Wide angle lenses

[ronald lamarsh]

Am I missing something or are wide angle lenses just not for me? I have a 90mm f8 SA and have yet to make a good image with it. The lens is excellent but the photographer is lacking. Is this an indication I should go to something less extreme? say in the 135mm range? I tend to shoot what ever interests me...buildings, landscape flowers closeup etc.

[Bill_1856]

"You are not alone."

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I find that moderate wide angles are a lot easier to compose with and use than the more extreme ones- I use my 110 about ten times as often as my 75. It really depends on how you see, and what situation you're working in though- there are no right or wrong focal lengths.

[neil poulsen]

I rarely use that wide of a lens on landscape, although I'm not sure what you're photographing. Much more common to use a 90mm on architecture.

[Daniel Geiger]

Lens choices are personal. There is nothing "right" or "wrong" with (dis-)liking/using one or the other lens. I happen to like the 90 for outdoor nature/landscape, even upgraded from a Schneider 90f/8 to a Schneider 90XL with center filter and LOVE it! I also do quite a few plant portraits with it in LF, or in SLR with the Zeiss Distagon 21 mm. Certainly not the most common choice, but it works for me. I like to overemphasize the flower and still see the rest of the plant. For that the WA works great. For instance, just did a Dudleya inflorescence in front with rosette in background, and strong inclination of focal plane to get flower and rosette in focus at about life size with the 90XL; not developed yet, sorry. For other nature images I've used other lenses, such as a 150 (some roses) or a 360 (a group of mushrooms) lens.

If it does not do it for you, move on. Nothing wrong. On the other hand, if you are kind of in a rut with doing always the same, possibly hang on to the 90 and give it a bit more work out. Consider what WAs do: overemphasize foreground, reduce background. Then look for a scene where that is your intent. But if the scene asks for a more "normal" look, use a normal 150-180 mm lens. etc.

my 2c

[paul owen]

Hi Ron. I'm a big fan of wide angle lenses BUT one thing I noticed when moving to 5x4 is that lenses seem so much wider than I anticipated! My favourite focal length should equate to about a 24mm in 35mm terms, so a LF lens around 75mm - however, I find 90mm wide enough for the majority of situations and the 110XL that I use most seems as wide as the 90mm too!! I think it probably has something to do with that big ground glass screen making lenses appear "wider"

[ADG]

I hope somebody out there can give a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. It's probably related to the effect where when you get to 8X10 you don't seem to need 2X the standard lens length for portraits.
Also it is easy to get the wideangle look from normal lenses using movements with large format.
I have used a 35mm SLR (Dynax/Maxxum 7) with a 28-105 as a framing device for 5x4, worked out a composition at the 28mm end, and then ended up shooting with the 150 on the 5x4 as the 90 seems way too wide, strange....

[Ole Tjugen]

I've gone the opposite way...

I never really got the hang of WA lenses on smaller formats (35mm and MF), but now I'm very happy using a 90mm Super Angulon on 5x7". My most used lenses for that format is the 90, a 165mm Angulon and a 240 Symmar.

But I'm getting better at using wide lenses on smaller formats too!

[Bruce Barlow]

I learned to see the world in 210mm by using only a 210 for my first year (21 years ago...). Then I got a 120mm and still rarely use it.

I think if you want to learn your wide angle, you'll put away anything else and use it for at least 6 months, to where you learn to see what that lens typically takes in. Yup, there may be no good pictures during that time. On the other hand, there just might, and you just might fall in love with it.

One of these days I may do that with my 120. I have spent entire days where it was the only lens I brought, but single days here and there are not enough.

[ronald moravec]

My answer is to use the same focal lenghts you used for your previous smaller format, adjusted of course.

As I photograph more and more, I`m about in year 45 now, I`m tending more and more to normal lenses.

I was looking for a 150 several weeks ago, but a friend/dealer had a 180 Rodinstock N. I tried it a few days and then bought it. The angle of view matches 50mm exactly.

I may replace my 135 Schneider Symar S with the current 135 Rodenstock as it will have some movement possible. The 35mm equavalent is 37.5 mm

I love the 110 for the hugh coverage and would not sell mine, but it is pretty wide and about equal to 30mm.

The 90 SA makes great images, but only when my back is against a wall.

When I am done here, I think the two favorites will be the 135 and 180.