. From the majestic waterfalls of the Great Northwest to the Grand Canyon to the fjords of Norway, It's been a long road, but a rewarding one.

I highly recommend the 28 1.8 G set to f 7.1. Wide, but with very little distortion. Excellent bite. Ample field curvature makes it easy to get the ground in front of you in sharp focus without having to resort to hyperfocal twiddling. Field curvature does not affect overall sharpness at all at longer distances. Focus on the mountain and blaze away with confidence. Flare resistance is as good as it gets, and that can be a very big factor if the sun is in or near the frame. For scenes that can use a longer focal length, any good 50mm at all will work fine.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
So, I'm wondering if I should rent or buy the 24-70 f/2.8? Or rent or buy a prime because it's sharper?
Click to expand...
Get a good prime or two. The 24- 70 will have soft corners and weigh a ton. And don't forget a good polarizer. That will make for a far greater improvement than any lens could ever do.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Any thoughts on what would most likely be the right focal length range for this? If you were going to have one or two primes for this, what two would you take?
Click to expand...
28G and 50 Art.
Click to expand...
I've been looking seriously at the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens. I like the idea of that focal length for a variety of reasons and the 50 Art seems to show much better test results than pretty much everything else at 50mm except a Zeiss Otus which is way out of my price range. My logic is that the 50mm might be more flexible for landscape panos than the 28mm because I can get more reach when desired, but if I need wider, I can just shoot more 50mm images in the pano (multiple rows). And, the 50 would get used for lots of other types of photography (more so for me than the 28). That Nikon 28 is quite pricey too. The Sigma 50 Art puts the Nikon 50mm lenses to shame.

--
John
 
I've got the 50 art. Excellent landscape lens at F/6.3 and above give or take

The 40/1.4 Art is better, a tiny bit centrally, but definitely in the corners and edges. I spent a good part of a week comparing the 40 art to my 35 and 50 art primes, and that was a lesson. The 40 art has essentially replaced by 35 and 50 primes for anything I do. There is no aperture on the 50 art, again, an excellent lens, where it ever meets or beats the 40 in the edges and corners, from F/4 or so on. Meaning, you can shoot the 40 at, say, F/4.5 and get better edges/corners than the 50 will give you at *any* aperture. But again, one must pay for this optical excellence in size/weight, and it's a substantial payment for sure and I totally get not everyone will want to deal with that.

If you are dead set against 40mm, sure, the 50 art will be my next recommendation. Still a great lens. But to me, 40 to 50mm isn't that much of a jump, so I'd still recommend the 40 if you are willing to deal with it's massive/size weight, which might be an issue if you're trying to travel a bit lighter. It is a lens you would need to rent me thinks, to make sure you're good with that trade off.

-m
 
We all really like to spend your money, you have lots of great options posted by many here ;-), here are a few cheaper but IMHO very good options:

If I were you I would get the 50mm F1.8G and a 85mm F1.8g, if you shoot them in portrait, I have found that 85mm is a good focal length for mountain panos and as an insurance bring the 50mm F1.8g as well. Those are cheap very good options, and btw I would be fine using the 24 MP D750, Not quite as good as my D850 but much cheaper and for most good enough I would argue. How big do you really want to print?

If you want more megapixels and want to save money a 36mp D800e is a fabulous camera for panos, I used mine for 6 years until I upgraded to my D850.
 
jfriend00 said:
jfriend00 said:
28G and 50 Art.
Click to expand...
I've been looking seriously at the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens. I like the idea of that focal length for a variety of reasons and the 50 Art seems to show much better test results than pretty much everything else at 50mm except a Zeiss Otus which is way out of my price range. My logic is that the 50mm might be more flexible for landscape panos than the 28mm because I can get more reach when desired, but if I need wider, I can just shoot more 50mm images in the pano (multiple rows).
Click to expand...
Out of all my panos, about 90% are using the 28, because I get sufficient height, I don't need to be concerned with keeping the foreground in focus and I'm quite satisfied with the absurd amount of detail I get shooting a single row 8000 X plus or minus 20000. If I were shooting for a print larger than 4X12 feet, the slight increase in detail (you don't get double) provided by row number two might be worth the effort.
jfriend00 said:
And, the 50 would get used for lots of other types of photography (more so for me than the 28). That Nikon 28 is quite pricey too.
Click to expand...
28 1.8 G is $626 new, $350 used. No need to worry too much about one prime lens having a tiny bit sharper corners than the other, you're only going to be using the center portion for a pano.
jfriend00 said:
The Sigma 50 Art puts the Nikon 50mm lenses to shame.
Click to expand...
At f8 it's pretty close :^) I like the microcontrast on the Sigma a bit better, but there's no shame to be had either way:



Milvus 50 vs 50 1.8D
Milvus 50 vs 50 1.8D
 
Lythrigg said:
Good Morning,

My mis-spent youth was used, almost entirely, climbing in this region.

For stuff that will fit in your pocket and wont break the bank you may wan to consider: Nikon's 60mm D macro and or the 85mm 1.8g. Both provide excellent sharpness and both together weigh less than the 24-120 (I have and use each of them on a regular basis). The 24-120 is fine, just dont use it wide open. If you prefer to go down the higher route consider the Z7 and the 24-70 2.8S. This will provide the quality you want with less weight and bulk.

The 300 f4 PF is also worth considering.

Have a great time.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the Nikkor 85/1.8G. The 60/2.8 seems like it would be good, too. I took some photos with my D850 + 85/1.8 G of Mount Rushmore last summer that are very nice. I imagine a pano shot in portrait orientation would be fairly high quality, as the 85's in general don't have a lot of field curvature(?). I recently purchased a Vanguard VEO 2 265CB, which comes with a cheap ball head, most;y for motorcycle touring. I think it would work pretty well for informal panos. It's not a motorized Gigipan, or by any means pro gear, but certainly better than hand held. Guess it depends on ones standards, size and weight constraints, etc.

Edit: Oops, I just read the OP's question. He asked for serious, high quality panos. Ignore the above.
 
Last edited:
Rather than a 2x5 or 2x6 pano I think you are better off doing something like a 1x8 pano by shooting in portrait mode. If shooting FX then you are supposed to overlap the images by about 1/3. Therefore for a 24x36 sensor the vertical resolution would be equivalent to about 40mm of sensor height. Just shooting in portrait mode you automatically have almost the same amount of sensor without the complexities of registering 2 rows of images.

Now back to the question of which lens- it seems that we need a good idea of the goal. A lot of people shoot single frame landscapes of 16mm and wider. If you are going to stack 2 rows of these and overlap slightly, then don't you need to shoot the new images with something like 28mm maximum to achieve a similar result. A lot of different suggestions have been made, with focal lengths up to and beyond 85mm. For a scene that might require a large angle of view, it would require many rows of images with an 85mm lens to achieve a similar result. The OP should pick a focal length that gives the vertical angle of view for a particular scene, then work from there to determine what focal length would be required for 2 rows of images to give the same angle of view.
 
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