Ultra wide angle lens or panorama stitching?

I would be very interested in feedback from other photographers who are experienced in shooting with ultra wide angle lens and/or stitching together panoramas and can make constructive comments on what currently is going through my mind.

This article is very long because I want to raise related matters before I get to the crux of the discussion I wish to have with you. The latter starts "So the question is" near the end.

I am interested in the new Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2 MFT if, when it is available, it proves to be really good. But I have my doubts if it will suit, especially after just coming across a DP Review article Venus LAOWA 15mm F4 Wide Angle Macro quick review. I expect similar limitations with the 7.5mm f/2 but I will have to wait and see after it comes to market and there are reliable reviews of it. I want edge definition to be of a high standard by no smaller than f/8 and that it has a flat field and very little distortion.

All too many lenses these days rely upon software correction but that is not at all to my liking. That is because I want to be free to choose my RAW developer to merge bracketed exposures for HDR with the best possible tonal gradation. I very much like Machinery HDR Effects (MHE) which usually gets to make a merge with good tonal results even before you tweak the settings. Also, it handles ghosting well, where there is subject movement between shooting each of the frames.

Although it is a considerable chore, I often resort to stitching together panoramas. I often find that a horizontal angle between 120° and 150° is what I want for landscapes. That is because that gives a better sense of the space in nature than a narrower angle. An example of this is the shot below, taken in the Italian Dolomites, where I stitched two layers up and down and replaced the sky. You might not realise from the image below, but the mountains were very near and towered up at an extreme angle. Using two layers enabled me to choose a better match with the scene and also to make a better proportioned rectangle than would have been the case with a single row of frames.

Near Taibon Aggordino Italian Dolomites. Fortunately, I was not aware that the road was private. Otherwise, I would not have seen this spectacular view. This was shot over about 150°. If you view what alleges to be the original size for this, bear in mind that it is anything but!

Whenever I shoot panoramas, I use PTGui. It does not give as good gradation as MHE, so I have to adjust it afterwards in Photoshop, but one advantage is that it is brilliant with ghosting. That is because you can choose to mask out parts of all frames but the one in which the version of the ghosted portion is the most pleasing. If, for example, there is a walking figure, you want a version where his legs are at set at angles that best match the motion.

Because of the above, HDR and panoramas, I do not like lenses which rely upon software correction of distortion. Even if corner definition and noise do not suffer from it, you must lose a bit of coverage just to make the corrections from a barrel or a pincushion into a rectangle. With a wide angle lens I suspect a 12mm effectively is narrowed maybe to as little as 15mm. I have the Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm f/2 ED which gives excellent definition but, according to photozone.de has 5.45% distortion before software correction. If you restrict yourself to a RAW developer of your choice, rather than one that can interpret the metadata, the distortion remains. Mind you, I suspect published figures are unreliable, because they are measured with a chart at a near distance. Judging from my use of this particular lens, with focus set far away from the camera the distortion diminishes considerably and in most cases is not even noticeable, even with straight lines in the field of view. But that is only with this particular lens and others may be as bad however far away the focus is set.

So the question is which is the better approach? Need I even bother to hope for the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 MFT to be spectacularly good or, other than the work involved each time, am I better off to rely upon stitching together panoramas, even if it that lens is outstanding? In that regard, I made this chart to see what 2 up, 2 down would give me with my Sigma 12-24mm on my Nikon D300 or the Zuiko 12mm on my Olympus E-PL3. OK, neither outfit nowadays is state of the art but forget that. It is not relevant to the discussion. That is especially so with panoramas, where you end up with many more pixels than a single frame, anyway.

With the m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 on MFT 2 up, 2 down will be slightly wider than the Venus Loawa 7.5mm f/2 in a single frame. The former is a lot of trouble to make and does not suit moving subjects. However, with landscape photography that is not a problem, at least for me. The Venus Loawa 7.5mm f/2 will have to be pretty exceptional to do as well as 2 up, 2 down with the m.Zuiko 12mm f/2. Other than the distortion, that is a very good lens. So do I stick with the hassle and save by not even having the outlay for the Loawa?

The field of view with different lenses and either single frame or two up two down

If you are interested, have a look at my investigations of some of the considerations about panorama photography, both two up two down and other matters.

with stitching you can transcend various limitations of your equipment used in a single shot. However, this comes at the price of slow working with tripod etc and mostly applies to static subjects.  The tripod and pano head is moreover both a weight and cost factor .

One should not forget that the not available yet 7.5mm f/2  four-thirds is optically equivalent to 15mm f/4 FX where several options are available like a venus optics with these specs, or 15mm f/2.8  with Zeiss or the Nikon 14-23mm f/2.8. The FX format offers an IQ advantage of 2 stops over four-third . One would need to stitch at least 4 images in four-third to make up for this.

The 15mm FX UWA can also be reached with a 10mm DX lens. However, the 10mm f/3.5 is missing  lens speed for full optical equivalence. (f/2.66 would be equiv)

Bernard Delley wrote:

with stitching you can transcend various limitations of your equipment used in a single shot. However, this comes at the price of slow working with tripod etc and mostly applies to static subjects. The tripod and pano head is moreover both a weight and cost factor .

You don't require or need to use either a tripod or pano head to shoot landscape type panoramas.  Hand holding works fine as long as you keep the shutter speed above 1/200th, and hold the camera level using the grid lines in the viewfinder.

One should not forget that the not available yet 7.5mm f/2 four-thirds is optically equivalent to 15mm f/4 FX where several options are available like a venus optics with these specs, or 15mm f/2.8 with Zeiss or the Nikon 14-23mm f/2.8. The FX format offers an IQ advantage of 2 stops over four-third . One would need to stitch at least 4 images in four-third to make up for this.

Most of my panoramas have at least 5 frames and usually 8 to 12 and even more depending on the situation.

The 15mm FX UWA can also be reached with a 10mm DX lens. However, the 10mm f/3.5 is missing lens speed for full optical equivalence. (f/2.66 would be equiv)

You don't require or need to use either a tripod or pano head to shoot landscape type panoramas. Hand holding works fine as long as you keep the shutter speed above 1/200th, and hold the camera level using the grid lines in the viewfinder.

Agreed. I usually take my panoramas handheld but, even using the grid lines in the viewfinder, I am not great at lining up the frames. I do have a panorama head on each of two tripods and panorama brackets to align over the nodal points but I rarely use them. I made the brackets myself out of hardwood and set fixed for one position with one camera and lens. They work just as well as any I might have have paid a lot for.

Most of my panoramas have at least 5 frames and usually 8 to 12 and even more depending on the situation.

Also agreed. Combining panoramas and HDR, I sometimes have 30 frames or more. However, I suspect less would be necessary on a tripod where it is easier to accurately adjust for each shot with a suitable overlap. With 1/3 overlap on 2 x 2 panoramas, I calculated that each of my 12 mp cameras yield 34mp. That combined with the fact that I am using less extreme wide angle lenses no doubt is giving me better results. So I doubt I will invest in the Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2 unless it is top quality and moderately priced. I am expecting neither.

I much prefer the OVF in my D300 to the VF-4 EVF with my E-PL3, but the weight of the former with three lenses is a burden. I would best like that the Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2 meets my highest hopes to tempt me and, if it does, I might also be inclined to sell all my APSC equipment and get an Olympus Pen-F. It is a gem to hold, just like a pre-war Leica. A MFT camera with the Laowa 7.5mm f/2, my m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 and the kit 12-42mm for less serious work when I do not want a wide angle would make a lovely compact outfit. I am not convinced I need 20mp, but the Pen-F would be a pleasure to use.

Visit my galleries at...

Only the flickr gallery currently is available, but it is nice to see the work of another guy whose work is of such a high standard. All too many DPR comments seem to come from people who are better with sound bites than with pixels but, clearly you are not one of them.

I especially like the fact that none of your panoramas shows any obvious distortion; something I aim at too. Funnily enough, my shot near Taibon Aggordino when I started this thread is a case in point, because the road did wrap around just like that. There are no panoramas in my DPR gallery but a few here, in the albums for Italy and the Italian Dolomites and Southern Austria, but not quite as good as yours, though.

osv wrote:

you didn't mention the laowa 12/2.8? it's supposed to be nearly distortion-free, but a bit smeary in the outer 20% of the frame.

There also is the Samyang 12mm, but neither makes sense when I already have the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM for my Nikon D300, luckily one of the better ones. The Mk I is not sharp by present day standards but it has no distortion at any focal length and the fall off to the edges, which is bad on full frame, is only very slight on APSC.

I do not like lenses which are too sharp as they can destroy the mood with a style of landscape photography like mine and, when I need more detail, the Sigma is nearly as good as I would choose to have.

i think that if I was in your shoes tho i'd be spending the money on quality legacy glass for panorama shooting, and a newer model of camera body, at least 24mp aps-c, used if necessary.

Your advice makes a lot of sense to me, except that I'd go for MFT, as I elaborate upon in my reply to David Nall, the reason being the weight.

Bernard Delley wrote:

with stitching you can transcend various limitations of your equipment used in a single shot. However, this comes at the price of slow working with tripod etc and mostly applies to static subjects. The tripod and pano head is moreover both a weight and cost factor.

I agree with David Nall that handheld usually is good enough. The question even then is whether all the hassle of stitching and the better results when properly done is worth the effort.

One should not forget that the not available yet 7.5mm f/2 four-thirds is optically equivalent to 15mm f/4 FX where several options are available like a venus optics with these specs, or 15mm f/2.8 with Zeiss or the Nikon 14-23mm f/2.8. The FX format offers an IQ advantage of 2 stops over four-third . One would need to stitch at least 4 images in four-third to make up for this.

No doubt the best results would be on full frame where there are a few really good ultra wide angles, albeit at a price. Nothing on APSC is really that great. With either, the bulk and weight is offputting, let alone the expense for good, up to date equipment. I suspect the best results would come from the Sony AR77 II with the E-Mount Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, or possibly their 12mm f/5.6, perhaps a little too wide. However, I do not wish to spend that sort of money, nor put up with a few negative factors that would then arise.

If it were not for the weight, I'd replace my D300 with a D7200 and keep to using my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM but either I will put up with my exisiting kit or invest in MFT and dispense with my caddy. I would have been interested in Fuji-X with their excellent wide angle primes, but there are things I do not like about their cameras. The same is true of Sony mirrorless, not least of all their pathetic user manuals.

The 15mm FX UWA can also be reached with a 10mm DX lens. However, the 10mm f/3.5 is missing lens speed for full optical equivalence. (f/2.66 would be equiv)

I am not in the slightest bit interested in the futile discussion of equivalence. Whether or not you accept the notion, of what practical relevance is it to anything that really matters? (Rhetorical) It might be of minimal concern to those shooting at big apertures, but I use f/8 and f/11 most of the time.

I appreciate those who have replied but the advice raises nothing I had not already thought of. Not that those efforts were in vain, for they confirm that I have not overlooked anything while I think about this.

In the good old days, I was happy with film and if that were not such hard work when you do you own processing, I would be tempted even now to buy a Leica M and the Leica 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar, if I could find a suitable Albada viewfinder, which I am not sure even exists. With film, I used to shoot few frames but knew what I was going to get most of the time, still try to do that with digital. I am very much an Ansel Adams admirer and I did like my Sanderson 1/4 plate where a single exposure was all that I needed.

If I follow this kind of discipline now, then panorama stitching digital images and taking my time to do it well is obviously the answer and putting up with bulk and weight of APSC if that gives better results than the I can get on the Olympus E-PL3. The best decidely wide angle definition so far I have got is the original of this shot with the m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 on my Olympus E-PL3. Here is a smaller copy:

An experimental 2 x 2 stitch with the m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 on the E-PL3 taken outside my home

To do it I had to correct non-linearity in the stitched image, nothing to do with this lens, as you can see in the top right of the four original frames used.

The four frames were stitched, then I used the warp tool in Photoshop to straighten out the nearer roof. The yellow rectangle corresponds to the coverage with just one frame.

The next best was this handheld shot below, where I could have used my Sigma 12-24mm on the D300 at 12mm and taken a single frame (not including exposure bracketing for HDR) but instead I used my AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF at 24mm and stitched three frames. This is a very sharp lens and the original of this shot is top notch. Although the copy in my gallery is 7250 × 4172 pixels, under very high magnification that looks like I have used something like Topaz Simplifier on it, not that I remember doing so. Regardless of that it looks pretty good. Maybe I should use the 24-85mm on the D300 or the 12mm m.Zuiko on the E-PL3 and stitch with it, use many frames while doing so when necessary to cover a wider angle. Both are very sharp lenses. I should use the 24-85mm Nikkor more often. I do hate the bulk and weight of the bigger outfit and I do fancy the Pen-F in spite of preferring an OVF so, who knows, I may eventually end up relying 100% on MFT with that and the 12mm, whether also with or without the Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2.

Nobody here or anywhere else I have encountered suggests using a narrower lens and more frames to stitch. Since ultra wide angle lenses are never as sharp or linear, I can see a lot of sense in that. Maybe this shot in Arezzo is reason enough to experiment with that approach.

(Please do not ask me to think this through and decide if this is a legitimate case of equivalence, I am not bothered about that, but I did once come across a beautiful, high quality shot of a group of five young folk taken full length against a city background. The group was beautifully sharp but the effect was differential focus done extremely effectively, as if taken with one frame on a magnificent 28mm lens at f/0.125 or something like that. In fact it was twelve frames stitched together from a telephoto lens.)

Piazza Grande, Arezzo, Italy

osv wrote:

i think that if i was in your shoes tho i'd be spending the money on quality legacy glass for panorama shooting, and a newer model of camera body, at least 24mp aps-c, used if necessary.

keepreal wrote:

Nobody here or anywhere else I have encountered suggests using a narrower lens and more frames to stitch.

actually that's pretty much what i suggested, when i recommended using legacy glass on a real camera body, because the most commonly available 24mm-28mm primes are about as wide as you can get, and still maintain good pq without overwhelming distortion problems... your fixation on ultrawides is not logical to me.

My fixation on ultrawides is simply that you need less frames and less care to take and stitch the frames together but I accept it may not be a good way to get the best quality results. Now that I understand what you mean by legacy glass, it has got me thinking seriously about it, so many thanks for getting that into my mindset.

Having looked up all the alternatives to follow your advice, it seems to boil down to a choice from a number of alternatives.

● My preferred outcome after sufficient experimentation would be MFT with the m.Zuiko 12mm f/2, abandon APSC to reduce the bulk and the weight - maybe later on get the Pen-F. The lens is very good and the distortion rarely has been an issue for me focussed at a fair distance. It must be my best lens option if MFT really is up to it, as I suspect is the case, especially with a better sensor as in the Pen-F and I may be able to abandon exposure bracketing if the dynamic range is good enough with that body.

Other alternatives are:

● Use my 24-85mm f/2.8-4 at 24mm where it actually performs better than any of the moderate wide angle Nikkor primes, maybe later get the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 D to give me an option of less bulk and weight. I also could also later improve things by upgrading from the D300 to the D7200.

I will have to try out this out both on MFT and APSC before I make up my mind.

● I can get the A77R new at the moment for a reasonable price, but how long that will last remains to be seen. The other Sony bodies like the A7R are more expensive but I am not aware of how they rate in the lineup, which I'll look into. Full frame is not to be sneezed at, of course but, rightly or wrongly, I have reservations about Sony. I'll have a look at one and see if that changes my mind.

BTW, a 1920 x 1080 copy of your sample image hardly shows what quality is possible with the Canon prime on the A7R, although I sometimes make that size to show full screen on my smart TV, which I use as the monitor on my downstairs PC. I have a second upstairs for my "darkroom".

DPR seems quite happy to let you upload bigger images and another person can then download the displayed "original size" again. I use that to examine them more closely on my monitor.

Correction ● I can get the A7R A77R at a reasonable price and there are some good wide angle lenses for Sony E full frame.

I have had a look at your images. The quality of the panorama is very impressive and, having processed the under-exposed RAW, so is that.

I definitely will have to reconsider Sony full frame

Sometimes, raising what starts out with low expectations leads to some very revealing feedback and this now is the case:

● Your results are very convincing and some effort on my part should prove beyond any doubt that I should use a prime (or pretty linear high definition zoom) for panoramas. If you guys can cope with a larger number of frames to stitch, I ought to be able to do the same after a while, even handheld.

● I cannot ignore sv's high quality output on Sony Alpha full frame. To do so seems to be cutting my nose to spite my face. Moreover, the considerably extra pixels must have something to do with it when used with a good enough lens. Therefore my best option might be an A7R and good prime lens. I'll look into that.

1) What are the options with exposure bracketing on the A7R? I like to combine 3 with a stop difference and -½ exposure compensation. That results in -1½,  -½ and ½. Can I easily do that?

2) Does the A7R have exposure lock and hold? Does it retain the lock for the next shot after you release the shutter. My D300 does and I like that a lot.

3) Is there a focus hold that you can use and disable that on the shutter release on the A7R? I can manage without that but prefer to have it.

● Captain Hook, your flickr photos are great and even though I cannot see them full size, even a lot smaller, the quality comes through when I look at them. That also makes me think.

I also use PTGui Pro but afterwards reprocess in Machinery HDR Effects and Photoshop to improve the tonal gradation. It is a pity that PTGui has limited flexibility where that is concerned, but at least the results are good enough to work with, even when the input relies upon the inclusion of bracketed exposures.

keepreal wrote:

● Captain Hook, your flickr photos are great and even though I cannot see them full size, even a lot smaller, the quality comes through when I look at them. That also makes me think.

Well I discovered that I could download the originals. The first I tried was decidedly blurred but the second was as good as I expects, like osv's.

OSV - I have been reading up on Sony Alpha full frame and FE lenses and I do still have reservations. One of them is that the total outlay will be large unless I use legacy primes on manual with adapters. So I revert to MFT using my m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 as my preferred option, possibly sticking with my E-PL3 or upgrading to the Pen-F. I realise that better results are possible but I am not sure I need them.

Captain Hook - I fail to understand why you said earlier that distortion in the lens used for stitching is an issue with wide angle lenses, unless those you refer to have it to an extreme degree. The example I showed in the subthread "No Miracle Answers" I made both with my m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 on MFT and Sigma 12-24mm on APSC and there was no difference after stitching. There is a difference in the distortion of the lenses, not that I was worried by any with either. I fully appreciate that the sharpness of the lenses does matter especially near the edges of each frame used, but not so much the distortion. Why do you have a different point of view on this? Where in any of your mountain scenes would the results have suffered?

keepreal wrote:

OSV - I have been reading up on Sony Alpha full frame and FE lenses and I do still have reservations. One of them is that the total outlay will be large unless I use legacy primes on manual with adapters. So I revert to MFT using my m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 as my preferred option, possibly sticking with my E-PL3 or upgrading to the Pen-F. I realise that better results are possible but I am not sure I need them.

Captain Hook - I fail to understand why you said earlier that distortion in the lens used for stitching is an issue with wide angle lenses, unless those you refer to have it to an extreme degree. The example I showed in the subthread "No Miracle Answers" I made both with my m.Zuiko 12mm f/2 on MFT and Sigma 12-24mm on APSC and there was no difference after stitching. There is a difference in the distortion of the lenses, not that I was worried by any with either. I fully appreciate that the sharpness of the lenses does matter especially near the edges of each frame used, but not so much the distortion. Why do you have a different point of view on this? Where in any of your mountain scenes would the results have suffered?

I have used my 16 35 @ 16 mm on my FF Nikon D800E and get great results stitching without distortion problems if I hold the camera level to the ground.  A little deviation won't cause a problem, but pointing it upward to get the tops of closer mountains etc, can cause substantial distortion.  Pointing downwards will also cause that.  I avoid that by holding the camera in Portrait mode to capture the tops of very close mountains and more foreground. If you look through the viewfinder while moving the camera up and down with your WA lens, you will see what I am talking about.  When held level, there is virtually no distortion at least with my lenses.  Dave