Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

is it possible to do landscape with 50mm FL on APS-c
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:31 pm    Post subject: is it possible to do landscape with 50mm FL on APS-c Reply with quote


This picture i took with yashinon ds 1.9 50 on canon aps-c. Some minor post edit with contrast and white balance.



Now im thinking if it would have been better with a 35 mm lens. Not that anything interesting was near but a more wide angle. Should i pick 28 or 35 mm? 24 mm is expensive for old glass and 35 mm is rateher close to 50mm.

Kind regards bluedxca93


Last edited by bluedxca93 on Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:50 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some prefer 35, others 28.
I recommend the Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 as it is light, compact and extremely good in terms of optics. If you prefer 28mm, the SMC Pentax (non-M) 28mm f/3.5 is a very good choice.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The smc pentax 28 non m is one i add to my wishlist.for my apsc camera.

Regarding the minoltas :
Always have the fear they produce Chronatic abberations like canon lenses do.Thats why i havent bought any yet.


My current vivitar 35 mm version lacks edge sharpness a bit but its distortion is good in sync with my panorama applications.However stacking is not as nice as just a single pic imho.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, didn’t read your camera is APS-c. 24mm would be a better choice then if you want a wideangle.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given that your camera is aps-c, for best results, you should get a wide angle designed for aps-c cameras. That way you can have an angle of view that can give you the full-frame equivalent to anything from 15mm (or so) on up.

Personally, I'm a big fan of ultra wides for landscapes. Like 17mm through 24mm on full-frame cameras. They give you so much more than 28mm does.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends. Smile

28mm or 35m on APS-C gives "normal" perspective -- distant detail resolution similar to eyesight. Wider lenses sacrifice some of that distant detail resolution. 100mm and longer lenses increase distant detail resolution beyond eyesight.

Wider lenses are useful for subjects at mid-distance with distant details providing context.

Normal lenses are for WYSIWYG photos with relative object dimensions preserved.

Long lenses are for distant details.

Oversimplified, of course!!!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a Tokinna 11-16 for my Canon EOS 60D (a crop sensor camera). Its AF though. Great landscapes. Really wide. I had to be careful not to get my feet in the shot. Or you can do the multiple shot plus stitch technique with a much less expensive telephoto. Lots more time in post required though.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many, if not most, APS-C cameras come as a kit with an 18-55mm AF zoom lens. With a 1.5x sensor size, that approximates 28-80mm, which is a very popular range with full-frame cameras.

I've owned two APS-C cameras that came with an 18-55mm zoom, and I did find it to be a very useful focal range. But since the topic is specifically about wide angles for an APS-C camera, I chose to stick to the topic.

One thing that bears mentioning about APS-C cameras and very wide-angle lenses that were designed for full-frame cameras, especially older designs meant for 35mm cameras, is they usually don't work well with the crop bodies. I own both a Vivitar and a Tamron 17mm f/3.5 ultra-wide, designed to be used with a 35mm camera. And they both provide very soft images with my two APS-C cameras. It has to do with the geometry of the sensor's pixel arrays and the angles at which the light rays hit them. Wide-angle lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras, such as jamaeolus's 11-16mm Tokina, have this problem corrected, thus they deliver sharp images. This is why I recommended wide-angle lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can find very good value in the 7Artisans and TT Artisans range of wide angle lenses for APS-c
These are modern lenses and are designed for your camera - so do not need an adapter.
Also, you might like to clean your sensor Smile
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A full frame sensor will give you more wide angle for all of your lenses. It's really the way to go with vintage lenses. Lens sharpness is much less critical on full frame, aberrations are less noticeable. There are plenty of 28mm lenses, so wide angle shooting ceases the be a problem. The only disadvantage is corners which can get mushy especially on wide lenses. Stopping down will help a lot and some like the SMC Pentax 28mm 1:3.5 are very good at cornering from wide open. I think it is nothing to obsess about since you can always crop them off if it bothers you. Usually corners don't matter anyway and if the do you can stop down (and use a tripod if you want to shoot at ISO 100 en less bright conditions).


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

bluedxca93 wrote:
Now im thinking if it would have been better with a 35 mm lens. Not that anything interesting was near but a more wide angle. Should i pick 28 or 35 mm? 24 mm is expensive for old glass and 35 mm is rather close to 50mm.

Kind regards bluedxca93


I'm assuming you are not very familiar with shooting wide-angle (if you were you would be able to answer your own question Wink ).

Lots of advice re. what lenses to get have been given already, but what may be more important is familiarity with wide-angle use. Depending on your aptitude, venturing into wide-angle photography can be either a liberating experience, or a steep learning curve.

Photos do not automatically become more interesting by switching to a wide-angle. Much depends on how that affects composition and balance in the photo, and extreme wide-angle shots often (there are exceptions, as always Wink ) require significant foreground subject interest, which you may find needs to be surprisingly near to the lens.

On APS-C a 35mm lens doesn't give you a wide-angle perspective, not even close.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

bluedxca93 wrote:

This picture i took with yashinon ds 1.9 50 on canon aps-c. Some minor post edit with contrast and white balance.

Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos?


No, you don't need a wide-angle lens! IMO, what you need first is to learn more about photographic composition! The photo you submitted would gain NOTHING if a wide-angle lens had been used. The problem lies in the poor composition, which is uninteresting because among other things it lacks an interesting main subject.

From the book The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum:
wrote:

IF COMPOSITION IS THE MEANS OF LEADING VIEWERS through your photograph
and holding them there until they see your message, there must be methods of
composing to achieve maximum strength in your imagery. There are indeed such
methods, and they can be put to use by identifying and understanding the elements
of composition.
The following is a list of the many elements of composition. We will discuss
them and consider how they can be used to enhance a photograph.
< Light
< Color
< Contrast and Tone
< Line
< Form
< Pattern
< Balance
< Movement
< Positive / Negative Space
< Texture
< Camera Position
< Focal Length
< Depth of Field
< Shutter Speed



Note that focal length is just ONE of the elements of the composition. See what Barnbaum says about the importance of focal length in photographic composition:
wrote:

Focal Length of Lens and Cropping

Camera position must be considered in conjunction with the focal length of the lens used to expose the photograph. Together, the two determine the perspective of the image. Long focal length lenses (telephoto or similar lenses) tend to compress space, crowding objects together that may be separated in reality. Short focal length lenses (wide-angle lenses) tend to exaggerate space, separating objects that may be close together in reality. Clever use of these effects can produce exciting images that most people may never see in reality. The choice of lens, along with the type of lighting that either exists naturally or that you create artificially can dramatically alter the spatial characteristics of a scene.

If all lenses were infinitely sharp and films were grainless, or if there were an infinite number of pixels on camera sensors, we could easily get by with one wide-angle lens and just crop to the image we really want! That would give us plenty of time to comfortably determine how to approach every image. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury, so we must burden ourselves with heavy equipment and make decisions on the spot. A key question is this: what should be included in the image, and what should be excluded? Once your decision is made, use the lens that includes what you want, and little, if any, excess.

What about the excess? My approach is to always try to compose full frame, but also to recognize that that doesn’t always work. If I feel an image can be improved by cropping (i.e., removing) any portion of it, I don’t hesitate. Sometimes the best image lies between focal lengths of lenses that I am carrying; in that case I use the shorter lens, which includes all of the pertinent imagery plus some excess, then remove the excess. My next longer lens might eliminate an important element of the image.

Sometimes my camera format is wrong for the image: I may find a long, narrow image of real interest within a 4 × 5 format, or a square image of great power within a 35mm format. In either case, there is no reason to include the whole image when a portion of it is considerably stronger. There is no reason to be a slave to any particular camera format. God did not create the world in 35mm format, or 2 ¼ format, or 4 × 5 format! Sometimes after composing full frame, I may discover later that a far stronger image lies within a particular portion of the frame. In such cases, I crop. No problem. It’s legal. Some photographers always feel compelled to present full frame images. If you can compose full frame as powerfully and as often as Cartier-Bresson did, then do it! But I don’t advise it. Suppose, for example, that you find a camera position that creates a magical relationship between a foreground and a background object, but it includes some major or minor distraction (or even useless, excess information) along one edge. If you print full frame, you get the great relationship, but you’re stuck with the junk on the edge. If you move the camera just a bit, you may be able to eliminate the junk, but the primary relationship isn’t as compelling. What do you do? I advise you to shoot from the best position and crop rather than compromise by either including the distraction or losing the compelling relationship. Remember Edward Weston’s statement, “Good composition is the strongest way of seeing.” An insistence on shooting full frame images may compromise that strength.



PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The photo you submitted would gain NOTHING if a wide-angle lens had been used.


It would gain 17 degrees of FOV if you would use a 50mm full frame equivalent lens for Canon aps-c (almost 31mm) I would not call that nothing.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D1N0 wrote:
Quote:
The photo you submitted would gain NOTHING if a wide-angle lens had been used.


It would gain 17 degrees of FOV if you would use a 50mm full frame equivalent lens for Canon aps-c (almost 31mm) I would not call that nothing.


I was referring to the artistic quality of the photo. If FOV were the most important thing for a good photo, telephoto lenses would be doomed.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Quote:
The photo you submitted would gain NOTHING if a wide-angle lens had been used.


It would gain 17 degrees of FOV if you would use a 50mm full frame equivalent lens for Canon aps-c (almost 31mm) I would not call that nothing.


I was referring to the artistic quality of the photo. If FOV were the most important thing for a good photo, telephoto lenses would be doomed.


This is a lens forum, not a photographic criticism forum. For landscape a portrait FOV is rather limiting, as it is for architecture.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So why so many discussions here about bokeh, "character" of a lens, "artistic" rendering of a lens, etc. Come on!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
See what Barnbaum says about the importance of focal length in photographic composition:
wrote:

Focal Length of Lens and Cropping

Camera position must be considered in conjunction with the focal length of the lens used to expose the photograph. Together, the two determine the perspective of the image. Long focal length lenses (telephoto or similar lenses) tend to compress space, crowding objects together that may be separated in reality. Short focal length lenses (wide-angle lenses) tend to exaggerate space, separating objects that may be close together in reality. Clever use of these effects can produce exciting images that most people may never see in reality. The choice of lens, along with the type of lighting that either exists naturally or that you create artificially can dramatically alter the spatial characteristics of a scene.

If all lenses were infinitely sharp and films were grainless, or if there were an infinite number of pixels on camera sensors, we could easily get by with one wide-angle lens and just crop to the image we really want! That would give us plenty of time to comfortably determine how to approach every image. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury, so we must burden ourselves with heavy equipment and make decisions on the spot. A key question is this: what should be included in the image, and what should be excluded? Once your decision is made, use the lens that includes what you want, and little, if any, excess.

What about the excess? My approach is to always try to compose full frame, but also to recognize that that doesn’t always work. If I feel an image can be improved by cropping (i.e., removing) any portion of it, I don’t hesitate. Sometimes the best image lies between focal lengths of lenses that I am carrying; in that case I use the shorter lens, which includes all of the pertinent imagery plus some excess, then remove the excess. My next longer lens might eliminate an important element of the image.

Sometimes my camera format is wrong for the image: I may find a long, narrow image of real interest within a 4 × 5 format, or a square image of great power within a 35mm format. In either case, there is no reason to include the whole image when a portion of it is considerably stronger. There is no reason to be a slave to any particular camera format. God did not create the world in 35mm format, or 2 ¼ format, or 4 × 5 format! Sometimes after composing full frame, I may discover later that a far stronger image lies within a particular portion of the frame. In such cases, I crop. No problem. It’s legal. Some photographers always feel compelled to present full frame images. If you can compose full frame as powerfully and as often as Cartier-Bresson did, then do it! But I don’t advise it. Suppose, for example, that you find a camera position that creates a magical relationship between a foreground and a background object, but it includes some major or minor distraction (or even useless, excess information) along one edge. If you print full frame, you get the great relationship, but you’re stuck with the junk on the edge. If you move the camera just a bit, you may be able to eliminate the junk, but the primary relationship isn’t as compelling. What do you do? I advise you to shoot from the best position and crop rather than compromise by either including the distraction or losing the compelling relationship. Remember Edward Weston’s statement, “Good composition is the strongest way of seeing.” An insistence on shooting full frame images may compromise that strength.



I'm not familiar with Barnbaum, and I know the section quoted above may have been lifted out of context, but it strikes me as quite a bit of waffle yet simultaneously misleading due to its incompleteness!

The last three paragraphs are an overelaborate monologue that says nothing more than the plain b****y obvious: it is perfectly OK to crop afterwards in PP in order to improve the composition Rolling Eyes

The first paragraph is plain wrong or incomplete and misleading at best; whether a telephoto lens compresses space or a wide-angle exaggerates space (in appearance) depends entirely on whether the angle of view at which the final photograph/print is observed corresponds to the angle of view of the scene through the lens when it was taken. When the resulting image is viewed from a distance that renders the image FOV identical to the FOV of the original scene, there is no compression/exaggeration of space regardless of the lens used.

(fisheye lenses are subject to different considerations, which is why when used judiciously a fisheye lens sometimes can be made to render a scene more natural-looking at "normal" print viewing distances compared to rectilinear extreme wide-angle lenses).


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
So why so many discussions here about bokeh, "character" of a lens, "artistic" rendering of a lens, etc. Come on!



Because those are traits of the lens, not the photographer. When someone ask advice about lenses we do not say "learn to shoot decent pictures first"


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wides are best for landscapes, though any lens will do it. Often when I had only an APSC camera I would take two or three shots side by side with some overlap and stitch them together as a panorama later.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@cooltouch
Have the 18-55 kitzoom.
The vivitar 35 mm i own is indeed a bjt softer than the kitzoom , but if i sharpen it a bit in post process i get similar results to the kit zoom with less CA's. However the 35 mm has a little bit weak edges on apsc even stepped down.

@jamaelous with 35mm i can merge images well together. Sadly had only the 50mm this time with me.

@Oldhand you are right. Beed to clean the sensor. Damn you found that out...

@Rokkor Doktor Currently im on apsc but it would be nice to use the lenses on a larger sensor too.

@Gerald
The art if fotography by barnbaum. Sound like an interesting book. You have found out that my example lacks a central motive and seeing your page i can agree why. Damn you are right. Have shot another picture that fulfills a bit more these requirements.

@D1N0
Learning to shoot decend pictures is something that takes up a life time. But ill try my best.

@philslizzy
How many mm would you recommend for stitiching? Less than 20 and more than 35 get problems if i use my kitzoom.
Current lenses im thinking about:

Pentax 28 non m
yashinon ds-m 24 mm (hard to find for an reasonable budget)

11-16mm Tokina


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously which lens is good for a landscape depends on the landscape being photographed. In some instances a telephoto WILL be perfect. It will give better detail of the portion of the photo being chosen while excising unwanted detritus in the photographers actual field of view. Other times you really should have that 17mm with a 104 degree filed of view to get all the great elements of the composition. APS-C have an advantage at the long lengths when using a vintage MF lens as they are the equivalent of already being cropped. But a disadvantage in wide lenses of the same era. One group of lenses you might consider is the Olympus Pen lenses. They are designed for 1/2 frame and are optically excellent.

Additionally I think Gerald might benefit from a class in forum decorum. While his point is valid his approach was downright rude. I think answering the ACTUAL question first then gently suggest ways to improve the composition of the photograph might be an approach less likely to poison the newbies attitude toward our forum. One of the reasons I joined was because when I first started down this path I was encouraged by the forum members (Attiila, pdccameras, beardsarebest, Thomas Bernardy, etc) rather than excoriated for my lack of knowledge.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Do i need a wide angle for landscape photos? Reply with quote

[quote="Gerald"]See what Barnbaum says about the importance of focal length in photographic composition:
wrote:

Focal Length of Lens and Cropping

Camera position must be considered in conjunction with the focal length of the lens used to expose the photograph. Together, the two determine the perspective of the image. Long focal length lenses (telephoto or similar lenses) tend to compress space, crowding objects together that may be separated in reality. Short focal length lenses (wide-angle lenses) tend to exaggerate space, separating objects that may be close together in reality. Clever use of these effects can produce exciting images that most people may never see in reality. The choice of lens, along with the type of lighting that either exists naturally or that you create artificially can dramatically alter the spatial characteristics of a scene.

If all lenses were infinitely sharp and films were grainless, or if there were an infinite number of pixels on camera sensors, we could easily get by with one wide-angle lens and just crop to the image we really want! That would give us plenty of time to comfortably determine how to approach every image. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury, so we must burden ourselves with heavy equipment and make decisions on the spot. A key question is this: what should be included in the image, and what should be excluded? Once your decision is made, use the lens that includes what you want, and little, if any, excess.

What about the excess? My approach is to always try to compose full frame, but also to recognize that that doesn’t always work. If I feel an image can be improved by cropping (i.e., removing) any portion of it, I don’t hesitate. Sometimes the best image lies between focal lengths of lenses that I am carrying; in that case I use the shorter lens, which includes all of the pertinent imagery plus some excess, then remove the excess. My next longer lens might eliminate an important element of the image.

Sometimes my camera format is wrong for the image: I may find a long, narrow image of real interest within a 4 × 5 format, or a square image of great power within a 35mm format. In either case, there is no reason to include the whole image when a portion of it is considerably stronger. There is no reason to be a slave to any particular camera format. God did not create the world in 35mm format, or 2 ¼ format, or 4 × 5 format! Sometimes after composing full frame, I may discover later that a far stronger image lies within a particular portion of the frame. In such cases, I crop. No problem. It’s legal. Some photographers always feel compelled to present full frame images. If you can compose full frame as powerfully and as often as Cartier-Bresson did, then do it! But I don’t advise it. Suppose, for example, that you find a camera position that creates a magical relationship between a foreground and a background object, but it includes some major or minor distraction (or even useless, excess information) along one edge. If you print full frame, you get the great relationship, but you’re stuck with the junk on the edge. If you move the camera just a bit, you may be able to eliminate the junk, but the primary relationship isn’t as compelling. What do you do? I advise you to shoot from the best position and crop rather than compromise by either including the distraction or losing the compelling relationship. Remember Edward Weston’s statement, “Good composition is the strongest way of seeing.” An insistence on shooting full frame images may compromise that strength.





RokkorDoctor wrote:

I'm not familiar with Barnbaum...

Bruce Barnbaum is a respected American photographer and photography teacher with over 50 years of experience. He has written numerous books and the English version of The Art of Photography has sold over 100,000 copies.



RokkorDoctor wrote:

The last three paragraphs are an overelaborate monologue that says nothing more than the plain b****

Besides the 100,000 copies sold, The Art of Photography has been translated to French, Spanish and Chinese, which says something about the quality of the book, I believe.
On Amazon.com there are almost 900 reviews, most of which are largely favorable to the book (4.6 stars out of 5).
Let each one draw their conclusion.





RokkorDoctor wrote:

The first paragraph is plain wrong or incomplete and misleading at best; whether a telephoto lens compresses space or a wide-angle exaggerates space (in appearance) depends entirely on whether the angle of view at which the final photograph/print is observed corresponds to the angle of view of the scene through the lens when it was taken. When the resulting image is viewed from a distance that renders the image FOV identical to the FOV of the original scene, there is no compression/exaggeration of space regardless of the lens used.

I will not open a discussion on this subject. There are tons of articles discussing perspective compression by a telephoto lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bluedxca93 wrote:

@Gerald
The art if fotography by barnbaum. Sound like an interesting book. You have found out that my example lacks a central motive and seeing your page i can agree why. Damn you are right. Have shot another picture that fulfills a bit more these requirements.

Like 1 small


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignore Gerald, he's a very unplesanat know-it-all troll who almost certainly doesn't have a clue about how to take a good photogrpah, as evidenced by his constant lies about 'posting pictures all the time' when in reality, he posts pictures at a rate of about one a decade. Therefore we have zero proof he can even use a camera, so he is in no position to lecture others.

You can learn a lot on this forum, but you will do well not to listen to Gerald, he will teach you nothing of value while being incredibly arrogant, obnoxious and condescending.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 11-16mm Tokina will pair well with your 18-55.