Wide vs. Ultra Wide for landscape?

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

dpreviewblog wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

There's not much to choose from, especially considering that it will be the SD Quattro H

I'm using now for Sigma SDQ H - Sigma 14-24/2.8 Art. IMHO - the optimal and the best choice, But there is may be an "issue" with quite expensive filters. Now I have - Benro FM150M2S5 Filter KIT + additional filters - ND/CPL150x150mm / GND150x170mm

Before buying 14-24, I used for wide-angle shots the Sigma Dp0 Quattro.

Also I have 18-35/1.8 Art - no vignetting without lens hood, but I don't like the resulting images with excessive micro-contrast. Now the lens is for sale.

I have a Canon fit sdq as well. Another forum member had it modified from the SA mount and I purchased it from them. There is a Canon L mount 17-40 that is relatively inexpensive but well regarded. Possibly because it is F4 and there are a lot of them out there.

Either way, I could use the lens on my Panasonic S1. But this is a Sigma forum, not L-Mount.

xpatUSA wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

dpreviewblog wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

There's not much to choose from, especially considering that it will be the SD Quattro H

I'm using now for Sigma SDQ H - Sigma 14-24/2.8 Art. IMHO - the optimal and the best choice, But there is may be an "issue" with quite expensive filters. Now I have - Benro FM150M2S5 Filter KIT + additional filters - ND/CPL150x150mm / GND150x170mm

Before buying 14-24, I used for wide-angle shots the Sigma Dp0 Quattro.

Also I have 18-35/1.8 Art - no vignetting without lens hood, but I don't like the resulting images with excessive micro-contrast. Now the lens is for sale.

I have a Canon fit sdq as well. Another forum member had it modified from the SA mount and I purchased it from them. There is a Canon L mount 17-40 that is relatively inexpensive but well regarded. Possibly because it is F4 and there are a lot of them out there.

I didn't know that Canon makes L-mount lenses. This 17-40mm f/4 is EF mount:

Your are of course correct. What I meant was the Canon L series. L being how they denote their more professional lenses.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-17-40mm-f4l-usm/specifications/

Either way, I could use the lens on my Panasonic S1. But this is a Sigma forum, not L-Mount.

xpatUSA wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

dpreviewblog wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

There's not much to choose from, especially considering that it will be the SD Quattro H

I'm using now for Sigma SDQ H - Sigma 14-24/2.8 Art. IMHO - the optimal and the best choice, But there is may be an "issue" with quite expensive filters. Now I have - Benro FM150M2S5 Filter KIT + additional filters - ND/CPL150x150mm / GND150x170mm

Before buying 14-24, I used for wide-angle shots the Sigma Dp0 Quattro.

Also I have 18-35/1.8 Art - no vignetting without lens hood, but I don't like the resulting images with excessive micro-contrast. Now the lens is for sale.

I have a Canon fit sdq as well. Another forum member had it modified from the SA mount and I purchased it from them. There is a Canon L mount 17-40 that is relatively inexpensive but well regarded. Possibly because it is F4 and there are a lot of them out there.

I didn't know that Canon makes L-mount lenses. This 17-40mm f/4 is EF mount:

Your are of course correct. What I meant was the Canon L series. L being how they denote their more professional lenses.

A pity that, Jeffry, because I suspect that you now know that the EF-mount is the same distance from the sensor as the SA-mount meaning that an adapter is unlikely to exist.

Hi Ted,

The Sigma sdq I bought had the SA mount metal bezel removed and replaced with a Canon mount bezel.

No adapter is required. The Canon EF mount lens attaches directly to the modified Sigma sdq. I have already tried this and it works.

dpreviewblog wrote:

There's not much to choose from, especially considering that it will be the SD Quattro H

The Sigma 8-16 lens can be used on the SD Quattro H without vignetting from around 10-11mm until 16mm. By shaving the built-in lens shade, it is even possible to shoot from 8mm. This lens offers a surprisingly good image quality considering its price.

8-16mm on SD Quattro H at 8mm

Cheers!

Abbazz

...so far unmentioned [what I sometimes find to be a] disadvantage...

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

I have the Sigma 8-16, and most markedly at the widest FL setting it introduces a distortion due to the attempt to render such a wide rectilinear projection, viz:

The subject elongates progressively from the centre of the image.

This is not always noticeable in landscape scenes, and is more of a problem where people are included, making them appear much wider than they are, but it is still there in any scene. In terms of the potential stitching you mention, I reckon it would pose a problem there as well.

Apart from that, I like the lens for its u-wide-a capability.

atom14.

atom14 wrote:

...so far unmentioned [what I sometimes find to be a] disadvantage...

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

I have the Sigma 8-16, and most markedly at the widest FL setting it introduces a distortion due to the attempt to render such a wide rectilinear projection, viz:

The subject elongates progressively from the centre of the image.

This is not always noticeable in landscape scenes, and is more of a problem where people are included, making them appear much wider than they are, but it is still there in any scene. In terms of the potential stitching you mention, I reckon it would pose a problem there as well.

Apart from that, I like the lens for its u-wide-a capability.

atom14.

That's why I always use a square aspect ratio when shooting with a rectilinear ultrawide.

If I want to shoot in 2:3 aspect ratio, I much prefer using a fisheye and run the image through Fisheye-Hemi to get a defished image without the edge elongation associated with rectilinear ultrawides.

Here is a nice write-up about "defishing": https://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

Cheers!

Abbazz

Abbazz wrote:

atom14 wrote:

...so far unmentioned [what I sometimes find to be a] disadvantage...

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi folks,

I have been thinking of getting a wide angle zoom for landscape use. Maybe a 14-24.

I generally do landscape with the 24-105 at the wide end, or a 20 prime.

It seems like there must be tradeoff in going wider, but I am not sure. For instance, wider will take in more of the scene and require fewer shots for a pano, but wouldn't also 'condense' your detail? After the sensor isn't changing.

Are there other problems with ultra wide?

Other advantages?

For what it is worth I would be doing the shots with a sigma sdqh.

Thanks

I have the Sigma 8-16, and most markedly at the widest FL setting it introduces a distortion due to the attempt to render such a wide rectilinear projection, viz:

The subject elongates progressively from the centre of the image.

This is not always noticeable in landscape scenes, and is more of a problem where people are included, making them appear much wider than they are, but it is still there in any scene. In terms of the potential stitching you mention, I reckon it would pose a problem there as well.

Apart from that, I like the lens for its u-wide-a capability.

atom14.

That's why I always use a square aspect ratio when shooting with a rectilinear ultrawide.

If I want to shoot in 2:3 aspect ratio, I much prefer using a fisheye and run the image through Fisheye-Hemi to get a defished image without the edge elongation associated with rectilinear ultrawides.

Here is a nice write-up about "defishing": https://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/

Cheers!

Abbazz

In that video, it's the Photoshop "Warp" method that I use to fix my really noticeable shots. It's a bit finicky, but it's worth it for a good shot.

atom14.

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi Ted,

The Sigma sdq I bought had the SA mount metal bezel removed and replaced with a Canon mount bezel.

No adapter is required. The Canon EF mount lens attaches directly to the modified Sigma sdq. I have already tried this and it works.

Do tell more. Auto focus? Aperture?

danski0224 wrote:

Jeffry7 wrote:

Hi Ted,

The Sigma sdq I bought had the SA mount metal bezel removed and replaced with a Canon mount bezel.

No adapter is required. The Canon EF mount lens attaches directly to the modified Sigma sdq. I have already tried this and it works.

Do tell more. Auto focus? Aperture?

Yes to both. I have it from a friend that Sigma adopted the Canon lens protocol for their cameras. I guess this would mean that Sigma SA mount lenses from Sigma and Canon EF lens mount lenses from Sigma only differ by the mechanical connection and are therefore cheaper. (Logistically. Fewer seperate components for each model of lens.)

I got the already modified camera specifically to keep my options open to the wealth of Canon EF lenses.

-- hide signature --

Moments in Time, a work in progress.... https://www.flickr.com/gp/142423236@N08/965cs3

Jeffry7 wrote:

Yes to both. I have it from a friend that Sigma adopted the Canon lens protocol for their cameras. I guess this would mean that Sigma SA mount lenses from Sigma and Canon EF lens mount lenses from Sigma only differ by the mechanical connection and are therefore cheaper. (Logistically. Fewer seperate components for each model of lens.)

I got the already modified camera specifically to keep my options open to the wealth of Canon EF lenses.

Interesting.

Any info on the electronic connection? As in, is the layout the same (probably, easier for Sigma).

Person that did the mods? Still possible?

More in line with your original question, I prefer to stitch together a couple or few shots taken in portrait orientation. The wide/ultra wide look does not always work.

With a little effort and auto focus disabled, stitching usually works fine after some practice. I wouldn't use the technique without practice. Don't always need a tripod, either.