File :-(, x, )
true or false Anonymous
90% of the time, ultra wides are for idiots who have no idea how to frame their shots properly

inb4 natchwey
>> Anonymous
wow

minus ten out of ten
>> Anonymous
Well, that one is. But you can actually get some pretty decent shots with ultra wide lenses. There is just as much framing involved, if not more, because you have to decide what you can leave in the frame and still have the picture come out the way you want, instead of what you can leave out (you only have to frame so much of a shot with a telephoto lens, for example).

Just a thought.
>> Anonymous
I love ultrawide stuff. People who say landscape shoots taken with ultrawide is vulgar = fags!
>> Anonymous
>There is just as much framing involved

Okay? But focal length isn't about framing, it's about perspective. For most shots, radical perspective (outside of ~28-~105, for some things a little longer) is just a gimmick being used by people who can't/can't-be-assed-to make their shots even superficially interesting otherwise.

>natchwey

While he definitely shoots wide, I don't think Nachtwey usually shoots as wide as most people think he does. Before he switched to EOS 1s with the 16-35, he shot Leica Ms, I believe mostly with a 35 but I'm not sure. The widest practical lens in the M system at the time was a 21mm, and if you look through his portfolio there's only a few shots that evince massively wide perspective; most of them look no wider than a 28. It seems to me he doesn't often go wider than 24.
>> Anonymous
People who think ultra wides are for idiots don't know how to use ultra wides.
>> Anonymous
i disagree, but thats a nice photo of domain chandon you have there, love that winery.

usually idiots dont know what an ultrawide is.

now fisheyes on the otherhand...
>> Anonymous
I like using ultrawides indoors