Comments on: Ultra-Wide Lenses Need to Be Used with Restraint

By: M. D. Vaden of Oregon

M. D. Vaden of Oregon — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:15:53 +0000

That plant pot is one of the better examples I’ve seen to illustrate subtle distortion. Saw the same thing happening to my head in an image last week.

Suppose it just depends on the market. If a home or condo was likely to be bought by a geeky type of citizen, it could be equally likely that an unusual photo would capture their attention.

MDV

By: Brad Proctor

Brad Proctor — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:19:52 +0000

I did that as well when I started. I have a Sigma 10-20 and shot almost exclusively at 10mm, I try not to go any lower than 12mm (14mm or higher preferred) now unless it’s really necessary.

By: Lorenzo

Lorenzo — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:46:22 +0000

I absolutely agree with Larry. I started shooting RE with a 5d and a 24-70, then I thought I needed something wider and I bought 17-40. I started shooting 17 like crazy, got my first complains and also some critique from a collegue who shoots interiors for magazines. I realized I was really distorting images and spaces too much. I now shoot most of pictures with a nikon 28 shift (excelent) and when I really need something wider, I take the 17-40 and I try to keep it above 20.
I could shoot some properties just with the 28 and I m really proud of it! Of course you need the right house but believe me it’s the best thing you can do:with the same focal lenght, a moderate wide angle, you can keep relationship between rooms and spaces, almost natural perspective, and won’t get any complain. I think the most important thing, really tiny stupid but important thing….are you really sure you can’t step a little backward??

By: Tony Boros

Tony Boros — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:42:09 +0000

I too went from a cropped sensor, using a Sigma 12-24 lens, to a full-frame 5D with a 16-35 zoom. Larry’s experience mirrors mine exactly. I too went nuts with the added field of view at 16mm on the full-frame for about 6 months. I did get some complaints about the rooms looking distorted. Since then, I have been using 21mm or 24mm focal lengths when I can get back far enough from the subject. I agree, that sometimes one does need to use super wide focal lengths, but when possible, I use 24mm, and get much nicer looking images. I also have the Canon 14mm, which I use about 3-4 times per year when I need to capture more, and simply cannot move back any further.

By: Olivier H

Olivier H — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:25:50 +0000

Maybe for wide perspective needs, it could be interesting to use multiple pictures stiched into one panoramic view?

By: larry

larry — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:43:51 +0000

@Michael- No. Read the Wikipedia article that I linked to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)). “Perspective distortion” is the way images look when they are shot with a focal length significantly different than the focal length of the human eye. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just different than we are used to seeing.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:28:37 +0000

So does the new Lightroom lens correction fix this?

By: larry

larry — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:02:31 +0000

@Marc- Good to hear from you again!

“And honestly, 24mm is too near of modern 200€ compacts (see the last DPreview shoot out) to show obviously the added value of a RE photographer. For me, the 90° horizontal FOV is _the_ interior perspective. [18mm equivalent]” Yes, I think you might be on to something! I’ve never thought about it from this perspective!

By: William

William — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:29:56 +0000

I would like to learn more about this.

I understood that perspective distortion (NOT converging verticals) was a function of two things: camera position and print (screen) viewing distance. That is, for a fixed camera position the distortion depended only in the lens to subject distance. That is: a 135 format (24×36 mm) sensor camera at a fixed position would exhibit the same perspective when an image from a 12mm lens was cropped to give the same angle-of-view as an uncropped frame from a 50 mm lens.

In most PFRE applications the camera location is limited and the lens-to-subject(s) distance is fixed – such as in the corner of a rectangular room. Suppose there is an attractive fire place on the right wall and a unique bay window centered on the on the far wall at a right angle to the fireplace wall. We decide the best angle of view is from the left side of the bay window to the right side of the fireplace. There is a large circular wood bin on the right side of the fireplace. Our goal is to minimize the oval distortion of the circular wood bin while still portraying the room’s attractive features.

With an APS-C sensor camera the angle-of-view that spans the bay window to the fireplace is achieved with a 12 mm focal length. The wood bin is the closest subject to the camera and significant oval distortion is present. Now a 135 format camera is used with a 18 mm lens and the frame has the same angle-of-view as before. Because the camera-to-subject distance is identical, the the circular wood-bin will display the identical oval appearance as observed in the APS-C sensor image.

Because it is more difficult to manufacture a 12 mm lens with the optical quality of an 18 mm lens, it is likely the 18 mm lens image will be superior optically. The DOF will be less than the 12 mm image’s DOF (when the same aperture is used). But does the 18mm lens image have less perspective distortion?

Is keeping the camera as far away as possible from the scene the only way to minimize the distractions like oval distortion?

By: David Leggott

David Leggott — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:34:30 +0000

I have found that generally if you take too wide of a shot, the Open Home visitors are somewhat taken aback, especially when they say “it just looked bigger on the Internet.” )TIP: to fix this issue…….recompress wide angle photo with something like PTLens Perspective Horizontal slider …..I’m sure there is probably an equivalent in many other programs too)