DSLR users, why so wide?

[LPZ_Stitch!]

As everyone here probably knows, I'm really happy with my Canon Powershot S3. And, while there are a lot of features on the DSLRs that I wish my camera had -- such as the stunning low-light abilities of a 50mm prime lens -- the expense of good tele lenses has been keeping me away from considering upgrading to one.

The reason I settled on the S3 was that it seemed to have the best IQ at the long range of its zoom (432mm) of the "superzoom/bridge" cameras. Since I've gotten it, I find that 90% of my pictures are taken at the far end of the zoom, too.

I am, at this time, 100% certain that I wouldn't be happy with less zoom on a DSLR than my S3. I wouldn't expect the same 36mm-432mm in a single lens, of course, but not having at least the 432mm was be disappointing.

However, many posts by the DSLR users here on the DIS seem to be focused on which wide-angle lens to go with; 24-55/10-20/14-22/whatever....

So my question is this; why do so many DSLR users seem to be looking for wider and wider lenses when there are 300mm/400mm/600mm tele/zoom lenses out there?

 

[DVC Jen]

Because a zoom lens does just that - zooms in on something.

But a wide angle lens will allow you to capture that landscape just as you see it. You are not limited to just the tree - or just the lake - or just the building.

Wide angle lenses are perfect for landscape photography - when you don't really want to zoom in on one particular thing.

 

[Cyrano]

Because a zoom lens does just that - zooms in on something.

But a wide angle lens will allow you to capture that landscape just as you see it. You are not limited to just the tree - or just the lake - or just the building.

Wide angle lenses are perfect for landscape photography - when you don't really want to zoom in on one particular thing.

I hadn't thought about it that way

 

[ukcatfan]

I totally agree with that but would also like to add that sometimes physical constraints keep you from getting the shot you want. I ran into that at WDW a bunch when I only had a p&s that started at 38mm equiv. The widest lens on my DSLR is 27mm equiv. (18mm) and I am happy with it so far. I am sure that I would find use for a wider one if I had it though. Lenses wider than 18mm can get really expensive though.

There are some bridge cameras offering a start at around 28mm equiv. now, so it is not just a DSLR thing anymore.

Kevin

 

[ukcatfan]

So my question is this; why do so many DSLR users seem to be looking for wider and wider lenses when there are 300mm/400mm/600mm tele/zoom lenses out there?

There are always exceptions, but it seems like wildlife photographers are the main users of the telephoto lenses. It is either because getting to close to their subjects scares it away or it is too dangerous to get that close. Nobody in their right mind wants a 10mm shot of a wild bear!

Also a FYI... Be sure to watch the terminology when talking about lenses at other places. The people on the DIS are all very nice and would never flame you for it, but you would likely get slammed for using the terms "zoom" and "tele" in the same sentence over on that other popular photography message board. I am pretty sure that you already know this, but a zoom lens could be a 10-12mm, a 600-1200mm, or anywhere across the board as long as it is not a fixed focal length. Many p&s users use those terms as meaning the same thing and it really bothers the hardcore DSLR users for some reason I cannot understand.

Kevin

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

I agree, that when my WDW photos are concerned I use a wide angle zoom lens (17-40mm) about 90% of the time. It just makes sense for the type of pictures taken at WDW. On the other hand most of the shooting I do any other time is from the 100mm to 300mm range.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Also a FYI... Be sure to watch the terminology when talking about lenses at other places. The people on the DIS are all very nice and would never flame you for it, but you would likely get slammed for using the terms "zoom" and "tele" in the same sentence over on that other popular photography message board. I am pretty sure that you already know this, but a zoom lens could be a 10-12mm, a 600-1200mm, or anywhere across the board as long as it is not a fixed focal length.

Thanks for the tip, but I do know the difference ... I was just trying to save myself some typing (and/or, the hassle of actually looking up some actual lenses to get realistic specs.).

And, while I certainly understand the value of a wide angle in landscape photography (as DVC Jen mentions) doesn't it bother you having so many people you don't know in your WDW wide-angle pics?

I know that even with my older 3x zoom P&S I was always zooming in to get just the building, or feature, that I wanted and not the 50-1,000 other people I don't know, and don't care about, in my shots....

 

[ukcatfan]

And, while I certainly understand the value of a wide angle in landscape photography (as DVC Jen mentions) doesn't it bother you having so many people you don't know in your WDW wide-angle pics?

I know that even with my older 3x zoom P&S I was always zooming in to get just the building, or feature, that I wanted and not the 50-1,000 other people I don't know, and don't care about, in my shots....

It is just a matter of knowing where to take the shot from and waiting for the right opportunity. If the people are far enough away it does not matter to me though b/c they are just little blobs. Then with unique perspective shots where you need a wide angle, there would likely never be anyone in the shot anyway.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

It is just a matter of knowing where to take the shot from and waiting for the right opportunity. If the people are far enough away it does not matter to me though b/c they are just little blobs. Then with unique perspective shots where you need a wide angle, there would likely never be anyone in the shot anyway.

Have you got any examples posted anywhere?

 

[Anewman]

If you chat on a photography forum that concentrates more on something other than Disney, you might see a focus on Tele more than wide. Take sports shooting for example, on a forum dedicated to shooting sports very few would recommend a wide lens.

And, while I certainly understand the value of a wide angle in landscape photography (as DVC Jen mentions) doesn't it bother you having so many people you don't know in your WDW wide-angle pics?

I think a wider lens actually helps eliminate those other people from your images.
If you try to shoot your family with the castle in the background with a tele lens you need setup far away from the castle, which likely results with more persons in the background. With a wider lens you can setup closer to the castle, and the closer you get the less persons can get caught in the background of your image.


It really depends on the shooter, there is no right and wrong style.
I am not really a super wide shooter, I prefer tightly framed shots. But I still rarely go over 100mm when at disney. I always move as close to the subject as possible, even if I still have tele zoom available on the lens. I just feel it gives a better image overall(mostly background blur and fill flash reasons).

 

[webshark3]

Would you want to carry this $7000+ lens around the parks all day.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31R5JPA31CL._SS500_.jpg

FYI, I get better digitally cropped images at 75mm from my DSLR (6mp) than my family gets from their long zoom P&S cameras. It comes down to lens, and pixel quality.

 

[ukcatfan]

Have you got any examples posted anywhere?

I just checked and I do not have any WDW ones posted, but here are some examples of what I am talking about. Getting really close to an object such as the castle, GF X-mas tree, SE, the Sorcerer’s hat, etc. and taking the shot looking up at it. With 38mm, I found that I lost too much of the bottom of the object when I made sure that the top of it was in the shot. I am only about 10-15% through processing my files from last week, so I do not know yet if I have any in there that might illustrate this.

BTW... I am not just slacking on my RAW processing. School started this week and we have been extremely busy! Hopefully this weekend if I can fit it in around yard work.

The only example I can find in my photos online is one I took near home of a couple of palm trees. It is not super wide at 24mm, but I think you can get the idea of the perspective I am talking about.

Kevin

 

[cpbjgc]

The reason I settled on the S3 was that it seemed to have the best IQ at the long range of its zoom (432mm) of the "superzoom/bridge" cameras. Since I've gotten it, I find that 90% of my pictures are taken at the far end of the zoom, too.

I am, at this time, 100% certain that I wouldn't be happy with less zoom on a DSLR than my S3. I wouldn't expect the same 36mm-432mm in a single lens, of course, but not having at least the 432mm was be disappointing.

However, many posts by the DSLR users here on the DIS seem to be focused on which wide-angle lens to go with; 24-55/10-20/14-22/whatever....

So my question is this; why do so many DSLR users seem to be looking for wider and wider lenses when there are 300mm/400mm/600mm tele/zoom lenses out there?

Before getting my Rebel XTi, I had a Powershot S1 IS, the venerable ancestor to your S3, and I too tended to shoot at the long end of the zoom most of the time. In fact, I was intent on getting, as part of my initial kit, a 75-300 zoom, because I thought for sure I would be using it most of the time. Guess which lens is feeling lonely? I still use my 75-300, and I am happy with the lens for my needs, but I now really love being able to go wide on shots, because it is letting me get pictures I couldn't on my S1. I too am a frame-filler for the most part. Besides the reasons Anewman noted on getting the family photo in front of the castle, the wide angle end of my Sigma 17-70 lets me get some beautiful close up portraits of my kids that I couldn't achieve before (Not to mention the shallow DOF that you get with f2.8 at 17mm, swweeeet!).

So why focus on wide angle lenses? Because they are another tool to explore creative possibilities. And also, because of the crop factor, if you want really wide angle on a DSLR, that can be as expensive a piece of glass as a good telephoto lens.

 

[MICKEY88]

I guess I'll be the one to point out the value of a good zoom at WDW.. Iin the past I've carried 2 cameras one with a 35-105 the other with a 100-300,


they both have value, one thing a good zoom allows you to do is get great candid character shots without getting close, and without having to wait for people to movve out of your way,

the first 2 were character meet n greets, the 3rd, my 35-105 got me a good shot of the whole float, the 100-300 was great for the frame filling shot of one of my favorite villains..

 

[mabas9395]

. Nobody in their right mind wants a 10mm shot of a wild bear!

Are you kidding? I would love to get one. That would be the coolest shot EVER!!! Might destroy the camera in the process, but then I would have an excuse to upgrade to a 40d.

 

[wdwmom2]

Even some of us S3 users like a wider shot sometimes. I just bought a Lensmate adaptor, WA lens, and a UV filter to use on my S3. My next purchase is a neutral density filter. The wide angle lens is an Olympus IS/L Lens B-28 H.Q. Converter 0.8X for IS-3. I was thinking about getting the Raynox one off of Lensmate, but for $15 total for this one I thought I would give it a try!!!

Here are a couple pics with my new S3 set up

 

[gokenin]

I totally agree with that but would also like to add that sometimes physical constraints keep you from getting the shot you want. I ran into that at WDW a bunch when I only had a p&s that started at 38mm equiv. The widest lens on my DSLR is 27mm equiv. (18mm) and I am happy with it so far. I am sure that I would find use for a wider one if I had it though. Lenses wider than 18mm can get really expensive though.

There are some bridge cameras offering a start at around 28mm equiv. now, so it is not just a DSLR thing anymore.

Kevin

ok I have a question a few months back before I bought my S3 I was looking into getting an slr and am still thinking about it and when i asked if the kit lense that comes with most the 18-55mm if I would be able to use this for most shots and if it was a good learning lens till i become comfortable with SLRs i was told that these lenses were awful?

 

[Anewman]

ok I have a question a few months back before I bought my S3 I was looking into getting an slr and am still thinking about it and when i asked if the kit lense that comes with most the 18-55mm if I would be able to use this for most shots and if it was a good learning lens till i become comfortable with SLRs i was told that these lenses were awful?

Kit lenses...

Some consider them "awful", but remember that is by DSLR standards. Do they compare to DSLR lenses costing close to $1000??? not really

But they all serve their purpose and are all optically adequate, and I would say they are all better than 95% of point and shoot camera lenses.

The biggest gripe about the Canon kit lens is build quality, IMO a plastic mount does not affect image quality and more than supports this extremely light lens. I have seen some amazing shots with this lens, but do not own it myself. IMO there are very few lenses at the same price point as kit lenses, and even fewer in that price range that would yield similar results.

 

[mabas9395]

It is not awful, but it is not great either. It is pretty limiting though. But yes, it is a decent lens to learn on and to also learn what more you want from a lens (is the kit not wide enough or long enough or fast enough, etc).

The people who usually say that are either salesmen or have used Canon's finest "L" series lenses (and just about everything compares to one of those).

For some good examples of what can be done with the Canon kit lens, check out this link:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522

 

[webshark3]

At F8, my kit lens competes with my good glass. In low light and special conditions, it falls apart. But I ask you this:

Can you find another 18mm wide lens (for Canon anyways, EOS) under $100? The kit lens is gold for low-budget wide angle.