Wide Angle Lens on Crop Frame Sensor Camera - Worth it or not?

[Thlayle]

Hi,

I am shooting with a Canon T2i (550D) and I am considering a wide angle lens for it. I am particularly interested in a prime wide angle lens: the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon - 14mm f/2.8 Super Wide Angle (see http://rokinon.com/product.php?id=12). Right now all I have are the original kit lenses and a 50mm. My 18mm shortest focal length yields about an equivalent 28.8mm, compared to this Rokinon lens at 14mm should yield about 22.4mm. Honestly, I don't know how much difference that will work out to, given I have not shot any similar lenses and have no experience for a comparison of these different angles of view.

My interest in this lens is for both landscape photos and night photos (this lens reportedly has a very low 'coma distortion'). I like this lens for its potential for night photography and the price is about right (much lower than many other similar prime lenses).

My questions are:

1) Are wide angle lenses worth it for cropped sensor camera?
2) Any thoughts on the Rokinon lenses, especially this one?
3) Should I be looking at something else instead?

Thanks,

Randy Butters

[keith201]

The wider the wideangle lens, the greater the angle of view

For example, using the 'full frame' lens, a 21mm kens has an ang;e of view of 92 degrees, the 28mm lens, 75 degrees, the 35mm lens 63 degrees, the 50mm lens 47 degrees and so on up to a 1000mm lens which has 2.5 degrees angle of view with a crop sensor which only uses a portion of the full frame lens image circle, the crop factor converts the angle of view you can see to what it would be if you were using a full frame camera. So the 14mm lens on your crop sensor Canon which would give you a 35mm equivalent of around 22mm would give you an angle of view of approx 90 degrees. I don't have sufficient info available to me right now to work out the exact angle

Of course wide angle lenses are fine for crop sensor cameras, photography is still photography, if you want a wide angle image you need a lens that will provide it, no matter what sort of camera you have, the image is what is important

Rokinon lenses are excellent lenses, made specifically for Canon, they can't be used on any other mount unlike say Sigma or Tamron who are independent lens makers and adapt their lenses for many different brands of cameras

Why would you look at anything else unless you are filthy rich and prepared to spend a small fortune on a different camera system?

[jeeperman]

Keith, Rokinon make lenses for more than just Canon. They also have a Sony mount and Nikon as well. I have heard that they are fairly good for the price. Not used one myself.


Randy,
To the question at hand....it will depend on what and how you want to shoot. Super wide can be nice for landscape....although it can have it's drawbacks. Along with the extra width you also get extra top and bottom.
There are times it can save you....if you can not back up any further. Also, they can be used for interesting perspectives such as including a lot of foreground or large foreground objects for intrest.
They really shine indoors if you want to make an image of the whole interior of a room, say for real estate work or just architectural images.

I am a couple weeks from purchasing a superwide myself. Tokina 11-16 2.8. Rated very high for sharpness and low distortion.

[rpcrowe]

Keith...

Certainly wide angle lenses are useful on crop cameras! However, there is one caveat regarding UWA lenses for landscpae shooting.

Although many photographers automatically reach for a UWA lens for landscape photography, many of the images shot with a UWA lens just to get a wider field of view are IMO quite boring with lots of uninteresting foreground and sky with a narrow strip of interest between foreground and sky.

Landscapes shot with UWA lenses can benefit from predominant foreground subjects such as rocks to perk up the interest.

Shooting panos with longer focal length lenses is another way to achieve more interesting landscapes...

View the following images in the orginal size for comparison...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/17572474

[Manfred M]

Randy - I have a Samyang 8mm fisheye lens. Rokinon is just one of many brand names that these lenses are sold under. There is a reason that they are inexpensive; there is NO electronic coupling to your camera body. This may mean no light metering (I don't know your camera body at all) and you will be shooting in 100% manual mode only. These lenses are 100% manual focus as well. With your camera, that gives you a full-frame equivalent of 22.5mm, which is fairly wide angle. Optically my Samyang is quite good.

That being said, I like my 8mm lens, but I don't use it a lot and can work around the lack of integration as most things are in focus on an 8mm lens all the time anyway. I use the camera histogram to judge exposure and shoot on manual.

I'm an self-confessed ultra-wide angle lens lover, and I would probably not buy that one for a crop frame sensor camera, but would not hesitate at all on a full-frame camera (and based on the spec, it is a full-frame lens). I have the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm and you would be surprised what the extra 3mm will buy you; every additional mm in a ultra-wide angle lens buys you a noticeably wider angle of view. I shoot on a Nikon, so with the 1.5 crop factor, versus your 1.6 crops factor, I get even wider angle shots.

These types of lenses are not really landscape lenses; I prefer something longer to shoot landscapes with. If you are not careful, you will get landscapes that are mostly foreground and sky. You do have to have a point of interest in the foreground to make these work. As for night shots; yes the lens is fast, but with the variable light levels, it is not what I would use as a "go to" lens for this type of photography, but certainly there are night-time ultra-wide shooting, opportunities.

[Shadowman]

Hi,

I am shooting with a Canon T2i (550D) and I am considering a wide angle lens for it. I am particularly interested in a prime wide angle lens: the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon - 14mm f/2.8 Super Wide Angle (see http://rokinon.com/product.php?id=12). Right now all I have are the original kit lenses and a 50mm. My 18mm shortest focal length yields about an equivalent 28.8mm, compared to this Rokinon lens at 14mm should yield about 22.4mm. Honestly, I don't know how much difference that will work out to, given I have not shot any similar lenses and have no experience for a comparison of these different angles of view.

My interest in this lens is for both landscape photos and night photos (this lens reportedly has a very low 'coma distortion'). I like this lens for its potential for night photography and the price is about right (much lower than many other similar prime lenses).

My questions are:

1) Are wide angle lenses worth it for cropped sensor camera?
2) Any thoughts on the Rokinon lenses, especially this one?
3) Should I be looking at something else instead?

Thanks,

Randy Butters

14mm won't feel like a super-wide on a crop sensor, just a tad bit wider than your 18mm. To get a good landscape you will have to get closer to your subject and that may not be possible. It'll work fine for tight shots as Paul stated, but to get that super-wide feel you'll need at least a 10mm lens. For night photos it should be fine but again you'll have to get close.

[Thlayle]

Thanks to everyone for your comments. They all have been helpful. So far, I am coming around to these conclusions:

1) wide angles CAN be worthwhile on crop frame cameras
2) the wider the better, so I will look into even wider lenses as possibles
3) not everyone is a fan of the wide angle lens for landscape photos -- a bit of a surprise to me
4) this Rokinon 14mm should suit my purpose for night shots

I wonder if anyone has any specific recommendations for a night shooting lens -- one with low coma distortion?
Also, Manfred, I am familiar with this as a manual lens but when you say 'no light metering' are you saying you believe I will have to meter with a separate device? My camera in manual mode right now with the Canon lenses tells me if I am under or over exposed. Will that change or can't you say, not knowing this camera? Anyone else on this point?

[Manfred M]

Randy - this is why I said I don't know how your camera body handles a contractless lens. My Nikon D90 needs the electronic contacts to meter, while my Nikon D800 does not need them. Your Canon lenses will have contacts, so they will definitely meter with your camera. Perhaps someone who is familiar with your body will know if it will meter with contactless lenses or not. Regardless, a workaround is not that difficult and either an external meter or trial and error along with your histograms should work.

That being said, a reflective meter is only going to give you a starting point and I find that I end up using my histogram and bracketing anyway for night shots. You are going to have to override anyhow, as it will give you readings that result in overexposures as it tries to chase that elusive 18% gray point. I've never tried using my incident meter for night shots, but maybe I should try it to see if it helps.

Comments on your thoughts:

1) Yes - they work fine on crop frames;

2) No, that is really dependent on your shooting needs / taste. Some people prefer wide angle lenses that are a bit wider than a normal lens, some like medium wide angles and some like ultra-wide angles. Being a super-wide "junkie", I love super-wides, but be warned that they are a difficult lens to work with. Often a difference of a couple of cm / around an inch can make the difference between an interesting and a rather ordinary shot.

3) The main issue with the super wide angle lenses is that they can easily give you results that are quite uninteresting; it is all too easy to end up with shots that have a lot of foreground and sky. I first started using an ultra-wide angle for interior architectural shots and then started doing city-scape shots. Once I got fairly competent with those, I figured out how and when to use them in landscape work.

4) Perhaps - that really depends on your subject matter. I've done intersting night shots with my cheap kit 18-55mm lens too.

This is a landcape done using a crop-frame camera with an 11mm focal length. By shooting down into the volcanic crater, and including the crater wall and water in the bottom, I was able to so something compositionally that ended up with an interesting foreground and not too much sky:





This is a night-time shot at f/2.8 24mm on a full-frame, so this would be roughly the same angle of view that you would get on a 14mm lens on your body.

[RustBeltRaw]

My shortest lens is a 20mm prime, and since my camera's APS-C (1.6x), I could really use something wider for interiors and working in crowds. I've been looking at the same Rokinon, but ultimately, the lack of autofocus will probably exclude it - autofocus is a lot more critical for event photography.

Manfred very correctly pointed out that small changes in focal length make a big difference with short lenses, so if you have a little more money to spend, look at Sigma's 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM II. It's pricier ($950 from B&H), but adds autofocus, full-frame compatibility, and adjustable focal length. I don't own this one, but I've used it, and it's the best third-party lens I've ever handled.

[jeeperman]

Manfred is right on and is what I was trying to get acrossed in my jibberish. Although it is a bit more money I must say again....dont buy without checking into the Tokina 11-16 2.8. While this lens has a short range between just 11-16 it is just enough to go from superwide to wide and gives you the ability for those slight changes. It is regarded as one of the sharpest tools out there with far less distortion than most and clocks in at about $600 US dallars. Not cheap but still within a doable range even if you had to save for another month or two. Not to mention the 2.8 that will help with the low light shots.

[tclune]

....dont buy without checking into the Tokina 11-16 2.8. While this lens has a short range between just 11-16 it is just enough to go from superwide to wide and gives you the ability for those slight changes. It is regarded as one of the sharpest tools out there with far less distortion than most and clocks in at about $600 US dollars. Not cheap but still within a doable range even if you had to save for another month or two. Not to mention the 2.8 that will help with the low light shots.

I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4. The 11-16 was based on that design. Personally, I like the 12-24 range a lot more than I would feel the need for f/2.8, especially on an ultra-wide. You could hand-hold a lens that wide for a half an hour shot without introducing any blur (perhaps a slight exaggeration...), so the wide aperture is not that important on that score -- and if you think you're going to blur the background with any of these lenses you really haven't grokked what UWA is all about. But I find a bit more zoom really important. In all honesty, I am not all that comfortable with really wide lenses. When they work for me, I like the shots a lot, but I find them very hard to put to good use. Perhaps a more accomplished UWA photographer would be more comfortable with the narrow zoom range.

[jeeperman]

Tom, I have a 16-50 2.8 and will add the 11-16 2.8 for interior work and for those times I want the perspective I can not get with 16mm. The 2.8 is much nicer to use in the low light of an interior if I am wishing not to use flash. It is also nice to use when it is pre-sunrise. There are times I wish not to extend my shutter speed any longer than needed.

[davidedric]

Just a comment. As I understand things, the focal length of a lens remains unchanged whatever body it is on. The thread is correctly concentrating on the angle of view, but the perspective delivered doesn't change.

[rpcrowe]

There is no way that I would use an UWA lens for event shooting unless it was for something like the Comicon (Comic Book convention in San Diego, CA where the participants wear fantasy costumes) when I would appreciate the strange exagerated effects of the UWA lens.

Otherwise, the exagerated perspective distortion can really look terrible. It is not only the Pinnochio length noses that I am talking about but the large upper torso and spindly legs resulting from shooting a person up close with an UWA lens at eye level...

BTW: females are particularly sensitive to the distortion that results from shooting up close with wide lenses...

However, I guess that I have just a fetish against tilted horizons and unintentional distortion from wide lenses shot up close to a person...

Another thought about UWA lenses for landscapes. I often use a circular polarizing filter to enhance my landscapes. However, often the CPL when used on a very wide lens will induce uneven exposure and uneven polarization across the frame.

[jcuknz]

I have yet to, and unlikely to either, get a WA lens. Last year I changed from having a 35mm AoV lens to a 28mm AOV and it has been handy at times but for the wide view I stitch and avoid the waste of space on foreground and sky .... but of coure if you are looking down the Grand Canyon that is a different matter That you need a wide lens for landscape is a popular misconception as mentioned earlier on CiC. One could say it is the difference between the newbie 'get it all in' camp and the more experienced 'select the important' camp.

[RustBeltRaw]

There is no way that I would use an UWA lens for event shooting unless it was for something like the Comicon (Comic Book convention in San Diego, CA where the participants wear fantasy costumes) when I would appreciate the strange exagerated effects of the UWA lens.

Otherwise, the exagerated perspective distortion can really look terrible. It is not only the Pinnochio length noses that I am talking about but the large upper torso and spindly legs resulting from shooting a person up close with an UWA lens at eye level...

BTW: females are particularly sensitive to the distortion that results from shooting up close with wide lenses...

Good points. However, quite a lot of lens distortion can be corrected in PP. Photoshop even has built-in correction for the Samyang 8mm, which tells you a lot about how popular it is. You'll lose some resolution and sharpness, to be sure, but sometimes you need to get a shot, and it just isn't possible to back up (like in the middle of a concert crowd). My 20mm would probably be about right on a full-frame camera, but for now, and the foreseeable future, mine's 1.6x crop.

If you're only shooting a portion of someone's figure (waist up or less), I think short lenses can work very well. Joe McNally encourages "pushing the short prime," or getting very close with a wide-angle, in The Moment It Clicks, and I've gotten some very cool results with that method. It gives portraits considerable intensity.

One of my shots with a 20mm (32mm on 1.6x) lens.



One of Joe's shots with something even shorter.



As you can see, I don't place a lot of faith in the "long lenses for shooting people" mantra.

[Shadowman]

Some very good examples of UWA in this thread.

[FootLoose]

FWIW: I took a lot of landscape shots when I first started using my camera. -- Canon 600D with 18-55mm kit lenses. At first I opened it right up to 18mm but I wasn't really happy with the results because, as others have noted, the wider shots had too much sky etc. and found that I generally preferred the results from the 55mm end. So whenever I feel like doing landscape, I shoot 3 or 4, (5, 6, 7 whatever) contiguous frames and stitch them together.

[Shadowman]

Here are two I shot with the Nikkor 10-24mm. I prefer the darker version but adjusted my camera to get another look.


f/4.5, ISO 200, -1ev, 1/4000sec, 24mm


f/6.3, ISO 100, 1/160sec/ 0ev, 24mm

[Thlayle]

Just a comment. As I understand things, the focal length of a lens remains unchanged whatever body it is on. The thread is correctly concentrating on the angle of view, but the perspective delivered doesn't change.

True enough as I understand it too - but it still seems to be a useful way to conceptualize the issues involved.