A wide-angle lens can be a powerful tool for emphasizing depth and relative size in a photo. However, it is also one of the most complex types in mastering. This article clears up some common misunderstandings and also discusses ways to take full advantage of the unique characteristics of a wide-angle lens.
above wide angle lens 16 mm - sunset near Death Valley, California, USA
Review
A lens is usually called "wide-angle" if its focal length is less than 35 mm (for a full frame; see "Lenses: Focal Length and Aperture"). This corresponds to an angle of view that exceeds 55° on the wide side of the frame. The definition of ultra-wide angle is a bit more fuzzy, but most agree that this part starts with focal lengths on the order of 20-24mm or less. For compact cameras, wide angle often means maximum zoom opening, but ultra-wide angle is usually not available without a special adapter.
Anyway, key concept is this: the shorter the focal length, the more pronounced unique effects wide angle lens.
This diagram shows the maximum angles at which light rays
can reach the camera sensor. The intersection point of the rays is optional
equal to the focal length, but approximately proportional to it.
The viewing angle, as a result, increases in inverse proportion.
What makes wide-angle lenses unique? A common misunderstanding is that wide-angle lenses are mainly used when you can't get far enough away from your subject, but you still want to fit your subject into one frame. However, if this were the only application, it would be a big mistake. In fact, wide-angle lenses are often used for the exact opposite: to be able to get closer to the subject!
Well, let's take a closer look at what makes a wide-angle lens unique:
- It covers a wide angle of view.
- It usually has a minimum focusing distance.
Although these characteristics may seem quite basic, they mean a fair amount of possibilities. The rest of the article is devoted to how best to use these features to obtain maximum effect from wide-angle shooting.
Wide angle perspective
Obviously, a wide-angle lens is special because of its wide angle of view - but what does that really do? Wide angle of view means that relative size and distance are exaggerated when comparing near and far objects. This causes nearby objects to appear gigantic, while distant objects tend to appear small and very distant. The reason for this is the angle of view:
Even though the two reference pillars are the same distance apart, their relative sizes differ significantly in wide-angle and telephoto photographs taken so that the closest pillar fills the frame vertically. For wide angle lens distant objects make up a much smaller portion of the total viewing angle.
It is a misunderstanding to say that a wide-angle lens affects perspective - strictly speaking, it does not. Perspective is affected only by your position relative to the subject at the time of shooting. However, in practice, wide-angle lenses often force you to get much closer to your subject - which, of course, influences for the future.
Exaggerated flowers measuring 3 inches
in Cambridge, England. Used
16 mm ultra wide angle lens.
This exaggeration of relative size can be used to add emphasis and detail to foreground objects while encompassing a wide background. If you want to take full advantage of this effect, you will need to get as close as possible to the nearest object in the scene.
In the ultra-wide example on the left, the nearby flowers almost touch the front lens of the lens, greatly exaggerating their size. In reality, these flowers are less than 10 centimeters wide!
Body disproportion
caused by a wide angle lens.
However, special care should be taken when filming people. Their noses, heads and other body parts may appear to be of unnatural proportions if you get too close to them to take a photo. Proportion, in particular, is why narrower angles of view are common in traditional portrait photography.
In the example on the right, the boy's head has become abnormally large relative to his body. This can be a useful tool for adding drama or character to a straight shot, but obviously it's not how most people want to look in a portrait.
Finally, since distant objects become quite small, it is sometimes a good idea to include some foreground elements in the frame to help anchor the composition. Otherwise, a landscape shot (taken from eye level) may appear crowded or lack something to attract the eye.
Either way, don't be afraid to approach much closer! It is in this case that the wide angle is revealed in all its glory. Just take your time Special attention compositions; extremely close objects can shift greatly in the image due to the slightest camera movements. As a result, it can be quite difficult to place objects in the frame exactly the way you want them.
Vertical tilt
Whenever a wide-angle lens is pointed above or below the horizon, it causes the originally parallel vertical lines to begin to converge. In reality, this is true for any lens - even a telephoto lens - it's just that a wide angle makes this convergence more noticeable. Further, when using a wide-angle lens, even minimal change in a composition will significantly change the position of the vanishing point - resulting in a noticeable difference in how sharp lines converge.
IN in this case The vanishing point is the direction in which the camera is pointed. Hover over the caption of the following illustration to see a simulation of what happens when you point your camera above or below the horizon:
IN in this example the vanishing point has not moved too much relative to overall size photo - but it had a huge impact on the building. As a result, the buildings seem to fall toward or away from the viewer.
Although toe vertical lines in architectural photography they usually try to avoid it, sometimes it can be used as an artistic effect:
left: Wide-angle shot of trees on Vancouver Island, Canada.
right: King's College Chapel, Cambridge, England.
In the trees example, a wide-angle lens was used to photograph the mast trees in a way that makes it appear as if they are closing in on the viewer. The reason for this is that they appear to be encircling on all sides and converging in the center of the image - despite the fact that in reality they are all standing parallel.
Likewise, the architectural shot was taken close to the doors to exaggerate apparent height chapels. On the other hand, this also creates the undesirable impression that the building is about to collapse back.
Ways to reduce vertical toe There are not many: either point the camera closer to the horizon (1), even if this means that in addition to the subject, a large area of \u200b\u200bthe surface will be photographed (which you will crop later), or move significantly away from the subject (2) and use a lens with a long focal length ( which is not always possible), either use Photoshop or other programs and stretch the top of the image (3) so that the vertical converges less, or use a tilt/shift lens to control perspective (4).
Unfortunately, each of these methods has its drawbacks, be it loss of resolution in the first or third cases, inconvenience or loss of perspective (2) or cost, technical knowledge and some loss in image quality (3).
Interiors and confined spaces
A wide-angle lens can be absolutely necessary in confined spaces, simply because it is impossible to get far enough away from the subject to fit it entirely into the frame (using a normal lens). A typical example is shooting the interiors of rooms or other premises. This type of shooting is also probably the easiest way to get the most out of a wide-angle lens - particularly because it forces you to get close to the subject.
left: 16mm focal length - Antelope Canyon, Arizona, USA.
right: spiral staircase in the New Court, St. John's, Cambridge, England
In both examples, you can move just a few steps in either direction - and the pictures don't show the slightest constraint.
Polarizing filters
National Park
Coral Reef, Utah, USA.
Using a polarizing filter with a wide-angle lens is almost always undesirable. Key Feature polarizer is the dependence of its influence on the angle relative to the sun. If you point the camera at right angles to sunlight, its effect will be maximum; Likewise, pointing your camera directly at or against the sun will virtually eliminate its influence.
For a wide-angle lens, one edge of the frame may be almost aligned with the sun, and the other almost perpendicular to it. This means that a change in the influence of the polarizer will be reflected in the frame, which is usually undesirable.
In the example on the left blue sky undergoes clearly visible changes in saturation and brightness from left to right.
Light control and wide angle
Example of using a filter -
lighthouse at Cape Nora, Sardinia.
A typical obstacle to using wide-angle lenses is the strong variation in light intensity in the image. When using normal exposure, uneven lighting causes part of the image to be overexposed and another part to be underexposed - even though our eyes would adapt to the change in brightness when looking in different directions. As a result, you have to take additional care in determining the required exposure.
For example, in landscape photography, foliage in the foreground is often significantly less intensely lit than the sky or mountain in the distance. This results in an overexposed sky and/or an underexposed ground. Most photographers use so-called graduated neutral density (GND) filters to combat this uneven lighting.
In addition, a wide-angle lens is much more susceptible to flare, in part because the sun has a much greater chance of entering the frame. In addition, it can be difficult to shield the lens from side rays using a hood, since it should not block the light that forms the frame at a wide angle.
Wide-angle lenses and depth of field
Note that nothing was said about a wide-angle lens having a greater depth of field. Unfortunately, this is another common misconception. If you magnify your subject by the same amount (i.e., fill the frame the same proportion), a wide-angle lens will provide the same* depth of field as a telephoto lens.
The reason that wide-angle lenses have a reputation for increasing depth of field is not due to any features of the lens itself. The reason is the most common way their applications. People rarely get close enough to their subjects to fill the frame as much as they do when using lenses with a narrower angle of view.
I often hear that the criterion for choosing a camera is the presence of a wide-angle lens. The larger the coverage angle, the better. And then, they tell me, I wandered through the narrow streets, and there was such luxurious architecture, but I couldn’t take pictures of anything. In general, the classic situation: I want the Tsar Cannon. And they need to shoe the flea so that it doesn’t slide on the ice, but they forget that the flea has stopped moving its paws - the horseshoes are heavy. The situation with ultra-wide-angle lenses is very similar, although this is certainly a very interesting thing. But a large angle often leads to results that are not at all what is subconsciously expected from it. We wanted to capture everything at once, but in the photograph there is a building that is difficult to recognize. The problem is further aggravated by the fact that when we go beyond the limits of natural perception, the usual rectilinear projection ceases to be natural.
First, let's repeat some basic truths. The image obtained with a conventional lens is equivalent to the image obtained with a pinhole camera, the hole of which is at the focal length of the plate. The human eye covers a fixed pupil of approximately 40 degrees, which corresponds to the focal length of a 50 mm lens working with a 24x36 mm frame. There are no problems with longer focal length lenses, either with image construction or with perception. In the end, the situation is quite natural: binoculars, a spyglass, a keyhole, after all. With wider angle lenses it's not so obvious. You can quickly rotate your eyes, you can look into a crooked mirror, but in the case of a rectilinear projection, the outer rays will practically slide across the photographic plate, and the image will be greatly distorted, although the lines will remain straight. I am not dwelling here on the features of digital photography, when it is very difficult for the matrix to register sliding rays. This problem has long been solved in the design of the so-called, and although the image in them corresponds to a hole located very close to the plate, in reality the rays leaving the lens are no longer parallel to those entering, and do not fall on the matrix at such a acute angle. The problem of catastrophic quality deterioration at the edges of the frame when working with ultra-wide-angle lenses is associated not so much with the imperfection of the lens design, but with the very formulation of the problem: we strive to register sliding rays. It seems to me that the desire to make ultra-wide-angle lenses that work in normal (rectilinear, and in some articles it is called rectangular) projection is associated with the desire to maintain the usual projection in unusual conditions. An alternative is Fisheye lenses, which give a completely different projection, but with computer processing, one projection can be easily converted into another, and the need to immediately obtain the desired image ceases to be the decisive argument when choosing a digital camera lens. Those. When digitally processed, Fisheye lenses can be successfully used instead of ultra-wide-angle lenses that construct images in a rectilinear projection. Let's compare two lenses with close focal lengths, but different principles of image construction. The focal length of the Mir 47 lens and the Zenitar lens differs by only 4 mm. Externally and optical designs seem similar, but the results are strikingly different.
Please note that although the filters for both lenses are placed after the rear lens, for Zenitar it is placed instead of a plane-parallel plate. Since the thickness of the plate and filter are the same, there is no change in the trajectory of the rays. Without a filter or plate, this lens will not be able to focus to infinity. For the Mir-47 lens, filters are installed as follows: additional element, their thickness is small enough not to make significant changes in focusing.
Zenithar is a “Fish Eye”, and it builds an image in accordance with the principle: an equal angle corresponds to an equal segment of the image in the focal plane. As a result, the edges of the frame appear to be drawn in more detail. With Fisheye lenses, the problem of quality deterioration at the edges of the frame is really due to the complexity of the design and the difficulty of creating an ideal optical design.
In the Canon catalog, the widest-angle “normal” lens has a focal length of 14 mm and a viewing angle along the long side of the frame of 104°. If we look at the MTF given in the Canon TF Lens Work II book for the EF 14 mm f/2.8L USM lens, we will see that not only at a distance of 20 mm from the center the contrast fine lines drops almost to zero, and even aperture cannot help, but the contrast change curve also has several local minima in the interval between the center and the edge of the frame. The next lens in the Canon catalog has a focal length of 20 mm and an aperture ratio of 1: 2.8. Its MTF also resembles the dancing of drunken caterpillars and does not inspire optimism about the quality at the edges. According to formal characteristics, our hero, Mir-47, has exactly the same characteristics: focal length 20 mm, angle of view 94° diagonally, 84° horizontally and 62° vertically, the relative aperture is even slightly better, 1: 2.5. All that is known about the pedigree is that a small batch was produced by the Krasnogorsk plant in 1982. According to the Krasnogorsk plant website, the calculation was made by GOI. And the LOMO lens was produced, and then its production was transferred to the Vologda Optical-Mechanical Plant (), whose products I am testing today. The design of the Vologda lens differs from the Krasnogorsk one.
For your lens, indicate the resolution according to the center/edge specifications: 60:17 lines/mm. Unfortunately, I don’t have this specification, and GOST 25502-82 involves constructing a dependence graph and, given the rapid deterioration of resolution towards the edge of the image, information like center/edge, when it is not known where this edge is, becomes little informative, since if there are 17 lines /mm at a distance of 19 mm from the center of the frame, then the lens is comparable to Canon products; and if at a distance of 21 mm, then it’s much better. Let me remind you that the diagonal of the frame is 43 mm, i.e. the very, very corner is at a distance of 21.5 mm from the center of the frame.
To finish the description of the design, I’ll dwell a little on the mechanics. For lenses with an M42 threaded connection, when you rotate the aperture selection ring, its diameter does not change, but only the limiter stop moves. The design is designed in such a way that it is not the rotation of the ring that moves the diaphragm blades, but the rod, which the device presses at the moment the shutter is released to close the diaphragm to the working position. When using the EOS-M42 adapter ring, the rod is pressed all the time and the diaphragm is always closed to the operating position. In this case, when the aperture ring is rotated, its blades often stick, and the hole loses correct form and aperture values are not always set the same. Since automatic aperture closing is not used when used with digital cameras, I removed the pusher mechanism in my copy and installed a more powerful spring. As a result, when the aperture setting ring is rotated, the diameter of the hole begins to change more predictably :-)
To illustrate the capabilities of wide-angle optics, Sergey Shcherbakov and I took a Canon 5D with a full-size 24x36mm sensor and a Canon 350D with a 14.8x22.2mm sensor and our collection of wide-angle lenses. A building was removed from one point. After this, the resulting images were compared. Since the lenses used produced images in different projections and distorted the perspective in different ways, in this case, “for the purity of the experiment,” we decided to compare photographs only in a rectilinear projection, with the maximum possible computer correction of distortions. As a rule, we used programs based on the package, which was developed in 1998 by a physics professor (Helmut Dersch).
Canon 5D
Here's what the Canon 5D camera sees from the point of view through the fisheye lens.
And such a coverage angle can be drawn from this lens in a rectilinear projection
Original photo.
The miniature scale is 13% of the original.
Let's use the Lens Correction plugin from Adobe programs Photoshop
And after correcting perspective distortions and distortion, we get:
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
There are many ways to transform an image captured by a fisheye lens.
For example, use the plugin.
You can correct both the projection and perspective distortions at the same time, however, the range of vertical perspective correction is slightly insufficient to obtain vertical lines of walls.
You can, as in the above example of correcting a photograph taken by Mir-47, use Lens Correction:
However, in this case it is not possible to correct the barrel distortion in one step. And, as in the previous case, there is a need to apply the plugin again to the already converted image.
More promising, in my opinion, is the use of the Remap plugin for conversion to a rectilinear (Normal) projection:
HFOV - horizontal viewing angle
As a result, we get the following snapshot:
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
Now we correct the vertical perspective using Lens Correction or PTPerspective
and as a result we get:
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
Naturally, you have to pay for everything, and if you convert the image obtained with a fisheye lens into a rectilinear projection, the use of sensor area is not as efficient as when shooting with a regular lens.
But what does the lens give? Sigma 24-70 at a focal length of 24 mm.
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
Canon 350D
Now let's see if we can get similar viewing angles on the smaller sensor of the Canon 350D camera. Naturally, there are no circular Fisheye lenses for it, but we are now considering only normal projections, and if you wish, you can get an image of the type given by 8 mm Bearing on a 24x36 matrix on a smaller matrix, using an attachment to a longer focal length lens.
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
Maximum coverage in rectilinear projection can be obtained using the PTLens plugin, however, the quality of the edges will be unsatisfactory
Since I do not propose to compare this option with others, the size of the thumbnail is 19% of the image after conversion.
You can moderate your ardor and not try to get maximum coverage in this plugin or use the Remap and Lens Correction plugins.
The thumbnail corresponds to 13% of the image obtained after conversion.
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
The thumbnail corresponds to 13% of the image obtained after conversion by the PTLens and Lens Correction plugins.
Using this photo as an example, I will show that Adobe Photoshop is not the only add-in that allows you to work with the PanoTools program. You can use the graphical interface for the panorama creation tools "". To optimize, load a single frame into it and select control points, lying on horizontal and vertical lines. For example, in the left picture we select the upper section of the drainpipe, and in the right picture we select the lower section of the same pipe, and note that these points lie on the same vertical line.
We start the optimization and save the resulting result in a rectilinear projection:
The thumbnail corresponds to 13% of the image obtained after conversion using the Hugin program.
F=18 mm.
The thumbnail is 13% of the original size.
After perspective correction using the Lens Correction plugin.
After perspective correction using the Lens Correction plugin:
Since this particular lens is the main character of this article, let’s use this image as an example to see how effectively chromatic aberrations can be eliminated with software. I prefer to eliminate them at the conversion stage RAW files. This is what you get if you use Adobe Camera RAW:
During layout, the image is doubled in size.
As can be seen from the above photographs, the small matrix itself does not interfere with obtaining images with the same viewing angles as the large one. Obviously, centered images do not depend on the sensor size, but only on the lens resolution and pixel size. At the edges the situation is much less clear, since with a large matrix, the edge/center difference is more significant. Let's compare the quality of display of the same objects located in the center and on the periphery of the frame when shooting with different lenses and cameras. If shooting is carried out with one lens and different cameras, then it is obvious that the objects are at the same distance from the center, i.e. for 5D this is by no means the very edge. For ease of comparison, smaller images have been enlarged so that the scale of objects is the same everywhere. Naturally, zooming in doesn't improve quality, but sometimes a smaller photo taken with zoom will produce a sharper image than a larger one taken with a soft lens. However, if you need to choose a lens for shooting from a fixed point for subsequent printing of a large format photograph, then such an approach has a right to exist, since it is difficult to predict what a small and sharp image will turn into when enlarged.
Subjective impressions of the resulting table.
Approximately equal angle gives a Sigma 24 mm lens on a large sensor and Zenithar on a small one. Zenitar is a sharp lens with very good resolution. The Canon 350D's fine pixels allow it to better realize its potential. If we need a coverage angle of 50 degrees, then I would arrange the photos in the following order: Mir-47 with a 5D camera, Zenitar with a 350D, Canon 18-55 (F=18 mm) with 350D, Sigma 24-70 (F=24 mm ) with 5D, Zenithar with 5D. In a pair of Zenithar with 350D and Canon 18-55 (F=18 mm) with 350D, I gave the advantage to Zenitar due to better quality in the center and a larger viewing angle, all other things being equal. Once again, I note that everything is very subjective, since these are not worlds, and changing cloud cover greatly influenced the contrast individual parts Images. In a pair of Canon 18-55 (F=18 mm) with 350D and Sigma 24-70 (F=24 mm) with 5D, the latter lost due to the larger frame area; towards the edge its performance deterioration turned out to be more significant. In these shots, the window is actually at the very edge of the frame, and Sigma's slightly larger viewing angle did not allow it to win the competition for shooting a specific building :-) In any case, when shooting with a wide-angle lens, you will have to put up with uneven quality across the field of the image. Unfortunately, when shooting landscapes, the plot-important part often takes up the entire area of the frame. In light of the above, if you look at the picture taken with the Mir-47 lens and the 5D camera from a slightly different angle, when the window is at the very edge of the picture, then in my opinion the results are better than expected :-)
Mir-47 - the very edge of the frame
In conclusion, a few pictures that demonstrate efficient use the enormous depth of field provided by the Mir 47 lens.
The wide-angle lens is one of the most popular tools for landscape photographers. However, using it correctly is not so easy. The field of view of wide-angle lenses is so different from what is familiar to the human eye that an inexperienced photographer can easily make annoying mistakes when shooting with such a lens. On the other hand, using a wide-angle lens correctly can help you achieve a stunning photo. So how do you take photos with a wide-angle lens? This article contains all the key points you need to know to successfully shoot with a wide-angle lens.
If you pick up a wide-angle lens for the first time, you will immediately notice that it noticeably exaggerates linear perspective.
We are accustomed to the fact that the closer we get to an object, the larger its image in the photograph, to the point that only a certain part of the photographed object will fit in the photograph. The angle of view of wide-angle lenses is so wide that it allows you to be incredibly close to your subject and still fit it completely into the frame.
Of course, the actual perspective of photos doesn't really depend on the lens used, but on the distance between the photographer and the subject being photographed. However, wide-angle lenses change perspective more than other lenses, allowing you to capture subjects from closer than normal distances.
But remember that exaggerating perspective is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allows you to get a wide and detailed image of the foreground. On the other hand, everything that is further than the foreground is incredibly compressed. For example, if you shoot mountains with a wide-angle lens, you will end up with large, detailed images of the objects in the foreground, while the mountains themselves will look tiny and completely devoid of grandeur.
It is this feature that is main problem problem faced by photographers who use a wide-angle lens for landscape photography. Therefore, before taking a photograph of a landscape, evaluate the scene you are shooting - if there are large objects in the frame in the background, the scale of which you would like to convey, then a wide-angle lens will not best choice for these purposes.
For clarity, compare the two photographs below. The first was taken with a 20mm lens. As you can see, mountain range in the background it looks nondescript and somehow small:
Photo at 20 mm. NIKON D800E + 20mm f/1.8 @ 20mm, ISO 100, 3/1, f/16.0 © Spencer Cox
The second photo was taken with a 70mm lens. Evaluate how the same mountains look on it. As they say, no comments:
Photo at 70 mm. NIKON D800E + 70-200mm f/4 @ 70mm, ISO 100, 1/25, f/11.0 © Spencer Cox
This brings us to another key point to remember when shooting with a wide-angle lens: always pay attention to the foreground. If objects in the foreground are larger and more detailed, then, naturally, they should be interesting and attract the viewer's eye.
Take another look at the foreground of the first photo above. He's downright boring. All we see are ordinary grass bushes and pieces rocks, which are certainly not important enough to take up half the photo.
Despite these features, wide-angle lenses are ideal for many types of landscape photography. If you have a good foreground, feel free to use a wide-angle lens - it will make the viewer feel as if they can step into the photo. Achieving a similar effect using telephoto lenses - more suitable for shooting distant objects - is almost impossible.
Features of shooting with a wide-angle lens: Wide view
Many photographers believe that they should not use a wide-angle lens as a means to fit all the desired subjects into the frame. But one may not agree with this opinion.
Sometimes a picture may appear before your eyes, which can only be captured with a wide-angle lens (or take several pictures with a telephoto lens and “stitch” them into a panorama in the editor). Obviously, you'll need to pay close attention to the foreground and background, but the results will be worth it. An example of such a situation is when you notice . If you want to capture this stunning scenery in the background, then optimal choice will become a wide-angle lens.
Wide viewing angles sometimes confuse photographers who start shooting landscapes with a wide-angle lens. Seeing beautiful view, they shoot it at the widest angle available on their lens. Then, when they open the resulting photos on a computer, they see large blank areas in the captured frames and try to understand what went wrong.
When shooting with a wide-angle lens, always be careful about the composition of your shot, making sure there are some interesting elements in every area of the photo. In most cases, your wide-angle lens will fill large areas of the photo with grass and sky. Agree that such images will most likely not be very effective.
Remember a simple rule: using a wide-angle lens is justified when there is a need to fit a lot of interesting objects into the frame, and each area of the image will contain something that can attract the viewer's attention. Frankly, these situations happen less often than you might think.
How to Photograph with a Wide Angle Lens: Negative Space
Another way to use a wide-angle lens is to take photographs with big amount negative space.
What is negative space? In photography, negative space is an area of an image that is unoccupied and does not attract the viewer's attention. If your photo shows a single, short tree surrounded by a snow-covered field, then there will be a lot of negative space in the image.
Wide-angle lenses do a great job of filling a photograph with negative space, but most often this happens against the photographer's wishes. If you want to capture the beauty of a distant mountain, then you probably don't want 3/4 of the frame to be filled with empty sky that few people will look at.
However, for some images, negative space is an incredibly powerful tool. It allows you to highlight your subject by surrounding it with a blank area.
Negative space gives a photograph an atmosphere of loneliness and emptiness. If you are trying to show the insignificance of your subject in the world around you, then negative space is exactly what you need.
Of course, this technique is rarely used in landscape photography. And the decision to use it depends solely on the creative intent of the photographer.
Conclusion
Wide-angle lenses are one of the most popular tools in landscape photography for a reason. Only they allow the photographer to shoot close to the subject without worrying that he will not fit into the frame. Additionally, if you're shooting a scene that has a lot of interesting and aesthetic elements, then a wide-angle lens may be the best way to capture it.
Wide-angle lenses are not easy to use. They tend to add a lot of negative space to the frame, which is not always desirable. At the same time, they reduce the area of the photo's background in relation to the rest of the photo. Because wide-angle lenses produce images that are very different from what the human eye is accustomed to, many photographers use them incorrectly.
If you learn to deal with the challenges and quirks of using wide-angle lenses, they will have a long place in your arsenal. Plus, the more you shoot with a wide-angle lens, the more you'll become familiar with it and use it more effectively.
How do you use wide-angle lenses? Share your experience in the comments below.
As a traditional bonus, we offer you an interesting video about shooting with a wide-angle lens:
Based on materials from Photographylife.com. Author and photo: Spencer Cox.
Related Posts
Answer
Sergey, thank you for your comment. Sounds like you mean barrel distortion? Although many wide-angle lenses suffer from this type of distortion, not all of them exhibit it clearly. For example, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 at 24mm has barrel distortion that is almost invisible.
If you are trying to combat barrel distortion using the method you described, then it is worth noting that it is not the best. As a result of cropping a photo, you lose a lot of details that you might not want to lose. Instead of cropping your image, try using Lightroom's distortion correction profiles.
The article is devoted to the features of working with wide-angle and ultra-wide-angle lenses. Typical techniques when shooting with such lenses. The causes of distortions in perspective and proportions. Methods to combat them.
Definitions
Field of view angle– simply put, this is the angle that the lens “sees” along the diagonal of the frame. The size of this angle is directly proportional to the size of the matrix (film).
Classification of photographic lenses by field of view angle
As can be seen from the table, the type of lens depends on the diagonal of the frame. For example, let’s take a lens with a focal length of 50 mm: on a medium format camera it will be a wide-angle lens, on a full-frame camera it will be a normal lens, and in a 4/3 system it will be a long-angle lens.
Wide Angle Lens Features
Let's take a closer look at the picture popular lens Canon EF 17-40/4L.At full frame, it has a field of view ranging from 104° to 57°30".
However, no one takes pictures of a group positioned diagonally, right? Therefore, consider the horizontal field of view angle – from 84° to 49°
This example clearly shows that the lens at 17mm at full frame results in noticeable distortion of the proportions.
To be precise, the image in this example at the edge of the frame is 26% wider than the image in the center of the frame. And this is already a very noticeable deformation.
The reason for this deformation is the depth of the heads. If we were photographing flat objects, such as an infinite brick wall, then all the bricks that are in the center of the frame, that are at the edges of the frame would occupy the same number pixels on the matrix. They are reduced due to the fact that they are visible from an acute angle, but this reduction is compensated by the stretching of the lens. This is the property of “flat” (not fish gas) lenses - they stretch the corners of the image.
However, human vision has such a property - distortions of linear dimensions of less than 10% are not noticeable to the eye. This 10% stretching of faces occurs at a 55° field of view (34mm at full frame and 22mm at APS-C)
From here, by the way, the reason for the popularity of 35 mm lenses in the street-photo genre becomes clear. This is the minimum focal length at which geometric distortions are not yet noticeable.
However, in addition to stretching faces, another problem arises - if central people in a group they look straight (perpendicular to the wall), then people located at the edges of the group are already forced to turn their heads almost 45 ° in order to look into the camera. This turn of heads can no longer be compensated for either by changing the projection or by deforming it in Photoshop.
Examples in photographs
Photos taken with Canon EF 17-40/4L and Canon EF 24-105/4L IS lenses on a Canon EOS 1Ds Mk2 camera (full frame).| 17 mm |  | Distortion at the edges of the frame is obvious. The customer will be completely unhappy. |
| 20 mm |  | Distortion at the edges of the frame is obvious. The customer will be unhappy. |
| 24 mm |  | Distortion at the edges of the frame is noticeable. Men most likely won't notice, and girls will complain that the photo makes them look fat. |
| 35 mm |  | If you place men at the edges of the frame, the frame will work quite well. |
| 50 mm |  | Everything is fine. |
| 70 mm |  | Everything is fine. |
| 105 mm |  | Everything is fine, but the photographer was forced to run far from the group and contact was lost - the photographer simply could not be heard over the conversations of the group. |
Using the example of one frame, let’s look at the acceptable position of the model in the photograph:
Here the model's head is located in a safe area and is not greatly deformed, and the legs have flown out of the safe area and begin to appear much longer. Which is what girls like.
conclusions
- Avoid photographing groups of people at focal lengths shorter than 35mm full frame or 22mm on APS-C cameras.
- If there is a need to photograph a group with a wider angle lens, position the people as close to the center of the frame as possible (so as not to fly out of the 63° angle)
- Try not to place girls and particularly picky customers at the edges of the frame. Men are noticeably calmer when it comes to horizontally elongated faces.
- If you are photographing a group standing in several rows, try to hold down the aperture on the lens as much as possible - group photos are often printed large size and the depth of field may not be enough.
- If space allows, try to photograph the group at a focal length of 50 mm for a full frame (30...35 mm for APS-C) - in this case, even the most fastidious people will not be able to see the stretching of faces at the edges of the frame. Longer focal length lenses should not be used - you will have to run very far and the group simply will not hear you.
- When photographing even just one person, try to position their head within the frame of the 35mm (22mm for APS-C) lens focal length. For example, when shooting with a 16-35/2.8 lens, frame the frame, turn the zoom to 35 mm and see if your head sticks out of the frame. If it doesn’t crash, then the photo should come out without any noticeable distortion of the face.
Under ultra wide angle For the purposes of this article, we will mean any lens with a focal length of less than 20 mm (film equivalent). There are two types of lenses that fall into this category - a regular ultra-wide angle and a fisheye. The article will not talk about the technical capabilities of these lenses, but about the creative capabilities - “ultra-wide” opens up the opportunity for us to see the world from a completely unusual perspective, which is undoubtedly fertile ground for various creative experiments.
"Eyes Wide Open"
I have experience with two ultra wide angle lenses - fisheye Zenithar 16/2.8(on crop and full frame) and with lens Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I’ll say right away that both of these lenses the best way manifest themselves on a full-frame camera, however, there are “ultra-wide” lenses on sale specifically for cropped lenses - their focal length is 8-10 mm on short end, which in terms of a full frame gives 12-16 mm, so my experience will be quite applicable to these lenses. However, let's immediately agree that in what follows I will operate with “full-frame” focal lengths.
What is the insidiousness of an ultra-wide angle?
At first glance, it may seem that a wide angle is a huge advantage when photographing architecture and other large objects at close range. It would be very convenient to take photographs during excursions! While owners of standard lenses squeeze into walls to fit the entire object into the frame, you photograph with complete peace of mind architectural ensembles and the interiors of cathedrals and museums. But you have to pay for convenience... To begin with, I will give two examples of photographs of a certain object, which were taken using 14 mm and 50 mm lenses so that the scale was approximately the same.
How different are photographs of the same object! As you probably already guessed, the left photo was taken almost point blank with a 14mm lens. Perhaps, for such “creative” objects, this shooting style is acceptable, but when photographing classical architectural compositions, such an aggressive perspective quickly begins to irritate.
The photo on the left was taken with a 14mm lens, the right - with a 16mm fisheye.
Of course, using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom you can partially compensate for the perspective effect...
But at the same time, objects turn out with terribly distorted proportions - implausibly elongated upward and flattened on the sides! In addition, to maintain the proportions of the frame, it had to be significantly cropped. Thus, the resolution of the photo suffered.
You can also “straighten” a photo from Zenithar16 in Lightroom by applying a lens profile to it Canon 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. The result will be approximately the same, but with noticeable blurring of the corners (actually because of this, I changed the fisheye to an ordinary ultra-wide angle, which initially gives a “smooth” picture).
Ultra-wide-angle for architecture - are you sure this is a good idea?
Often on lens review sites, in particular on photozone.de, ultra-wide angle lenses are positioned as almost special lenses for photographing architecture. Personally, I don't think this idea is very good.
As already mentioned, if you photograph buildings from a close distance and from a low point using a wide-angle lens, they will appear to be “falling” backwards. One more example:
Perspective can be leveled in Photoshop, but this does not always work out well - with strong compensation for the effect, the shape and proportions of objects in the upper part of the frame will suffer greatly.
If you really need to get high quality photos architectural objects, if possible do not use an ultra-wide angle. Look for a shooting position that will fit your subject into the frame when using a “normal” lens (40-50mm) or even a telephoto lens. Horizon line - the closer to the middle of the frame, the less perspective distortion.
Here is an example of a photograph of an architectural object taken at a focal length of 105 millimeters from a distance.
No falling walls, crooked lines or distorted proportions! Agree, looking at such photographs of architectural objects is much more pleasant than these:
Or these:
Of course, using a long lens to photograph architecture is not always possible. It often happens that architectural objects are located very poorly - they are obscured by trees, billboards, and other buildings. There is nothing to do here - salvation is only in the wide-angle. But still, try to shoot at the maximum focal length possible under the given conditions.
p.s. It's not about artistic photographs, in which perspective distortions play the role of an artistic device.
Nature photography
Landscape photography is the true strength of ultra-wide-angle optics! The field of view of a 14mm lens at full frame is about 120 degrees horizontal - this is approximately what a person sees with both eyes.
When photographing nature, as opposed to cityscapes, severe perspective distortion is not as critical as when photographing buildings. On the contrary, an aggressive perspective gives the photo additional dynamics and depth.
When composing a frame with an "upper horizon" the a large number of foreground objects (sometimes even the photographer’s feet). This forces you to take a more responsible approach to choosing a shooting point. But the photographer has the opportunity to convey in one frame all the splendor of the landscape in all details - from the grass or water under your very feet to the horizon line.
When shooting a landscape with an ultra-wide angle, background objects turn out to be very small - this is the specificity of such a small focal length, but this often turns into a huge advantage. Landscapes with clouds are especially good with the ultra-wide angle. If with a regular lens the clouds were just a background that complemented the composition, then with an ultra-wide angle they often become full-fledged key objects.
And here’s a photo taken with a 24mm lens:
Agree, it turned out more interesting with a 14mm lens!
Even if there is no foreground as such, make the “cloud pattern”, slightly enhanced in Photoshop, the main motif in the landscape.
Of course, with this angle we will encounter vertical objects being blocked due to the perspective effect. The original version of this photo looked like this:
The perspective distortion at the bottom of the image seems catastrophic! What did you expect? No one has repealed the laws of optics. About how to fix such a problem without cropping the edges of the picture (as in the photo with the bell tower), you can ask me a question at Photography Courses, I will gladly tell you everything and show you. Perhaps video tutorials will appear in the foreseeable future.
Is the horizon in the middle a deviation from generally accepted rules of composition or a useful artistic technique?
You may have read or heard that you should avoid the horizon in the middle of your frame at all costs. By at least, in many textbooks the middle horizon is characterized as a flaw in composition. But photography is not physics or mathematics! You can and should deviate from the rules. But still, this should be done with caution, carefully weighing the pros and cons.
For a long time I was an opponent of the middle horizon in the landscape, however, relatively recently I changed my mind on this matter. The main reason for this was to add an ultra-wide-angle lens with a focal length of 14 mm to my arsenal. In a short period of time, many successful photographs were taken with this lens, the horizon in which was located, as if in a mockery of all the rules and canons, exactly in the middle of the frame. Here are some examples:
Gorokhovets, view from Lysa Mountain:
Evening in Vorsma (1):
Evening in Vorsma (2):
I tried to understand why the middle horizon in these photographs does not hurt the eyes at all, but on the contrary, provides a certain effect of presence? And it looks like he figured it out...
A 14 mm lens at full frame has a field of view angle comparable to that of a person (with two eyes, taking into account peripheral vision) - 115-120 degrees. In our normal state, we hold our heads straight and, quite obviously, we are used to seeing the horizon line in the middle! That's the whole solution. That is why, in photographs taken with such a wide angle, the horizon line dividing the frame in half is a completely reasonable compositional move.
From this we can safely conclude that classic rules compositions (which came into photography from painting) on ultra-wide-angle lenses are not so unshakable! It’s the same as Euclid’s geometry and Lobachevsky’s geometry, or classical mechanics and quantum mechanics :)
Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to say that photographing with an ultra-wide-angle lens is not as easy as it might seem at first glance. You will almost always encounter such difficulties. Many people are disappointed in such optics due to a number of its features:
- Severe perspective distortions(you need to learn to correct them in the editor, or use them as a creative technique)
- Distortion(relatively easy to edit in Adobe Lightroom)
- Lack of dynamic range(due to the angle of the large field of view, well-lit objects, as well as objects in deep shadow, will fall into the frame - master HDR)
- When using manual lenses you need to get used to manual mode
If you successfully master the ultra-wide angle and “get into” it, enormous creative possibilities will open up for you!
