Do I need a wide angle lens?

<p>I have been desiring for a wide angle lens for my Mamiya 7II. I have been using the 80mm lens and was thinking the 50mm would be a good complement to it as I do a lot of landscapes. But it is expensive, the equivalent of $1,400 new. Furthermore, there are comments that the curtain lever which must be twisted before lens change, breaks easily. Another lens really is a risk to smooth usage of the 7II.<br>

Recently we have been hearing of a wide variety of panoramic stitching software so I did some researching and finally experimenting with Hugin. The results are shown <a href="http://mattlim.com/panos/">here</a> . No retouching done. Why bother as they were shot with expired film, Fujifilm NPC160, exp Sep 2004. Scanned with Epson V700.<br>

So is there really a need for a wide angle lens? True, a wide would give more skies and foreground instantly, but even Hugin claims it can do multi-row stitching. Also, just two shots with a normal lens stitched is easily more resolution than a wide single shot. And two lenses is more baggage to carry.<br>

Looking forward to your comments. Especially about any pitfalls to avoid.</p>

<p>I use the 65mm and 43mm on my Mamiya 7II. The 43mm gets the most use. Here's why:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Very sharp lens</li>

<li>Depth of field very large, focus becomes less critical</li>

<li>The angle view gives you the equivalent of some front rise or fall in some situations (no need to point the camera up or down to include the subject, just use the upper or lower part of the negative (this may not make sense if you don't understand LF))</li>

</ul>

<p>The curtain lever may be a bit delicate but if you keep that in mind and treat it gently it can last for years (mine is about 10years old and I change lenses a lot ... sometimes dozens of times in a day of shooting)</p>

<p>It looks like you have a fine solution to wide angle shots already. The only meaningful reason to use a wide angle lens in your situation would be greater ease of capturing "the moment", ie a situation where there is movement, which couldn't be captured with a panorama sequence very well. For instance, a train crossing the prairie, etc....the baloon ascent at a hot air baloon festival.</p>

<p>Your stitched panoramas came out very well, as Stephen says.<br>

I ended up with two wide angles for my Pentacon 6TL, first a 45mm MIR and then, being a little disappointed in that one, finally dug deeper into my pockets for a 50mm Flektogon. Find I don't use them very much though, so not so sure I would bother if I had to do it over again.</p>

<p>If you have a digital workflow, I'd shoot with a digital camera. There, I said it.</p>

<p>For panorama shots you can either go super-wide with a dSLR or stitch several images from a digicam together. A robotic gadget like the Gigapan can be very handy if you choose the later route.</p>

<p>If you love stitching - and I can't see any reason why you shouldn't - stay at the 80mm. You can't improve those results with any wide angle lens. All wide angle stitchings are looking awful in my eyes.</p>

<p>WRT stitching; it doesn't give the same result as a single shot with a wide-angle lens. Although it's not apparent in those examples, a stitched panorama shows altered perspective at the edges of the frame because the lens is pointed in different directions from one side of the frame to the other. The stitched result is more like what you get from a swing-lens panoramic camera, as opposed to the "square on" perspective of a true wideangle lens. This is regardless of "nodal swing" or any other method (including an anamorphic attachment) apart from using a shift lens.</p>

<p>Whichever rendering you prefer is a matter of personal taste of course, but stitching should not be considered as interchangeable with using a wideangle lens.</p>

<p>Interesting results; thank you for the name of the software. Your examples were well-suited to the stitching procedure, as they were static, located at mid to far distances and fitted within the vertical dimension of the 6x7 frame with the 80mm lens. You didn't have to point the camera upwards. Is there a need for a wide angle lens? Yes, for subjects which don't conform to those types. Look in any issue of National Geographic magazine, where the use of a wide angle at close range invokes involvement with the subject. For a few examples of the Mamiya 7 and the 43mm lens, look at David Kennerly's "Photo Du Jour": <a href="http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/pdj.php">http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/pdj.php</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>The stitched result is more like what you get from a swing-lens panoramic camera, as opposed to the "square on" perspective of a true wideangle lens. </em></p>

<p>This is correct, up to a point.</p>

<p>Images to be stitched are first converted to a cylindrical projection in order to allow the edges to be aligned and matched. In a cylindrical projection and objects at equal distance from the lens are the same size*. If you leave the results a cylindrical projection, objects keep the correct relative size but horizontal lines curve backwards away from the center.</p>

<p>You can convert a panorama into a rectilinear projection using a "bow tie" type of distortion. This action is optional in PTGui (and other stitching programs). Lines will appear straight, but you get other distortions unique to rectilinear projections (heads become egg-shaped at the edges of the frame). There is also a limit of 180 degrees, at which the "bow tie" distortion becomes infinite. There is no limit to the FOV of a cylindrical projection, and 360 degrees is easy to accomplish.</p>

<p>* In a rectilinear projection (a normal wide angle lens), objects equal distance from the lens appear larger at the edges of the frame. To appear equal, they must be in a line parallel to the film plane.</p>

<p>I always preferred the 65mm om my Mamiya 7.</p>

<p>Don't let that perspective thing deter you.<br>

It, in fact, is preferable, and doesn't need correcting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Only you can answer the question. A 50 will enable you to take one shot instantly with the full angle of view, no mucking around on a computer. Stitching several shots can give you higher resolution and avoid the cost of the new lens. However, you will pay in terms of film used (in case the extra resolution isn't required), time used (more time to set up and take the shots, much more time processing) and the inability to tackle moving subjects well.<br>

I routinely do stitched shots, but there are often situations when stitching is not the solution. It all depends on what photography you are doing and what your priorities are.</p>