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

Ultrawide with minimal distortion?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 6:47 pm    Post subject: Ultrawide with minimal distortion? Reply with quote
Im looking to pickup a cheap MF ultrawide for shooting large group shots (such as at a wedding). It doesnt need to be particularly fast as Ill almost always probably use it with flash, but I do want it to have minimal distortion so the people on the ends dont look fat/skinny. I have a 35 currently and Im going to sell my 28/2.0, so Im looking for a prime in the 18-24 sort of area (I shoot on a D3s)

Any recommendations? Emphasis on CHEAP


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have read nice things about the Leica R Super Angulon 21mm f/4 (with Leitax/Nikon mount) but I don't know if it can be call a cheap lens Rolling Eyes ......


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
well, iam very happy with soviet lens mir 20/3.5, but on film. lens will be probably much worse od digital sensors, but a have no chance to check it on fullframe dslr. if its distortion is small/hi/whatever, i dont know, i dont ever have a chance to comapre it to other ultra wide angle lens. iam happy with it, costs me only approx 120USD (which is leve, where leica have maybe some catalogs or neckstraps Smile)


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Flash and UW lenses don't make good bed mates unless the flash is well of camera and properly diffused.
The distortion you refer to is due to perspective. The closer to the lens the larger objects will appear....further objects of course will appear smaller.
There is little way around this other than moving a bit further back which is not always possible and usually the reason for a UW for these shots in the first place.

A lens with low barrel or wave distortion will not improve perspective distortion effects.

Nikon has some nice 20mm somethings from what I have heard. I'm not a Nikkor guys so much so maybe others will have better advise as to which lens.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Flektogon 4/20, usually buyable with around 200-250 Eur.
This is about as distortion-less as a retrofocal lens goes.
If you want really zero distortion, then you need to use rangefinder system and specifically BIOGON lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultra wide and cheap aren't compatible...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ive heard many good things about some of those AI-s

Whats CHEAP for a D3s?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lets just say the D3s was a graduation present, so "cheap" is under....400 USD? Thats max really.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you don't mind manual focus, Nikon has lots of good glass in 20mm range. Rockwell just did a series of reviews of them. I've owned a 20mm f4 and currently own a Nikkor-UD 20mm f3.5. It's a fairly big lens but can be had for $200-$250 (sometimes less). I've seen the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 for as little as $50, which is just silly -- that was a must-have when I was in J-school!

Here's the 20mm f3.5 on an F2 (sorry about the cheap scan).



PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You know I was looking at the nikkor 20's but everyone else told me they werent up to par...and I should go with one of the 18's. Those are reaaal expensive though


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Flektogon 4/20, usually buyable with around 200-250 Eur.
This is about as distortion-less as a retrofocal lens goes.
If you want really zero distortion, then you need to use rangefinder system and specifically BIOGON lenses.


You forgot to mention that 15mm Distagon of yours.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
You know I was looking at the nikkor 20's but everyone else told me they werent up to par...and I should go with one of the 18's. Those are reaaal expensive though


I don't have any experience with the 18s, but I decided to put together a collection of 20mm shots in flickr, if you want to look further. Of course, for a good cheap lens, it's hard to beat the little plastic Nikkor 18-55!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaeger2/sets/72157625098234228/


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
You know I was looking at the nikkor 20's but everyone else told me they werent up to par...and I should go with one of the 18's. Those are reaaal expensive though


The Nikkor 18's aren't great. The 20/4 is a noteable optic but reviewers speak of having to test several samples to find a pearl. Its peak performace is f/8-11 if that works for you. You're shooting a very fine camera so going cheap on glass negates the benefits of an extraordinary sensor like the D3s has.

Rent a ZF.2 2,8/21 when you need it for a special event like a wedding.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
gaeger wrote:
Of course, for a good cheap lens, it's hard to beat the little plastic Nikkor 18-55!

Normally I would agree, but the 18-55 isn't going to cover the full frame on the D3s... at least not at the wide end. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:

You forgot to mention that 15mm Distagon of yours.


That is a great lens Sorin, but not the best pick for minimal distortion. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:
gaeger wrote:
Of course, for a good cheap lens, it's hard to beat the little plastic Nikkor 18-55!

Normally I would agree, but the 18-55 isn't going to cover the full frame on the D3s... at least not at the wide end. Wink


That's true. It vignettes until about 23mm, which would put it within the 18-24 range that OP had mentioned.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Flektogon 4/20, usually buyable with around 200-250 Eur.
This is about as distortion-less as a retrofocal lens goes.
If you want really zero distortion, then you need to use rangefinder system and specifically BIOGON lenses.


+1 for Flektogon 4/20 (zebra). I paid 200EUR for my mint version from ebay.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:36 am    Post subject: Re: Ultrawide with minimal distortion? Reply with quote
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
but I do want it to have minimal distortion so the people on the ends dont look fat/skinny.


This is volume anamorphosis, which you will get with every/any rectilinear wideangle lens, and the wider you go the stronger it gets. There is software which can correct this, but it has the downside that it makes straight lines curved (which can be unacceptable in some cases).

Example images and also methods of correcting this in Photoshop (2nd link):
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UG0G?start=0 (be sure to look at all 4 pages)


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:55 am    Post subject: Re: Ultrawide with minimal distortion? Reply with quote
Cheap wide to use for group portraits where you place people towards edges and corners? I am not really sure why anyone would want to do that, not to mention make your Nikon D3S blind with a cheap wide.

kawasakiguy37 wrote:
but I do want it to have minimal distortion so the people on the ends dont look fat/skinny.


The perspective distortion is always there due to the focal length, making people disproportional especially towards the edges.

If minimal geometric distortion is what you are looking for, maybe you should read the replies to this topic of yours, where you ask the same thing:
http://forum.mflenses.com/wideangle-with-minimal-distortion-f-mount-t30979.html


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:04 am    Post subject: Re: Ultrawide with minimal distortion? Reply with quote
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
but I do want it to have minimal distortion so the people on the ends dont look skinny.


there is a cheap solution for that Wink just put women on the ends Wink they would praise you as a miracle maker


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:11 am    Post subject: Re: Ultrawide with minimal distortion? Reply with quote
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
It doesnt need to be particularly fast as Ill almost always probably use it with flash, but I do want it to have minimal distortion so the people on the ends dont look fat/skinny.


It is not easy to illuminate ultra-wide pictures with flash unless you bring a portable studio kit on stands...

And you seem to be unaware of the geometry behind the distortion on wide-angle lenses - wide angles attempt to be as rectilinear/orthogonal as possible, as that is the projection lenses we generally define and perceive as distortion free, since it renders all straight lines straight. However that implies that the area of peripheral objects is enlarged, compared to human vision, so that people at the edges will look fat.

If you don't want that, you would have to use a fisheye, but that will bend all tangential straight lines into curves. While that preserves the girth of your peripheral subjects, it will bend their spines - usually a even less desirable effect. You can have it either way, but you can't have both at once. That is, if you must shoot large crowds in a way pleasing every subject, you inevitably have to do so from a considerable distance.

Sevo


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I forget the exact rule-of-thumb, but it is something like this: With a 50mm lens, take two (three?) steps back and you have the FOV of a 35mm lens. Another 2 (3?) steps back and you're at 28mm. Back again, it's 24mm. Back again, it's 21mm. Et cetera. In other words, zoom with your feet.

As was mentioned above, you get geometrical distortion with any wide lens, and perspective distortion if you shoot too close. On a FF camera, most 24's give noticeable geometrical distortion. I often use a 21 on FF film cameras but I *expect* the edge distortion. As was also mentioned, a standard flash won't fully illuminate the sides of a wide shot. You probably should have kept that 28/2.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
20s work great for architectural, landscapes, odd perspectives, etc., not so much for people. I've had decent results with my 25-50/4, as long as I don't get too close.

Cheap? A few years ago I paid $60 for my mint condition 20mm UD. I just saw one go on ebay for over $300. I guess the collectors finally noticed the UD. Too bad. They ruin everything.

If you really want a 20 as cheap as possible (and use a Nikon lens), I'd go with a 20/4 Ai or a 20/3.5 Ai-S. They're half the size and weight of a UD and a fraction of the cost of a 20/2.8. They also work great.

I've also read the Nikkor 20s aren't 'up to par'. Maybe; maybe not. This shot was taken with a 20/3.5 Ai-S. This subject looks better in B&W (since there's really no color, B&W helps bring out the textures), but I posted this version because it hasn't been as processed. Also, reduced to 1024px max dimension, it loses a bit of detail.

This is a 100% crop from the same photo. Maybe the Nikkor isn't the "best" 20mm in the world, but it's quite serviceable. [/img]


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see several UD's here now! http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Nikon-Manual-Focus&category=Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses&k=EmptyKey&s=1&bcode=NK&ccode=6&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e


PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow! They've got a bunch of Nikon 20s, including the illusive f/4. Okay, I like my UD for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it's a gorgeous example of pre-consumer, Nikon quality. However, if you are going to buy one 20mm, you probably want a different one. The UD is sharp enough, has very low geometric distortion, and can produce very nice images. However, the UD is haunted and hates bright light sources touching its front element, as you can see in this image.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2