In the days when DX was the only format you could buy a Nikon in we suffered from a deficit of short lenses. There were a few repurposed film era wide angles but they all seemed to have their share of problems. For a while the widest rectilinear lens was the 14mm Nikon lens which was something like $1600 and could get you to the equivalent of a 21mm on a full frame camera. Wide enough for most stuff but not for the things that really mattered.
I was hired to document the interior of the old Palmer Auditorium Building which was re-birthed, after $80 million of construction, as the Long Center. There were a lot of enormous spaces and stages as well as some tiny spaces like historic dressing rooms. I knew I wanted a lens that would communicate the scale of the interior spaces and would work well with the Nikon D2x, my camera of the moment. While very few people like the effect of a fish eye lens with its distorted lines the people at Nikon had designed into the Capture Raw software a component that "de-fished" that particular lens. You could enable the correction and, voila, you had a very wide image and all the lines were as straight as could be ( providing you were careful to level the camera while shooting ).
The lens worked fine for the assignment with the caveat that the expanded corners lacked the detail one would find in the center of the frame. They were "stretched out" to make the file geometrically rectilinear and that meant there were proportionally fewer pixels in the corners.
I subsequently used the lens on a number of jobs that required a wide view, including the job for Lithoprint (above). I am certain that we used a normal looking file for the final brochure but for some reason I came to really enjoy the look of curved fluorescent lights and so I kept a copy like this.
Wide is really no longer an issue in most camera company's lens catalogs. My current favorite is certainly the already rectilinear, and wonderfully sharp, Panasonic 7-14mm ultra wide angle zoom. There are also ultra wide angle zooms available for the APS-C systems that are very good.
If we've made any progress in the digital age it's been in the area of making lenses that are better matches for the size and technical nuances of digital imaging sensors. Good glass always seems to triumph over the nerdier technologies.
Just a blast from the recent past as I clean up an older computer and its attached hard drives.
Editor's note: Try out the comments. It's fun and easy to make a comment on the site and it makes the writer feel like there's an audience out there. Just saying. VSL Senior Executive Staff.
8 comments:
I've had an attachment lens for 20 years which so far has kept me from getting a real ultrawide or fisheye lens. There are small ones for iPhones too. Other than having to use f8 or smaller, nobody has expected better from it (though my group isn't clients, just f&f.) I suspect I'd be surprised at the quality difference of a real lens and wonder why I didn't get one sooner.
I would like to comment that studio dog would like a biscuit before bed time. Woof!
I've been considering the 7-14, even though I've never experienced a situation where it was needed. It's more of a want, really, driven by a curiosity during those select few moments when capturing an image that I find myself wanting to see just beyond the 12mm limitations of my 12-35. I suppose this is another of those experiences that once had, begins another journey into expanding one's vision, and purpose, for having a camera in-hand.
~Ron
Posting to say I like reading your posts and check the blog on a daily basis. Like me, there are probably lots of people reading your blog and not commenting. Keep up the good work!
Mark, a reader.
I've read many times, and saw corner crops of this 7-14mm lens, showing that it's indeed better than a more moderately priced Olympus 9-18mm. Still it is a bit expensive, so I'm also thinking about resolution - wouldn't a 16-35mm lens for a larger, film-sized sensor be a lot better? Just wondering...
Nice use of the fisheye, minimal distortion on the subject of the photo makes it special.
I'm patiently waiting for an Olympus 7-14. Although I may change my mind if it is quite expensive. On the other hand the Canon 16-35 f4 version 11 is terrific; too bad about the sensor tech. If the Samyang 10mm f2.8 is good: that is is a possibility on aps-c.
However, I may decide against all of those offerings and go for a Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and use it on a Nikon D610. Choices: many - perhaps that is a good thing?
It certainly does seem that we've got more and more options for both long and short lenses. On the short side, do you feel like the availability of high-quality ultra-wide lenses has changed photographic styles and expectations at all? I remember when 24 on slide film seemed "very wide", while now it seems like that is just the beginning of what would qualify as wide.
I suppose this isn't "new", precisely - it's been quite a while that a two-camera shooter might be seen carrying the equivalent of a 17-35 and a 70-200, but it's making me think a bit...
Post a Comment