Is 14mm wide enough?

So, my work is usually portraiture and weddings/events, and I almost never find myself wider than about 24mm. However, a few opportunities have presented themselves to assist and get into some real-estate/architecture photography.

I've had several thoughts in the past about completing my f/2.8 trinity and get a 14-24mm, but I was never sure it would have been worth what little use I'd give it. For now I think I'd just rent a Z 14-30mm f/4 and see how I like it. But recommendations between those would be wonderful if anyone has any input there.

I ask about 14mm, because I've seen it a few times here, or in YouTube reviews on how users would like if the lens was slightly wider. Does anyone share this sentiment? I wouldn't leave a used Sigma 12-24 f/4 (adapted with FTZ) off the table if those extra 2mm really get used. Or does anyone expect a full frame Z lens wider than 14mm soon?

LTheWafflePWN said:

So, my work is usually portraiture and weddings/events, and I almost never find myself wider than about 24mm. However, a few opportunities have presented themselves to assist and get into some real-estate/architecture photography.

I've had several thoughts in the past about completing my f/2.8 trinity and get a 14-24mm, but I was never sure it would have been worth what little use I'd give it. For now I think I'd just rent a Z 14-30mm f/4 and see how I like it. But recommendations between those would be wonderful if anyone has any input there.

I ask about 14mm, because I've seen it a few times here, or in YouTube reviews on how users would like if the lens was slightly wider. Does anyone share this sentiment? I wouldn't leave a used Sigma 12-24 f/4 (adapted with FTZ) off the table if those extra 2mm really get used. Or does anyone expect a full frame Z lens wider than 14mm soon?

Click to expand...

Can't speak to a native Z mount lens wider than 14mm, but I have used the Sigma 12-24 F professionally for a couple of years for architecture and have always been impressed with the results. It continues to shine on my Z7II like it did on my D850.

The benefit for me is the added ability to crop/correct perspective that a 12mm lens gives, especially for tall buildings or in tights spaces (both of which predominate in the NYC area where I worked.) I have also used the 12-24 with ND filters for some extra wide landscape shots.

Some samples: https://www.greatproductshots.net/Architectural/

LTheWafflePWN said:

So, my work is usually portraiture and weddings/events, and I almost never find myself wider than about 24mm. However, a few opportunities have presented themselves to assist and get into some real-estate/architecture photography.

I've had several thoughts in the past about completing my f/2.8 trinity and get a 14-24mm, but I was never sure it would have been worth what little use I'd give it. For now I think I'd just rent a Z 14-30mm f/4 and see how I like it. But recommendations between those would be wonderful if anyone has any input there.

I ask about 14mm, because I've seen it a few times here, or in YouTube reviews on how users would like if the lens was slightly wider. Does anyone share this sentiment? I wouldn't leave a used Sigma 12-24 f/4 (adapted with FTZ) off the table if those extra 2mm really get used. Or does anyone expect a full frame Z lens wider than 14mm soon?

Click to expand...

Hi!

I suspect that you might get some varied and personalized responses about needing anything wider than 14mm.

I don't do architectural or real estate photography, but on occasion I've wanted something wider, and occasionally much wider.

So for my uses (not necessarily yours or others') I sometimes use the 8-15 fisheye, and before that, the 10.5 DX fisheye

One does not always have to capture and/or process the fisheye image to appear "fished":



Defished with Imagetrends:



: original size (external website)



View: original size (external website)

Same image "Defished" with Imagetrends:











Here,, it's more obvious that this is a fisheye lens being used:









For landscapes, a curved horizon can be avoided if one can get the horizon in the middle,:









Perseid meteor and Milky Way:







An Interior; Not "defished:







A "defished" interior:







Best regards,



RB

--

I have the 14-30f4 and won't be upgrading to the 14-24f2.8

for my uses, the f4 is good enough, and so I will always have the Hybrid Trinity

I think it is great and nice and light as well - which helps you take it more places, without much thought for the weight when traveling

PaulDunlopPhotography said:

I have the 14-30f4 and won't be upgrading to the 14-24f2.8

for my uses, the f4 is good enough, and so I will always have the Hybrid Trinity

I think it is great and nice and light as well - which helps you take it more places, without much thought for the weight when traveling

Click to expand...

The new 14-24mm f/2.8 is a marvel of engineering. It's incredibly light, incredibly sharp and can take screw-on filters - unlike the old one. It's only 115g (6oz) heavier than the 14-30mm f/4, which is about 23% heavier. It's also more than twice as expensive. If the OP is shooting weddings in dark churches and reception halls it may be the one to get, though.

For the few occasions when a Z 14-30mm /Z 14-24mm isn't wide enough, you can always add something like a TTArtisan 11mm f2.8, without breaking the bank, at least for the TTArtisan.

That would be my choice, as a owner of the Z 14-30mm S.

Just taking the odd snaps of large buildings in rather compact towns, i have found 14mm is just not wide enough but I doubt that I would get a 12mm just for the odd shot.

Learned from experience trying to get a picture of a town hall using my 14-30 on its first outing - I thought I had left masses of space around the building for cropping but Viewpoint in PL4 on default settings cropped off part of the tower and one side.

Problem is that I was as far back as I could get but it still wasn't far enough away.

I suppose if you needed to do this for a living a tilt shift ( and a tripod ) is what you should be using.

rich_cx139 said:

Just taking the odd snaps of large buildings in rather compact towns, i have found 14mm is just not wide enough but I doubt that I would get a 12mm just for the odd shot.

Learned from experience trying to get a picture of a town hall using my 14-30 on its first outing - I thought I had left masses of space around the building for cropping but Viewpoint in PL4 on default settings cropped off part of the tower and one side.

Problem is that I was as far back as I could get but it still wasn't far enough away.

I suppose if you needed to do this for a living a tilt shift ( and a tripod ) is what you should be using.

Click to expand...

There’s also stitching. It’s bit tricky with really wide lenses because of the distortion but I’d personally still do that instead of buying and carrying a lens for 1/100 shots. A 2x2 grid at 14mm (including overlaps to help with the stitch) is pretty much 180 degrees FOV.

As usual, it depends on what you want to do and what amount of practice you're willing to invest.

I'm kind of an UWA aficionado, having begun on APS-C with a 10-20mm lens and then an 8-16mm lens.
Though it's only two millimetres difference, the impact on viewing angle is quite evident, as are the effects of even slight imperfections in lens alignment. A tilted horizon or a tilted z axis has more impact the shorter the lens is.

As I switched to full frame, I used an older copy of the Sigma 12-24mm (viewing angle equivalent of the 8-16mm on APS-C), but soon began to see strange phenomena in image sharpness, which were caused to a non-flat focal plane of that lens, and were more noticable due to the higher resolution of my full-frame camera. That might be related to the older design of that lens; newer versions Sigma didn't make for the lens mount I used at that time.

I then got "one wider" with an 11mm prime lens, the widest possible on a DSLR. That lens, an Irix, was an eye-opener, much better IQ than aforementioned Sigma.

In fact, that was about the best lens at all I had for my DSLR.

Last year I took the dive and did the unthinkable, a system change. Which led me to the Z 14-30, which seems to be on par (or at least very close to it) the 11mm prime, in regards of image quality, on an even higher-resolving sensor (45 instead of 35 mpix).

I admit, I'm thinking about going even wider, eventually, being enabled to do so by the shorter flange distance of the Z mount, and get the 9mm prime from Laowa/Venus Optics.

This will be quite the challenge to use, as the difference to the 14-30 is 5mm, which is enormous.

I've also tried a fisheye, but with that, correct alignment seems to be more difficult as with a rectilinear lens, as it's very hard to see around the distortions in the viewfinder. I'm sure that this will improve with practice.

Just stills? The big advantage of the 14-30 is it's so light you can stick it and the camera on a gimbal without much problem. It also takes common 82mm filters for when you need a ND.

The 14-24 might not be much heavier but that bigger filter is an issue. Outdoors with video a VND isn't an option usually.

LTheWafflePWN said:

So, my work is usually portraiture and weddings/events, and I almost never find myself wider than about 24mm. However, a few opportunities have presented themselves to assist and get into some real-estate/architecture photography.

I've had several thoughts in the past about completing my f/2.8 trinity and get a 14-24mm, but I was never sure it would have been worth what little use I'd give it. For now I think I'd just rent a Z 14-30mm f/4 and see how I like it. But recommendations between those would be wonderful if anyone has any input there.

I ask about 14mm, because I've seen it a few times here, or in YouTube reviews on how users would like if the lens was slightly wider. Does anyone share this sentiment? I wouldn't leave a used Sigma 12-24 f/4 (adapted with FTZ) off the table if those extra 2mm really get used. Or does anyone expect a full frame Z lens wider than 14mm soon?

Click to expand...

With Real estate photography I would get the 14-30 and stitch if you need wider. The 14-30 works well and takes filters, it’s more than good enough.

LTheWafflePWN said:

So, my work is usually portraiture and weddings/events, and I almost never find myself wider than about 24mm. However, a few opportunities have presented themselves to assist and get into some real-estate/architecture photography.

I've had several thoughts in the past about completing my f/2.8 trinity and get a 14-24mm, but I was never sure it would have been worth what little use I'd give it. For now I think I'd just rent a Z 14-30mm f/4 and see how I like it. But recommendations between those would be wonderful if anyone has any input there.

I ask about 14mm, because I've seen it a few times here, or in YouTube reviews on how users would like if the lens was slightly wider. Does anyone share this sentiment? I wouldn't leave a used Sigma 12-24 f/4 (adapted with FTZ) off the table if those extra 2mm really get used. Or does anyone expect a full frame Z lens wider than 14mm soon?

Click to expand...

I have a few 14mm prime ( Sony 14 F1.4 GM & Sigma 14 F1.4 Art F-mount) and a Laowa 10-18 in E-mount, I have done quite a few picture for my real-estate agent friend and friends trying to rent their house out, I found a wide Tilt and Shift lens works much better than the normal 14mm, even with my Canon TSE 17, i got wider FOV than the 14mm ( after distortion correction), it's not just FOV, there is a lot less PP work with the Tilt/Shift lens, you see exactly what you will be getting, no big surprises later when you get to your computer, you do everything on the spot, Tilt and Shift lens is very popular among architecture photographers. so for me, with that being said, if I am asked to do an interior shot, i will take my TSE 17 over my 14mm every single time.

Nikon has a F mount PC19 F4, great optic but i found it a little tight for interior shooting, like for those small Victorian style house with tall ceiling, I currently have Canon TSE 17, TSE 24 II, and the TSE 50, yes, I am a huge fan of Tilt/Shift lens I use for both landscape and buildings, there is a Laowa 15 F4.5 Zero-D shift lens for Nikon Z mount out there too, I have not tried it yet but really interested in it, i have a few Laowa lens and love them all so I will look into this one myself too.

LTheWafflePWN said:

So, my work is usually portraiture and weddings/events, and I almost never find myself wider than about 24mm. However, a few opportunities have presented themselves to assist and get into some real-estate/architecture photography.

I've had several thoughts in the past about completing my f/2.8 trinity and get a 14-24mm, but I was never sure it would have been worth what little use I'd give it. For now I think I'd just rent a Z 14-30mm f/4 and see how I like it. But recommendations between those would be wonderful if anyone has any input there.

I ask about 14mm, because I've seen it a few times here, or in YouTube reviews on how users would like if the lens was slightly wider. Does anyone share this sentiment? I wouldn't leave a used Sigma 12-24 f/4 (adapted with FTZ) off the table if those extra 2mm really get used. Or does anyone expect a full frame Z lens wider than 14mm soon?

Click to expand...

For real estate, 14mm will usually be wide enough.

When I was shooting real estate for a living, it was on DX format, since the D3 wasn't introduced yet... and I used the 12-24mm Nikkor for that. When the D3 and 14-24mm hit the market, one of my colleagues who got that combo said he often zoomed in, because 14mm on FX format often was a bit too dramatic.

This sense may have changed as 14mm isn't as unusual as before, but I can say that with the Laowa 9mm FF RL lens, it will definitely be over the top - at least for indoor, horizontal use, since the sides will be so extremely stretched, that you need to process the files to counteract it - and if you do, other problems may arise. For outdoor - very tall buildings in relatively narrow streets - you may need the Laowa 9mm FF RL though ...