Wide angle primes

>20mm
too wide
>24
perfect
>28
just buy a 35mm already

24mm if you're on crop
20mm if you're on FF

14.

Unless we're not talking about ultrawides too. Then 20 for w i d e and 35 for general use.

>>3120795
20, 28, 40, 58

24, 35, 50, 75 is for gays

How wide is the 24 compared to the 28? I don't want a 35.

>>3120819

It's 8 degrees wider. Visibly wider. The further you move away from normal focal length, the more one millimeter of difference makes. 24 is wider than 28, 20 is much wider than 24, 16 is much wider than 20, 14 is noticeably wider than 15.

>>3120819
24mm is comically wide to me which limits it for general use. Personally I find it strange to use it outside of the "wide angle architecture and landscapes" realm. It's true that 28mm is close to 35mm but it's still good for general usage even if it's wide. For reference, most cellphone cameras especially iphones have lenses that are close, if not, 28mm. So millions of people walk around with 28mm lenses and take billions of pictures. It's a great general use focal length while being a little wider to make it more distinctive compared to a 35mm.

If you only have one lens I think 35mm is a great choice. Personally I'm a two-lens person, 28mm and 50mm. If I had to choose a single focal length I'd choose either 28 or 50 over 35.

>>3120831
I intend to use it as a walk around lens anyways. I'm sold on the 28.

>>3120799
What?

What would complement my 50mm better?
A 20, 24, or 28?

I generally walk around with 28/50 or 35/85

I do own a 24, though its a stop slower than the 28, and the focusing doesn't feel as nice. if I were to get it CLA'd I might carry it more.

I also own a 20, which I generally only bring if I know I'll be shooting very wide. I generally shoot portraits, so the 20 isn't worth carrying too often.

>>3120795

28, 40, 90

All you will ever need.

>>3120812
I have a 10-24mm telephoto (not a prime lens I know) for those special shots. (I don't play with it as much as my 35, 45, and 50mm) But if I was to get a prime wide angle, it would be for astro-photography or landscapes and would have to be a f1.8 at a minimum - maybe a 20 or a 24mm. I would have to try it out. The lens that came with the camera is a 18-50mm or something like that, and I don't really like it so much. I rarely use it.

Just get a zoom you cuck

>>3120905
How do you feel about 130 instead of 90?

>>3120925

Loses flexibility by being a tad bit too long.

>>3120929
Hm, what do you mean by flexibility?
What do you use your 90 for other than portraits?

I'm stuck between a 90 or a zoom. I'd like to take portraits, but I mainly shoot birds

>>3120933

My 90 doubles as a macro lens, but I rarely use it for that.

I meant that you can't use it in some smaller spaces. I find myself always feeling cramped with a 135.

28mm is the best for general use, although it sucks for portraits. For w i d e I like 21mm equivalent.

>>3120795
24mm

>>3120795
28mm I guess because the focal lenght I use the most on my crop camera is 18mm.

File: images.png (3KB, 207x244px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 207x244px

>>3120795
>making up problems

>>3120996
Kurwa, if I come to Poland do you want to walk around and take snapshits in abandoned places?

>>3120795
The more important question is what are you using the lens for?

If you are doing landscapes and want to fit as much in as possible then 20mm. If you are doing street photography get a 28mm.

File: polend2.jpg (3MB, 3438x2248px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3438x2248px

>>3120999
only if we use our UWA primes, triples-sama. I'd love to take foreigners to places where scrap metal looters and drunken scum hangs out between police patrols and do show and tell on how cool places went to shit. Just give me a heads up in advance to figure out the logistics/plan out which places to visit.

>>3121002
TY Kurwa-kun, I might visit my grandparents in Kielce, but I also can accommodate a few days of fucking about.

And yeah, might just use my normal/portrait lenses to highlight local bydlo.

File: B007979-R1-02-34A.jpg (324KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1818x1228px

>>3121000
nice trips, but why is 28mm good for street in your opinion?

I shot a roll of portra 160 with my 28 2.8 and so far I found:

pros:
>deep depth of field makes focusing easier
>infinite focus occurs at 10 meters onwards
nice for fitting a lot into the frame

cons:
>difficult to isolate subject
>even if you think you're really close, the subject ends up looking about a mile away
>horrendous distortion when shooting portrait

pic related, one of my missed shots. thought I was way closer than this! I feel ashamed.

>>3121012
Where is that? Looks like New Zealand

File: pie man.jpg (522KB, 1200x810px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1200x810px

>>3121013
close, it's Melbourne, Australia

also, sorry I didn't resize the damn thing. here, have another missed shot

my hands shake too much for 1/125th second but I can't focus accurately wide open at faster speeds. I guess I should just get some faster film.

anyway I'll keep trying with this lens

>>3121012
>but why is 28mm good for street in your opinion?

28mm is not too wide, you don't have to get so close to what you are shooting. Personally I think it is the best focal length for street photgraphy, the field of view is not to wide and not to short. It is the sweet spot for capturing things going on in the streets.

I carry a 18mm, 28mm and 135mm around and mainly do street photography and landscapes.

I am not a pro though, just another anon with a camera.

>>3121016
did you shake or did you miss the focus on this one? Train yourself with a DSLR to shoot at least with 1/60. 1/125 is no excuse to have a blurry image.

Don't put much force when holding the camera and after exhaling hold your breathe press the shutter gently till it fires the camer without jerking it, just like a gun.

16 if you want a wide lens, lower than that some stuff like vigneting becomes a bit of a problem
you can get away with 12 if it's a very good lens
for general use, 28mm is GOAT

File: Capture d’écran 2017-07-26 à 20.30.08.png (136KB, 833x542px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 833x542px

Is this meme worht the price?

File: 1326116399905.jpg (22KB, 140x147px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 140x147px

>>3121131
Is any lens truly worth that much money? Unless you are a professional photographer with a enthusiast level camera then most likley not.

Pretty sure you can get a lens for half the price that is 90% as good.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2014:03:10 23:23:43

>>3121140
This.

There are diminishing returns with everything. At $1,843 that price:value ratio is beyond atrocious.

>>3121140
>>3121147
Keep in mind it is a MF lens. With todays technology this price isn't an excuse.

>>3121131
There's adaptable film glass in the 21mm f/3.5-ish range around for far cheaper. Bet the difference in quality isn't worth 1½ kilosmackers.

File: hp5+04-03-2017-028.jpg (326KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1000x667px

Usually shooting 35mm, I sometimes switch to 21mm and in those situations I'm happy I got it.

>>3121012
>>3121016
This is 21mm, you have to get closer.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>3121192
>This is 21mm, you have to get closer.
Yeah, I bet you were like 1 foot away from here when you took that. If you are doing street photography sometimes you don't want to have to get that close.

File: Bild004_Neg.Nr.3A.jpg (327KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1000x667px

>>3121208
Don't remember exactly, but I think I wasn't that close. Got the impression that the closer you get, the less people think you're taking a photo of them.
Took that shot the day I got and tested it, but haven't used it that often since then.
Also, I have to admit I'm having trouble filling the frame sometimes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>3121164
You can get this >>3120795 for 250 bucks.

You wouldn't even tell the difference. ZEISS pop® micro-contrast is a meme. Normal people won't see a damn difference.

>>3121131
The Milvus series is nice, but I can't justify the price jump for the Z at the front over a similar lens from the Sigma Art line at $500 cheaper and f/1.4 that is comparably sharp in almost every situation. The Milvus is great for video work since it does have smoother focus, but for a photo, or hybrid use lens, you'd be better off saving a few bucks and checking out some other options with AF and IS features.

>>3120798
on aps-c:

>20mm
not wide enough, might as well get an ultrawide zoom in this territory anyway because most people rarely go that wide and then you at least have versatility (this is true for FF as well)

>24
not wide enough, still too much distortion for people

>28
perfect

>35
shit

>>3121441
18mm is fine on crop just as 28 is fine on FF. If you need to shoot wider than that for whatever reason just buy a ultrawide zoom.

>>3120879
full frame or crop sensor. if its for a 35mm don't worry about it, if its digital know that some cameras have smaller sensors and thus crop down the original lensed image by about a quarter.

>>3121441
What would 28mm (APS-C) be on M43?
I'm too retarded to do math.

>>3121546
Use a calculator bro
APS-C: 28*1.6=44.8
M43: 28*2=56

>>3121555
Forgot Nikon/Sony/etc APS-C: 28*1.5=42

>>3121555
>>3121556
Ah, that's where I went wrong.
I assumed
>>3121441
was talking about APS-C lengths when he said "on aps-c".
But I guess he was still using fullframe lengths.

So 10, 12, 14, 17 for me?

>>3121558
Focal length of a lens is what it is, it does not change between systems. 20mm lens has focal length of 20mm, no matter which camera it is mounted on or which system it is made for. The crop factor however changes the angle of view (or field of view) by wasting some of the image circle that the lens is projecting. No one ever talks about "apsc focal lengths" or "m43 focal lengths" but usually refers to 35mm (full frame) format equivalent focal lengths for claritys sake.

>>3121572
>is what it is

I hate this redundant saying.

>>3121579
Are you that bored?

>>3121555
>1.6
>DR is shit
>noise performance is shit
Stay cucked canoncuks. Even sonygers have better sensors.

>>3121572
Wait, hold on.

So, you know that rule of thumb where it's
>use 1/x shutter speed to minimize blur from hands shaking
with 'x' being your focal length?

I have an Olympus 25mm f/1.8, and have been using using 1/50 instead of 1/25 as a minimum shutter speed because I thought I had to include crop factor.

Have I been doing it like a fool this whole time? Is a shutter speed of 1/25 perfectly fine?

File: 5735ee079b723_jim.thumb.jpg.f55386da973f129f6857fee70ce16b14.jpg (50KB, 1000x419px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1000x419px

>>3120812
>20, 28, 40, 58

hmm, I think I've seen those somewhere.

>>3121585
The rule of thumb comes from the film era, so it obviously refers to 35mm eqv focal length. So you've been doing it correctly. It has more to do with field of view than exact focal length, it's just easier to understand focal lengths than degrees and angles. It also depends on how good your camera handling technique is.

>>3121585
In theory you should add the crop factor, but of course this is only a general guide line and not Truth(c).
The best thing to do will be to test it out for yourself instead of thinking anonymous retards will give you a better answer than your own empirical research.

>>3121593
Ah, OK. That's good to know.

Are there any videos of said camera handling techniques you'd recommend? I've watched a few and I only picked up holding my breath on exhale and leaning against shit.

Some people say to use your arm as a tripod and I really have no idea what they mean.

File: DSC_0406.jpg (550KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1536x2048px

I just got this baby

>>3121585
I can do 1/15 on my 80mm TLR. Where's your god now?

>>3121517
the crop factor gives you a longer effective focal length (some people will nitpick that term, you know what i fucking mean)
24mm on crop (1.5 crop factor) gives about 35mm equiv
20mm on full frame (1 crop factor) gives 20mm
i think you had them backwards

File: 20170223-DSC_3548.jpg (483KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1200x1200px

>>3121131
Just get a Rokinon. Comparable optics at a quarter of the price.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	740
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	14 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:23 19:07:16
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3121214
>Don't remember exactly, but I think I wasn't that close. Got the impression that the closer you get, the less people think you're taking a photo of them.
Because, with a wide angle, you're generally not pointing directly at them. I've stood one step away from people I was shooting without them realizing it was actually them I was taking a picture of.

>>3121600
>Some people say to use your arm as a tripod and I really have no idea what they mean.
>find stable surface
>rest elbow on surface
>hold camera in hand connected to elbow through forearm
>take pictures

>>3121647
did you crop it horizontaly or vertically do you still have the full image?

File: 20170223-DSC_3548-2.jpg (510KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1200x801px

>>3121722
Cropped horizontally. There is some distortion toward the far edges, but it's sharp enough that you can crop in pretty tight and still get detail.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	740
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	14 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:27 16:06:21
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 2017-07-28 17.59.57.jpg (1MB, 1337x1114px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1337x1114px

How wide is too wide, /p/?

>>3122314
pretty fucking gay hat senpai

File: _MG_9359_lift_selfi.jpg (263KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1000x667px

>>3122314
gay hats general

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.10 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:29 10:36:12
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3121588
what lenses are these?

>>3123685
Voigtländer.

>>3122814
You look thin is that the lens distortion?

>>3123847
The combination of both

I've just bought a 28mm 2.8 nikkor AIs did I do good?

What do I do now?

>>3125626
>What do I do now?
Take pictures.

24mm purely for sentimental reasons. Being a poor vidfag who wanted a relatively cheap wide prime I went with the Olympus Zuiko 24 2.8 and that thing hardly ever came off my t2i.

Also eventually got a Tamron 17 3.5, which didn't use nearly as much and lacked that certain magic the zuiko had, but fuck yeah ultra wide.

28 is good for landscapes without being too wide.