Wide Angle Lens?

Question from a relative beginner. I got a Canon Rebel T7 just over a year ago, and I've been enjoying the learning process. A month ago, I got a Canon 55-250mm telephoto lens, which I *love*. I've been getting great photos of backyard birds.

My other interest (beyond birding/wildlife) is in landscape photography. Doing some reading, it seems like there are a lot of recommendations for getting a decent wide angle lens. So I'm wondering how useful I would find this, and how much use I would get out of it.

Of course I know no one can tell me "you'd love it", or "don't bother." But any thoughts from landscape/wildlife photographers on how and when you use a wide angle lens, how indispensable (or not) you consider it, etc., would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Dave

I find that I get better landscapes with lenses that are a bit longer than "normal" rather than wider. A wide lens makes distant hills and mountains smaller.

But try a 35mm and see how you get on. There's no universal recipe.

Don

Don is correct that WA lenses make the mountains small, but I like the challenge. These are at 8 mm:


Palm trees all the way down




Dawn in the Buttermilks




Asilomar beach

David

Dave Lyons said:

Question from a relative beginner. I got a Canon Rebel T7 just over a year ago, and I've been enjoying the learning process. A month ago, I got a Canon 55-250mm telephoto lens, which I *love*. I've been getting great photos of backyard birds.

My other interest (beyond birding/wildlife) is in landscape photography. Doing some reading, it seems like there are a lot of recommendations for getting a decent wide angle lens. So I'm wondering how useful I would find this, and how much use I would get out of it.

Of course I know no one can tell me "you'd love it", or "don't bother." But any thoughts from landscape/wildlife photographers on how and when you use a wide angle lens, how indispensable (or not) you consider it, etc., would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Dave

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

I picked up a wide angle last year 15-35 FF as I wanted to get those incredible dramatic shots that you can get with a wide angle. Though I've thoroughly enjoyed working with it it's been really challenging to get ok photos at the widest end and something I'm really having to work at. I think after a bunch of really underwhelming pictures it's starting to click though. It's a bit of a love hate relationship.

I guess going through your questions. I can't imagine using it for wildlife though I do use it for indoor sports when I can get close to the action (ring side sort of distance). I guess if you can get close to the wildlife you'd be able to get some unique looking shots. I know they can be used to great effect to get dramatic shots of buildings inside and out.

For the more typical landscape there's lots of YouTube videos that go into how to compose the epic shots and lots of ways to start looking at scenes. Generally it seems you're looking for a combination of interesting foreground and backgrounds with the middle leading the eye or interesting middle with the Fore/background leading the eye. Below are a couple of links to my early attempts.

28mmFF - 18 (ish) mm APS-C


15mmFF - 10 (ish) mm APS-C


15mmFF - 10 (ish) mm APS-C


So trying to answer as to whether it's indispensable. I would say that I really enjoy the lens but it's hard work at the moment. Indispensable, I'm not sure and probably not when starting out. It does open up a completely different type of photography though.

I did a quick search and it seems that there's a canon Ef-S 10-18mm and the EF-S 10-22mm that seems to be relative affordable around $100-200 used. I don't know if they are any good but maybe that's an option that doesn't involve a massive outlay of cash.

D Cox said:

I find that I get better landscapes with lenses that are a bit longer than "normal" rather than wider. A wide lens makes distant hills and mountains smaller.

But try a 35mm and see how you get on. There's no universal recipe.

Don

Click to expand...

Yes, the wider the angle, the more you need "layers" of interest that compliment each other.

Landscape photography does not automatically imply the use of a wide angle lens.

Use a wide angle lens if that suits your composition.

I used to bring only my wide angle lens on landscape photography trips, but noticed many of the pros were using 70-200 zooms and getting great compositions.

I shoot full frame Nikon cameras and use lenses from 14mm to 300mm for my landscape photography (you'd be surprised how nice the compression of the 300mm can affect landscape images). I tend to use "medium" focal lengths..35-100mm range most often where I live in the red rock state of Utah.

I use wider lenses when the depth of field must include an interesting foreground that must be in sharp focus as well. Wide angle lenses take some time to figure out when to best use them. Shooting from lower than a standing position can be dramatic compared to a longer lens.

I would suggest starting with a wide angle lens that is not too extreme...a 28mm with a full frame camera comes to mind, or maybe look into a wide angle zoom for your camera.

Enjoy,

Michael

I have to agree with other photo comrades here

I have 14-35 on my FF and it is very challenging to make a good composition <22mm ish because you have to fill big field of view, for me it is far more complex then shooting with long lens.

Anyway, it depends on your financial abilities, but dont be surprised/sad, if you use it less then expected.

I really like my Nikon 14-30 f/4. But, as the previous comments say, it's challenging.

Landscapes are really difficult to compose. The lens is easier for architecture and interiors, and for close subjects with the distant surrounding environment for context.

I either want the lens exactly level, using the camera's virtual horizon, or with a lot of tilt to really exaggerate the converging verticals for effect. A small tilt angle is just distracting in most scenes.

This morning, I happened to watch this Alister Benn video on ultra wide photography.

4 WIDE ANGLE photography MISTAKES(ignore the clickbait title, he's a thoughtful photographer.)

Ha, I'm also sick of those ultra wide landscape photos that are all about the rocks in the foreground, with shrunken, tiny mountains in the background.

~~~

I commented a few years ago about my 14-30mm f/4 lens:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66894246

~~~
full frame focal lengths:

28mm: the wide angle effects are minimal. Easy.

24mm: I have a 24-120 on the camera most of the time. I use the 24mm view often, and it's not difficult. I do try to shoot with the level if vertical lines are important in the scene.

20mm: This avoids the most extreme ultrawide effects. I like it.

14mm: I can stand in the corner of a room and see all 4 walls in the scene. Or stand on the sidewalk and shoot a whole house facade. Groups of people will be distorted near the edges of the scene, being stretched unnaturally wide. Any tilt will dramatically lean in the vertical lines. 14mm makes a nice 1-shot panorama when it's cropped.

Bohemian_storyteller said:

I have to agree with other photo comrades here

I have 14-35 on my FF and it is very challenging to make a good composition <22mm ish because you have to fill big field of view, for me it is far more complex then shooting with long lens.

Anyway, it depends on your financial abilities, but dont be surprised/sad, if you use it less then expected.

Click to expand...

^Comrade, then I would not be one of them.

I would, however, agree with your assessment of it being "challenging". Some others have touched on the same point, but the general thrust of the responses to the OP seems to be [give wide-angle a miss for landscape photography].

To the OP: I think you should try it out. Not to do so would be limiting your potential.

Feel whatever you like afterwards.

atom14.

It's not landscapes especially that make a wide angle useful, but any time the foreground is an important part of the shot, since there will be more of it with a wide angle lens. To make the most of this, investigate focus stacking. That will allow you to get REALLY close to foreground elements, while keeping everything in focus.

That said, a longer lens is also great for landscapes. It depends how you're composing the shot.

The other use for a wide angle lens is when you can't get far enough away to include everything in the shot, such as when shooting interiors.

Dave Lyons said:

Question from a relative beginner. I got a Canon Rebel T7 just over a year ago, and I've been enjoying the learning process. A month ago, I got a Canon 55-250mm telephoto lens, which I *love*. I've been getting great photos of backyard birds.

My other interest (beyond birding/wildlife) is in landscape photography. Doing some reading, it seems like there are a lot of recommendations for getting a decent wide angle lens. So I'm wondering how useful I would find this, and how much use I would get out of it.

Of course I know no one can tell me "you'd love it", or "don't bother." But any thoughts from landscape/wildlife photographers on how and when you use a wide angle lens, how indispensable (or not) you consider it, etc., would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Dave

Click to expand...

So I'm on Full Frame, but mostly I use wide angle (Specifically, my 16-35 zoom, which would be 11-24 in APS-C) for:

1. Interiors in cities and certain street shots. You can't back up, you need to be wide, and the street itself provides lots of fun leading lines. Also, I can get some bokeh on specific items in storefronts. If I'm doing a landscape trip, I probably flew to Vegas and took pictures around Vegas before flying home. Pair with an 85mm primes (56mm in APS-C) for best results IMO.
2. The thing you're shooting is both actually that wide and has a foreground. Some very specific points on the rim of the Grand Canyon needed 16-24 and I was too tired to swap out lenses. But also the bridge over the Hoover Dam needs a 14mm. I mean that. It's so big and so deep and so wide and you just cannot back up (So... 9 in APS-C).
3. Leading lines. Find a fence, find a canyon, get that amazing wide-angle distortion and use it.

So here's probably the best 16-35 shot I have.



Leading lines, a good subject, and 4400 foot high rock walls on the other side of the Colorado River which isn't 4400 feet wide.

And here's a 14 that wouldn't be much hurt by being 16... but it's NYC and the buildings are 50 stories high.



/The other thing I notice is that your APS-C 55-250 is 83-375 in FF so you don't even have a mid-zoom. And I'm not certain if you could get a 16-55 (16-70? 16-80?), but I would also recommend that on top of that 11-24. And then you have 3 zooms.

//I might even get the mid-zoom first. That 24-105 barely left my camera for 5 years.

Your 55-200mm lens will get you some great landscape shots - I have the same range on my Fuji APS-C camera. As others have mentioned, wide angle lenses can be challenging, and invite a particular style, especially 16mm and wider on APS-C. There are situations where I find 14mm perfect for landscapes and cityscapes,



but there are many more where 35mm (50mm FF Equivalent)





or 27mm (40mm FF equivalent)





is my preferred field of view for land-/cityscapes.

--
Nick on the Baltic

I think wide angle lenses and ultrawide lenses are a lot of fun. I remember many years ago when I first got a 28mm lens to use on 35mm film cameras, then more recently when I got an ultrawide lens to use on my DSLR. Lenses like that can be used for landscape photography, building interiors, city photography, and artistic photography of various types. You may not know all you can use it for until you get it. And there are lots of various brands that you can buy used to save money.

Many thanks for the responses so far.

It seems like this isn't exactly a "must have" lens, but it's a tool that has its place. I will watch some YouTubes and get a little more knowledgeable.

One note: I'm planning a trip to Zion NP, Grand Canyon, and Sedona in the fall. I'm thinking a wide angle lens might be something I'll want on that trip.

Maybe this: Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Dave Lyons said:

Many thanks for the responses so far.

It seems like this isn't exactly a "must have" lens, but it's a tool that has its place. I will watch some YouTubes and get a little more knowledgeable.

One note: I'm planning a trip to Zion NP, Grand Canyon, and Sedona in the fall. I'm thinking a wide angle lens might be something I'll want on that trip.

Maybe this: Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Click to expand...

If you often feel like you have your back against a wall, and / or cannot fit everything that you would want to fit in the frame, that's when you go to your ultra wide angle lens.

Open empty spaces might just be the worst place for an ultra wide, people just don't seem to realize how empty and boring those ultra wide scenes usually look.

Example of no way to move backwards (physical restriction of the trail):



You can try to be clever with it with the foreground/background thing, in urbex, results may vary, example;



Sometimes you just don't have the room and the panorama will require alot less stitching with an ultra wide, example of 21 hdr brackets from 9 different tripod positions with a 18mm FF equivalent lens on aps-c, straightened geometrically etc.:



But the scenario where ultra wide really shines... no pun, is with astrophotography. The wider angle allows for longer shutter speeds (without much star trail) and more inclusive objects in the foreground, yet, 18mm FF equivalent needed 4 horizontal shots to be merged in a vertical panorama in this example.

Keep in mind that a lens of at least f2.8 aperture or brighter is needed to produce similar results in a single shot, unless you want to spend time in sequator, here f2 was used;



IMO, if you can, you should get a large aperture ultra wide lens, so that you can use it both for interior and astrophotography. You'll get more out of your money and more use out of the lens.

I don't know EF mount well so I can't recommend any, but, manual focus lenses are generally totally fine as ultra wides, you can focus them near infinity and f8 during the day, and you will want pin perfect manual focus for astrophotography anyways.

Dave Lyons said:

Many thanks for the responses so far.

It seems like this isn't exactly a "must have" lens, but it's a tool that has its place. I will watch some YouTubes and get a little more knowledgeable.

One note: I'm planning a trip to Zion NP, Grand Canyon, and Sedona in the fall. I'm thinking a wide angle lens might be something I'll want on that trip.

Maybe this: Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Click to expand...

We were just at Zion & Grand Canyon two weeks ago & my 14-30 was mostly on m camera. Bryce Canyon is beautiful as well.

Marie

Dave Lyons said:

Many thanks for the responses so far.

It seems like this isn't exactly a "must have" lens, but it's a tool that has its place. I will watch some YouTubes and get a little more knowledgeable.

One note: I'm planning a trip to Zion NP, Grand Canyon, and Sedona in the fall. I'm thinking a wide angle lens might be something I'll want on that trip.

Maybe this: Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Click to expand...

Whether or not something is a "must have" lens will depend on your photographic style.

A wide angle lens will let you capture images that you can't get with your 55-250. The question is whether or not those images interest you.

Why not rent the EF-S 10-18mm for a week from someone like lensrentals.com (or borrow one from a friend). Try the lens out and see if you enjoy shooting with it. That will give you your answer.

I am very happy with some of the wide angle images I shot at Bryce, Zion, Grand Canyon, etc. I am also very happy with some of my telephoto shots from those parks. It really depends on what sort of images you want to create.

Try experimenting with your phone cameras, especially the widest one.

For example, my Samsung S21 Ultra has four (!) cameras:

13mm ultrawide ("0.6x zoom")

24mm wide main camera. The best picture quality on this lens. ("1.0x zoom")

72mm slight telephoto ("3x zoom")

240mm telephoto ("10x zoom") it's a periscope lens, with a right angle prism to allow for a very long lens within the phone body.

~~

Try ultrawide with close or far subjects, and with the camera exactly vertical or tilted.

That is a seriously wide lens. I don't have anything that wide (except the Russian panoramic camera).

Don