Wide angle advice

[RuleOfThirds]

24 & 28

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 16-35/F4
• 28.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/160 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 100

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 16-35/F4
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 100

Now I have to contemplate if the step from 20 to 16mm is worth it. The lens seems fine, these are all wide open.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Ofcourse it was not the aim of the 16>35 sequence but If I only had a 20mm I would have taken the 20mm picture different, just angle it a bit to the left, bmw out of the frame and all 4 houses in frame, and would be happy with the shot. I do like the rendering though, and I do think without pixel peeping that it is more detailed and just nicer then the 20mm, but not that someone would notice if it was a picture on the wall.

 

[Oíche]

Why are the middle of those houses missing? Only the Dutch would do that

Shocking thermal design BTW

 

[Nevyn72]

Why are the middle of those houses missing? Only the Dutch would do that

Shocking thermal design BTW

That are actually two houses with only the garages touching each other

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I have 2 weeks time from today to decide if I want to go ahead with the buy/trade or not.

That are actually two houses with only the garages touching each

Almost. Behind the garage, ground floor, those house have also a bedroom. They are build for seniors in mind.

My side of the street houses are a bit different and bigger. We have touching walls but do not share a roof. Garage are opposite. next to the garage I also have a carport. So room for 3 cars. And 4 of you put one in the garage.

 

[Oíche]

That are actually two houses with only the garages touching each other

I know

 

[Oíche]

That is a very interesting topic... I was told something similar about Samsung smart TVs. But, we should define the idea of "spying", because ALL the tech brands collect data, IMHO. Starting with apps, following with cookies if web pages and of course the GAFAM companies.

Ever heard of VPN and Duck Duck Go? Never sign into anything, don't use apps that collect such data.

BTW we went off topic, especially on video monitors so I'll start one.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

The first thing I would say is that it's very easy to think that a wider angle would give a better photo, when that often isn't the case. When it's available the default action is to go as wide as possible and you'll fit more in but it will all be smaller in the frame and the composition may not be as good, maybe it will be, but wider doesn't equal better and sometimes means worse. For many years my widest lens was 15mm on APS-C, 22.5mm FF equivalent, and I almost never had the feeling I was losing out.

Having said that, I own the 16-35mm f/4, mainly because I got a great deal on a used one last summer. I later found that lens to have the blue fogging problem but Panasonic were very good and exchanged it for a good copy even though I had bought it used. If you're buying used Panasonic lenses ALWAYS check for fogging as it will only get worse with time and it's not economical to repair. My first copy had occasional mis-focuses which may well have been down to that fogging.

If I hadn't gotten that deal then I'm not certain what I would have chosen. I love my I-series lenses so the 17mm f/4 would have appealed but then the 16-28/2.8 is nice and fast and the 14-28 is relatively compact and has handy 1:2 close-focusing and can be had for a pretty low price. I've seen really nice pictures taken with all of them and I don't think there's an optically bad one in the whole ultra-wide selection available for the L-mount. Each one has unique advantages so it's a difficult decision.

The range of the 16-35mm is perfect for me because it going to 35mm, which none of the other options do, mean that it can serve not just as an ultra-wide but almost as a normal lens for many situations. Last year I went to Porto for a few days and the 16-35mm was the only zoom I took and it was very useful and my most-used lens, and very often not at the widest settings. Of the options I think the 16-35/4 is the best one for me, though if I hadn't got such a good deal on it then I wouldn't have bought it, I'd have gotten one of the cheaper options instead. If money hadn't been an issue then it would have been my first option - the range to 35mm is very useful for avoiding lens changes and the constant f/4 is a good compromise between speed and limiting size and weight.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

@Jonathan-Mac How can I check for blue fogging ? I have posted a few pictures in the June thread… in my Flickr account you can download 4K versions.
That one is here

My copy is from a reputable Dutch store with one year warranty / guarantee.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I've seen really nice pictures taken with all of them and I don't think there's an optically bad one in the whole ultra-wide selection available for the L-mount. Each one has unique advantages so it's a difficult decision.

That was my problem, and because there was, after negotiating on the 2nd hand 16-35, only an insignificant price difference in favor of 14-28. Yesterday I enjoyed the 16-35 during my city walk and really like the results, and yes, because 16mm is a new hammer, half of my scenes became a nail. But after also using 30-35 a lot, I realized that 28/5.6 would restrict the use case for how I intend to use it too much, or make change lenses more frequently and force me to take “always” a 35 or 50 prime along, or the 24-105

On the other hand, the combo of 24-105 + 14-28 will give me a bit lighter combo, and extra range. I know I am overthinking it too much.

But the image quality is a step up from anything I have except maybe my primes stopped down a it. Yes, better than the 24-105.
After seeing the results on my 5k monitor it is virtually impossible to part with it. Hard to describe. It gives me a more 3D feeling, very sharp, but in a good way, maybe it is very good micro-contrast. You could call it “pop”.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

@Jonathan-Mac How can I check for blue fogging ? I have posted a few pictures in the June thread… in my Flickr account you can download 4K versions.
That one is here

My copy is from a reputable Dutch store with one year warranty / guarantee.

There are a couple of threads over on DPR which discussed this, including myself as a participant. The second one is more informative as by that time more was known about the problem and I think the second one is more on the fogging problem, which is different from a separate problem (most commonly with the 24-105mm) in which the seals allow moisture in and fungal growth sets in.

Panasonic S 24-105mm lens fungus/moisture?: L-mount (Panasonic/Sigma/Leica) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Re: Widespread issue Lumix S lenses? Part II: L-mount (Panasonic/Sigma/Leica) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

I tracked down the photo I took of it in my 50/1.8 but my 20-60mm and 16-35mm also suffered from it. Newer lenses (manufactured in the last couple of years) do not seem to be affected, indicating that the problem has been solved. To check for it, shine a light in one end of the lens while you look into the other end. Move around a bit to make sure you check all angles. Looking without shining a light will not reveal the problem.

The problem gets worse over time as whatever causes it evaporates more and settles on the inner lens elements in larger quantities until the lens becomes useless.


Lumix 50mm internal dust and marks by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

 

[dirk]

Please do not just link to your postings on other forums. We are an independent community here and we want to build our own content. We do not want to send our users to other sites to be able to read your knowledge.

To save time, you can to copy/past your text from dpreview or other forums here in our LMF forum.

People tend to forget fast what happened in the past. We do not want to make the same mistake twice. I do not trust any other site anymore.

Only if your content is here at LMF, I can guarantee that it is not deleted in the future.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

They're long threads with discussions so copying and pasting really wouldn't be a practical option. I've added the most relevant details anyway, which is what to check for and how.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

There are a couple of threads over on DPR which discussed this, including myself as a participant. The second one is more informative as by that time more was known about the problem and I think the second one is more on the fogging problem, which is different from a separate problem (most commonly with the 24-105mm) in which the seals allow moisture in and fungal growth sets in.

Panasonic S 24-105mm lens fungus/moisture?: L-mount (Panasonic/Sigma/Leica) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Re: Widespread issue Lumix S lenses? Part II: L-mount (Panasonic/Sigma/Leica) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

I tracked down the photo I took of it in my 50/1.8 but my 20-60mm and 16-35mm also suffered from it. Newer lenses (manufactured in the last couple of years) do not seem to be affected, indicating that the problem has been solved. To check for it, shine a light in one end of the lens while you look into the other end. Move around a bit to make sure you check all angles. Looking without shining a light will not reveal the problem.

The problem gets worse over time as whatever causes it evaporates more and settles on the inner lens elements in larger quantities until the lens becomes useless.

View attachment 6055
Lumix 50mm internal dust and marks by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

I did certainly not seen anything blue(ish)... maybe a few very small dust particles, but it seems very clean to me. No color cast and very clear.
The serial starts with JJ0LB20... with Fuji I knew how to easily decipher this into manufacturing date.... is there something like that for Lumix... I guess so

 

[Oíche]

I did certainly not seen anything blue(ish)... maybe a few very small dust particles, but it seems very clean to me. No color cast and very clear.
The serial starts with JJ0LB20... with Fuji I knew how to easily decipher this into manufacturing date.... is there something like that for Lumix... I guess so

Yes, the 4th digit is what year it was made...

9,0,1,2,3,4 so far

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Yes, the 4th digit is what year it was made...

9,0,1,2,3,4 so far

so ignoring the first 5 characters ? If I do so with my 85, then it is a 5....

 

[Oíche]

so ignoring the first 5 characters ? If I do so with my 85, then it is a 5....

No, the 4th digit from the serial number on the back... 9 means 2019, 4 means 2024 etc.

It's tiny and hard to read, use your phone camera.

Can't be a 5 as 2025 is the future, 0 means 2020... Can you figure out the missing ones?

My 24-105 was 2023 and 70-300 was just made and sent with a 4 denoting 2024.

 

[xaviergut]

I was in a buddist temple in France (Biollet) some days ago and I had with me just the 35mm f/1.8 Lumix lens (and the Sigma 65mm f/2). I wish I had brought my loved 14-28mm Lumix, but I did not know that I could photograph this beautiful temple indoors. So my solution was this, I took 5 vertical shots and merged them with LR:

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2X
• LUMIX S 35/F1.8
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 400

For this photo, which is a front view, I put together 7 images, but I had to crop in order to correct the distorsion a bit:

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2X
• LUMIX S 35/F1.8
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 160

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I was in a buddist temple in France (Biollet) some days ago and I had with me just the 35mm f/1.8 Lumix lens (and the Sigma 65mm f/2). I wish I had brought my loved 14-28mm Lumix, but I did not know that I could photograph this beautiful temple indoors. So my solution was this, I took 5 vertical shots and merged them with LR:

View attachment 6074

For this photo, which is a front view, I put together 7 images, but I had to crop in order to correct the distorsion a bit:

View attachment 6076

Yep, it can be easy to forget that in many situations merging a panorama is a very viable option.

 

[Oíche]

Excellent Xavier, I love well executed merged photos. LR mobile doesn't do this which is a severe limitation when you hear me banging on about just using a phone.

Merging also has advantages over a wider lens and it shows in your photo. Software is far better at this now too so this is something I literally forgot to do in the mountains a few weeks ago and I used to regularly use it and get mmmmmehhhh results with old Lightroom versions.

Close up like yours you have to be aware of parallax error but the software is probably correcting this now also.

Noted for the to do list. It is good for Milky Way and astro images too where you can use, for example a fast 50mm to gather much more light than wide angles even at same apertures (the clear aperture rule). Also a far higher MP image bettering even 100MP medium format cameras. Skill/technique to compensate for expensive equipment or equipment you don't have is very satisfying.