How to use a wide-angle correctly ?

[RuleOfThirds]

I know there are a couple of forum members who like wide angle photography, and I do have an interest in a 14-28 (or 16-28/2.8) because sometimes 20mm is not wide enough. I have used a 21mm equivalent for years (Fuji XF14/2.8), and the pictures I like with it are actually quite close up, with a main subject in centre to really show it in it's environment. Or pictures with nice lines etc. in a building or landscape, roads etc. Every time I used it "to get it all in the frame", I was disappointed with the result.

I looked at the DPReview Samples from 14-28 and I didn't like most shots < 20mm, because as soon as you tilt a wide angle just a little all lines go bezirk, and it makes me wanna puke. And in that gallery too many examples are in there. The only < 20mm examples in there I like are, what I described, relatively close to your subject and show it in it's surroundings, or a landscape with a real interesting foreground and something less interesting in the background.

So what is the best way to shoot something like old church/cathedral interiors to emphasise the size and beauty without getting a feeling of nausea, or completely distorted pictures. Or a very large building in a city centre. If you get too close and use the wide angle you get strange lines, of you are not close enough you get straight lines, but a very uninteresting foreground and the main subject is way too small.

 

[Markuswelder]

I'm not sure if there is a "correct" way to use one. All I'll say, is throw away your rule book, stick that lens as close as you can to your main subject -it is generally important to have a main subject, & embrace the distortion. Converge those verticals. Shoot low. Shoot high. Have fun. It might take a while, but eventually you'll work out what works -for you.
I will say one more thing. The absolute fastest way to make the worlds most boring photo's with an ultrawide, is to stand back, & "fit it all in" If you find you're bumping your lens hood up against your subject, or getting your feet run over, or animals are licking or pecking your lens front element, you're on the right track
240126-P1001038 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

231203-P1000440 by Markus Welder, on Flickr

serious business by speedygz, on Flickr

• Panasonic - DMC-GX8
• LEICA DG 8-18/F2.8-4.0
• 8.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/800 sec
• Center-Weighted Average
• Auto exposure
• 0.3
• ISO 200

• Panasonic - DMC-GX8
• LEICA DG 8-18/F2.8-4.0
• 9.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/200 sec
• Center-Weighted Average
• Auto exposure
• 0.7
• ISO 100

• Panasonic - DC-G9
• 8.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 1/400 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• 0.3
• ISO 200

 

[Markuswelder]

If you're wanting to shoot interior shots while maintaining true verticals & horizontals, you'd be better off with a Tilt & shift lens in Canon & Nikon speak. Something like an EF 17mm f4, but I'm not sure how that would work on an adapter for L mount. I know there's Nikon shooters using F mount adapters on their Z cameras with the Nikon F mount T&S's

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Yes, I know how to work the wide-angle with these types of subjects. And I love the 20mm length for that. Where I get in trouble is with interior/exterior architecture. That nice building or church from the inside. Look at the church pictures in the dpr gallery. They are a horrible example of how to not do it...

These are some examples where I used the XF14 or 20mm, and there are a lot in my Berlin gallery

• FUJIFILM - X-S10
• XF14mmF2.8 R
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/300 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 160

• FUJIFILM - X-S10
• XF14mmF2.8 R
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• -1
• ISO 500

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 20-60/F3.5-5.6
• 20.0 mm
• ƒ/3.5
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 4000

 

[pdk42]

I guess the main rule, as @Markuswelder says, is to make sure you have a dominant subject. It needn’t be the closest, or even the biggest, but it needs to be there. For example, this at 17mm:


Lagangarbh Hut II by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

I agree with you about converging verticals though so I avoid tilting the camera. I’ll frequently shoot wider than needed and crop the bottom. Like this one at 14mm.


The Bodleian Library, Oxford at Dusk by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

 

[pdk42]

And don’t be afraid to fix converging verticals in PP. You can imagine what this was like before I used the Transform tool in LR! But I think actually I’ve taken it too far. The verticals are dead straight but the building looks top heavy. I think the brain realises that the shot is taken from street level and so struggles to correlate the straight lines with that viewpoint. The only solution is to get higher.


Flatiron Lightstreaks by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

 

[Markuswelder]

And don’t be afraid to fix converging verticals in PP.

This ^^^^^^^^ Try & shoot with the camera level in both axis, then you're going to have to rely on distortion correction in software.

Also, 14mm on APSC, is a long way from ultrawide territory. A long way

 

[RuleOfThirds]

And don’t be afraid to fix converging verticals in PP. You can imagine what this was like before I used the Transform tool in LR! But I think actually I’ve taken it too far. The verticals are dead straight but the building looks top heavy. I think the brain realises that the shot is taken from street level and so struggles to correlate the straight lines with that viewpoint. The only solution is to get higher.

View attachment 5459
Flatiron Lightstreaks by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

I used the transform tool for this one:

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 20-60/F3.5-5.6
• 20.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• 0.7
• ISO 160

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Gone wrong:

• FUJIFILM - X-S10
• XF14mmF2.8 R
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/25 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 800

Much better:

• FUJIFILM - X-S10
• XF14mmF2.8 R
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/40 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 800

Got it almost right:

• FUJIFILM - X-S10
• XF14mmF2.8 R
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/35 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 800

 

[pdk42]

I used the transform tool for this one:

View attachment 5460

Yes, that's a lovely shot. Nowt wrong with that one!!

 

[pdk42]

Gone wrong:
View attachment 5461

Much better:
View attachment 5462

Got it almost right:
View attachment 5463

I like all these actually. They give a great sense of scale. Sometimes you just can't get the verticals straight, so embrace it!!

That last one is really nice - but a tiny bit of straightening at the top would help. Like this:

• FUJIFILM - X-S10
• XF14mmF2.8 R
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/35 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 800

It's still a bit skew-whiff, but you'd need to move left a little to avoid that.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I know it takes time and practice.. maybe just buy the damn thing and try.... getting in my uncomfortable zone might be interesting.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I like all these actually. They give a great sense of scale. Sometimes you just can't get the verticals straight, so embrace it!!

That last one is really nice - but a tiny bit of straightening at the top would help.

Thank you! But would they probably have been ruined if gone wider.. because the verticals go way more bezirk... like the dpreview samples inside the church showing the inside.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I like all these actually. They give a great sense of scale. Sometimes you just can't get the verticals straight, so embrace it!!

That last one is really nice - but a tiny bit of straightening at the top would help. Like this:

View attachment 5464

It's still a bit skew-whiff, but you'd need to move left a little to avoid that.

oh yes, much better, didn't try to fix it with the transform tool. Maybe that is what I need to do... leave more space in the picture with going a little bit wider so the transform tool does not chop off too much. That is my problem with the transform tool...

my favourite shot is the middle one by the way...

 

[pdk42]

Thank you! But would they probably have been ruined if gone wider.. because the verticals go way more bezirk...

Probably not actually. With a wider lens, you'd not have needed to tilt the camera so much to fit the top in. The converging verticals are not caused by the FOV, but by the amount of tilt. You'd have had more floor in shot, but you could have cropped that out later.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

hmm so to be able to get nice wide pictures, I have to get the 14-28 AND a S1r , to be able to crop off the bottom part for example or use the transform tool and have some resolution left Just kidding. But that comment of needing less tilt to get the top in , and therefore less weird angles, is getting my thinking started.

I'm not in a hurry... contemplating when I would need wider then 20... and I think that would be inside with constraints to the room/building you're in. Outside you have room to manoeuvre more. In that sense a 16-28, or 18/1.8 would make more sense to me. Or the very small and light 17/4, which you will take with you because it weights next to nothing.... choices choices But thanks everyone for the heads-up.

 

[pdk42]

Indoors shots often need very wide angle lenses. I'd be tempted to go wider than 16. The 14-28 is really excellent for its price. The Sigma 12-24 is superb, but it's heavy and expensive; and doesn't take filters. You can sometimes use stacking, but it requires no people moving about and that the challenge is width rather than height. Tilting the camera up/down will not lead to stackable sets of images due to the converging verticals problem.

 

[Nevyn72]

Indoors shots often need very wide angle lenses. I'd be tempted to go wider than 16. The 14-28 is really excellent for its price. The Sigma 12-24 is superb, but it's heavy and expensive; and doesn't take filters. You can sometimes use stacking, but it requires no people moving about and that the challenge is width rather than height. Tilting the camera up/down will not lead to stackable sets of images due to the converging verticals problem.

I think it also depends of you do mainly photos or video. For video I don't need 14mm, but F2.8 can be helpful (indoors).
For me the Sigma 16-28 is the almost perfect lens, although weather sealing and a zoomring in the same direction would also have been useful..

 

[pdk42]

I think it also depends of you do mainly photos or video. For video I don't need 14mm, but F2.8 can be helpful (indoors).
For me the Sigma 16-28 is the almost perfect lens, although weather sealing and a zoomring in the same direction would also have been useful..

I shuold have prefaced my comments by a note that I'm talking about stills. I am clueless with video so ignore anything I say if that's your thing!!

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I shuold have prefaced my comments by a note that I'm talking about stills. I am clueless with video so ignore anything I say if that's your thing!!

I know, I'm also a stills guy, have actually filmed one scene with the S5ii, just using the red-button . And countless of very short movies when I pushed it by accident.