MF Wide-Angle Lenses & Price Justification

Whenever somebody decides to give landscape photography a try, they

always say, which W.A.lens should I buy. I'm wondering if they

would'nt be better-off with something closer to the Standard for

their format.

 

About six months ago, I bought a Fuji GW670(90mm lens)which is a

slightly wide standard and shelved my 'Wide-Angles' for the time-

being. I've been very happy with the results. Perspectives seem

better and I can usually stand a bit further back when necessary.

Also, when I return to the scene at a later date, everthing still

looks about the right size, instead of the size I've gotten used-to

in the photos.

 

Do you think that maybe we use our Wide-Angle lenses a bit to much,

in order to justify the ridiculous price we have to pay for them?

I agree that wide angles are probably used too much. I like to see as

much detail in the background of the photo that my eye saw while taking the picture. This has led me to using the 75mm lens on a Pentax

67. Just slightly wide instead of all this extreme wide stuff. If I need the extreme wide I take two side by side shots and stitch them together. Stitching also makes old folding cameras much more usefull.

I have Pentax 6x7, and I use 90mm for most of my shots. (Of course, I only have 300mm, 90mm, and 45mm) I only use the 45mm when I want to shift the perspective, and "push away" secondary elements of the picture. If I really want to blur-out something, I will use the 300mm lens.

Whether I'm shooting 35mm or MF, I shoot a lens no wider than I have to to avoid distortion. I like a slightly wide lens for all-around shooting to get better DOF.

 

On my Nikons, my new favorite is the 28mm f/1.4 AFD, which actually shoots at 30mm. On my RZ and 7IIs (6x7cm), I most often shoot a 65mm (32mm) in 35mm. These lenses are wide enough to give me good DOF without significant distortion at the edge of the frame.

 

A 90mm on a 6x7cm camera wouldn't cut it for me, as that would be 44mm in 35mm. I have a 50mm for the RZ (24mm in 35mm), but rarely use it. However, I wouldn't get rid of it, because there are time when I really need it (e.g. a year ago when a bride spontaneously invited everyone who attended the wedding up to the front of the church for a group shot).

I think this is incredibly overgeneralized. Lots of shots can only be obtained close-in; on top of that, some of us like to work close to the subjects. There is no way this image could have been made with anything other than a very wide lens.<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/loom2sm.jpg"><br>

<i>The Loom, Mamiya 7/43mm, Copyright 1998 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

Wide angles emphasize foreground over background. If you have a strong foreground, they can be great. If not, not.

Jeff, you take great pictures.

 

Jeffrey

Nice shot Jeff. Thats a perfect example of what a Wide-Angle lens should be used for. Especially in a restricted area. I'm talking about mainly Landscapes. I've been to one or two exhibitions recently where the photographer has taken pictures across lakes or fields, where theres virtually nothing in the foreground except water or grass. With molehills(mountains) in the background and I get the impression he's used a Wide-Angle, because it cost him £1600.

I would agree with Jeff Spirer, and more to John Bright's point, the same things can be said about any particular format. I have used the GW670 series and it woke me up again to the pleasures of using the sharpest lens on my 35mm bodies - the 50mm normal lens. In terms of "bang for the buck", the normal lenses in many formats, provide a great value and generally good perspective for general use. There are situations that only a good, wide angle can handle, tho'.

I guess I should congratulate Jeff Spirer for contributing a picture where it actually belongs and not contribute any for some previous posts. And as I mentioned before, his pictures are quite good.

Yes Jeff, wide angles are usefull for interiors and architecture, particularly on a view camera, but I take nearly all my landscapes with a 250mm lens for 6x6, and expect to use 360mm on 6x9.

 

In the my photo in the "Farm Contractor" 1980 calendar, I use a 180mm lens to make the hills behind the tractor-mountet hedge trimmer look more inpressive, not like molehills.

 

Today I got the wide angle bellows for my Sinar p, so I hope to have some fun with my 47mm (105 degree) lens, but not on landscapes, and I think it only cost me a few hundred pounds. The Sinaron (Rodenstock) 45mm is only £800 full list.

Just got back from Yosemite where the waterfalls are in greater force than I have ever seen. For landscapes in the valley, the 35mm superwide on my Pentax 645 was the perfect lens to use under the circumstances. The stuff I've taken there with a normal/slight wide do not have near the impact as those with the super wide. By the way, that lens cost about $575 for a mint used example, not exactly what I'd call ridiculous.

Andrew,

 

Sounds like you got a great deal on your 35mm Superwide. I was'nt saying you should'nt use wide-angles. I was just trying to redress the balance a bit.

John, I just mentioned the Pentax superwide price to show you didn't have to spend a fortune (or buy a Kiev) to get an affordable wideangle for medium format.

On my last trip to Tokyo I bought a used Fuji GS645W with a stunning 45mm/5.6 Fujinon EBC lens for only $280. Originally I was looking for a used Mamiya 7 w/50mm lens or a Pentax 645 w/35mm super-wide lens but I think I've found the perfect substitute. This camera has consistently delivered incredible image quality and value. The Fujinon lens is so sharp and contrasty that the final prints and chromes have a 3-D and sparkling quality. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to own one of the best picture-taking machines in MF while still believing in the magical power of wide-angle views.

Throwing my two cents in the pot, there are some shots you can only get with a wide-angle lens. This is especially true in medium format, when every inch of depth of field counts in some situations.

 

If you have a wide-angle lens or two and you don't think you're getting your money's worth with them, three options come to mind:

 

- Change your lens lineup to suit your style of photography;

 

- Change your style of photography to suit your lens lineup; or

 

- Do neither, and wonder what might have been.