File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Why do so many photographers go for wides or ultrawides for the main lens, as opposed to normals? Lots of people use a 35mm (equivalent) as their standard lens instead of a normal, ultrawides are extremely common, the workhorse lens of most photojournalists is a wide zoom, etc. Why?

I'm not attacking anyone for using them- I'm certainly in no position anyway to bitch at Jim Nachtwey for using a 16-35 as his main lens, or Koudelka or Harvey a 35mm- I'm just wondering what the attraction of wides and especially ultrawides is to so many.

Pic related, but not in any meaningful way.
>> weatherreport !UPBQK5lNSw
Well, all the great photographers did it.

So I do it too because I'm cool like that. This is why I use a 24mm equivalent on my Ricoh GR.

Did I tell you how good that camera is?
>> Anonymous
>>166746
His Ricoh 28mm equivalent, and the whole "troll Heavyweather for liking his gear" is getting old. Would you troll Cartier-Bresson if he posted here with a "Pepe Robespierre-de Gaulle" tripcode and go on about Leicas?
>> Anonymous
>>166752
I actually think we would.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I use ultrawides extensively, I wouldn't say they're my main lens but definitely on the camera at least 50% of the time.

I like them for several reasons. First, I like the sweeping perspective and the exaggerated relationships between near and far objects. It makes it possible to draw the viewers eye in ways that don't work as well with lenses that have a flatter image.

Second, I find that a well composed ultrawide shot can closer approximate the way I see the world than a normal or mid-wide lens. Since I (and I suspect most people) tend to focus on a specific object while scanning the background simultaneously, so an ultrawide composition with a prominent subject is a closer match to how the mind, though not necessarily the eye, views the world.

Third, they're fun.
>> Anonymous
>>166787
how can something be on your camera AT LEAST 50% of the time and not be your main lens. unless you put on the ultrawide to store your camera as well.
>> Anonymous
>>166787

Wow, good job.
SHe looks like a fucking space alien.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>166794
Well it does get stored on there, since I just throw the camera at the general vicinity of the bag when I'm not using it, whatever lens I used last is what's on it. As far as your actual question, I suppose I could call it my main lens, though not as much as if it were my only lens. I guess I don't like the term main lens, don't know why.

>>166796
It certainly doesn't work for some subjects, but I like how it looks for others. I don't much care whether or not other people like my stuff, I enjoy it.
>> Anonymous
>>166796


fuck i haven't lol'd that hard in a while.
>> Anonymous
1: Wide angles are easier to keep in focus. If you stop down your depth of field makes focusing almost unneeded. That's why the cheapest point-and-shoots are wide angle.
2: You can fit more stuff in the frame. If you are taking a group of people it's easier (though you can get distortion).
3: A wide angle shot to me makes you feel like you are there. Personally, a telephoto shot makes me feel detatched, like I'm removed from the shot. Also a wide angle forces you to get closer to the subject, instead of being lazy and hiding in the bushes with a telephoto.
>> Anonymous
>>166820
1. At the same magnification and aperture, any focal length will have the same depth of field as any other on a particular format.
3. I wasn't talking wide versus tele; I was talking wide versus normal.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166820
>If you stop down your depth of field makes focusing almost unneeded. That's why the cheapest point-and-shoots are wide angle.
I think the cheapest point-and-shoots are wide angle more because their target market is people who want to take pictures of their friends at parties indoors with flash.

>>166823
>3. I wasn't talking wide versus tele; I was talking wide versus normal.
His point still stands. The perspective of a wide makes the subject seem closer than the perspective of a normal (assuming you actually do, in fact, get closer)
>> abphoto
when you back up into a few walls you'll understand why.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>>166810
Nice shot, wow.

I like wide angles because they allow me to fit more into the frame, simply put. Derr, right? But it's a serious consideration. When you're working up close, and you still want multiple elements in the frame, layering, the whole shebang, you just sorta need a wide angle. It's great fun playing with the distorted perspective, too. All in all, wides make for pretty dynamic photos, if you're close enough to get your main subject nice and big.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>166864
Heh, this is so true. I normally keep telephoto on my camera, but on vacation I had so many situations where I couldn't back up, on went the normal zoom to get the kinds of shots I liked.
Yeah, it was just vacation, but the practicality is definitely a point.
>> Anonymous
>>166860
>a telephoto shot makes me feel detatched, like I'm removed from the shot.

>Also a wide angle forces you to get closer to the subject, instead of being lazy and hiding in the bushes with a telephoto.

Normal lenses don't do the detached thing, and you can't hide in the bushes with them. Which is what I was getting at.

I'm not trying to argue anything here; I just don't get the big appeal of wides personally and I'm just curious. I appreciate the responses.
>> Anonymous
>>166898I just don't get the big appeal of wides personally
You hit on it right there. It's not some quantitative thing, some people just like working with wides. If you're one of those people then you get it, if not then you don't.
>> Anonymous
>>166914

wow. you're a colossal faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>166914
reported.
>> Anonymous
what did he do, i don't get it
>> Anonymous
>>166923


made it hdr?
>> hinks
lol yeah he made it HDR and everybody freaked out on him for some reason

mods deleted it think?
>> Anonymous
>>166905
Well, yeah, I know, I'm just curious. Like, I can explain why I like working with normals, specifically the wider end of normal, around the "true normal" of 43mm equivalent. It's easy to previsualize, the frame is kept neat while not slicing up the scene at all, there aren't compression or expansion effects to distract from the composition or content, which also forces me to be in top form on those. If I want the subject to look important, I have to make it important; I can't rely on the isolated sense telephotos give or the sense of scale wides give. The subject and my relation (physical and otherwise) is presented on its own terms.

I was just looking for stuff like that from people, why they like using wides, and so on. A conversation on it. I wouldn't mind hearing from tele people either here on why they like longer lenses when it's not necessitated by distance.

Sort of a gear thread, but a gear thread about pictures, in talking about an aspect of gear that actually affects the pictures, that we actually deal with when shooting, not brandwar mess.

>>166923
I don't either. Just looks like he shooped it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>166932
It's definitely harder to compose than with a normal, but I think the ability to include more background makes for more interesting compositions, oftentimes.
>> Anonymous
>>166933
I haven't shot much with a fifty flat, but 42mm equivalent (what I use most of the time) is wide enough to include background while still looking normal.

I'll dig up a pic later on. Can't find the AC adapter for my external hard drive at the moment.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>166935
Or, well, here's one I had just sitting on my computer hard drive for some reason. Random, noisy, shitty portrait taken at 42mm equivalent. Not wide, but there's lots of background.
>> Anonymous
more intimate lenses for people since your up by them, also good for scenery.i use telephotos mainly for stalking.
>> Anonymous
>>166948
That's the point. When taking photos for journalism, context is most important. The subject as well as the background are both equally important as they both bring something to the article. A portrait of a woman would not suffice for a story focused on the upcoming high school musical. That's just what I think. Certainly journalism and thus photography for it involves a functional component to it.
>> Anonymous
Any lens has strengths and weaknesses. I think telephotos and normals take nice portraits. Wide angles are better for fitting a lot of information into the frame and can be used to convey space in a large area or structure. A fisheye can use distortion to abstract. I just think people who don't shoot head and shoulder portraits or sports (or voyeur shots) and like to convey depth in architecture and landscapes will gravitate to a wide angle.