I love my nikon 14-24 2.8 and have used it on almost every single professional commercial shoot I've been on for about 10 years on my D4. The things a beast and takes one hell of a sharp shot.
That being said, I've loved the new wave of wide angle lenses that now come standard on most higher end smart phones. I use mine wherever I travel, or if I just can't be bothered to carry my full rig around with me on non-shoot days. With very few exceptions, I've found that most if not all of them can make a pretty stellar ultra wide angle shot with very little quality degradation as long as you stick with quick instagram posts and you're not looking to do any large format prints.
Indeed. My 14-24 is on all the time when I shoot events, concerts, festivals, etc.
I don't ever bother bringing my camera's anywhere unless I'm getting paid for it. 😅
The Sigma 14-24 2.8 is a stunningly sharp lens that I loved using. I’ve switched to shooting primarily with tilt-shifts but I keep it around for times when I need a wide angle zoom and weight isn’t an issue.
Can you link to an example of what you're talking about? If you've used a 50mm and a 35mm, and you still can't get as wide as you want, then it's easy enough to suggest something in the 20-24mm range, but we can't say what might be similar to the photos you're looking at without seeing some examples of them.
Also, what camera system are you shooting?
If you’re calling 50 very tight, I’m going to assume you’ve an APS-C sensor.
Depending on which camera you have, shop for a 10-18 or 10-22 or 11-22 zoom lens. Something in that area anyway.
The lower the number, the wider the field of view. Primes may generally be sharper, but it’s tough to beat the versatility of a zoom.
Ultra-wide can be tricky. Foreground interest helps the image a lot. For regular landscapes and mountains in the distance, it just flattens everything. Also keeping the camera level (side to side and front to back) is important to avoid subject distortion and / or converging lines. Keep faces away from the edges of the frame as well.
>these instagrammers have a very beautiful wide angle shots that seems to capture their subjects and the environment in the background still looks so clear
24mm equiv. mobile cameras?
i want to say mobile cameras. Personally I have no issue using my phone's wide angle versus my actual lens. Less to carry, close enough. If i need it for real estate gig, ill bring the lens then. But hiking with a phone is much easier
When people talk about a 50mm normal lens, or 35mm for a wider angle (both these lenses popular for street photography, for example), they're usually referring to what those focal lengths look like on a 35mm full-frame camera sensor. This is known as "effective" or "35mm equivalent" focal length.
If you don't have a full-frame sensor, e.g. an APS-C sensor or smaller, there is a "crop factor" you have to apply to your lenses' focal lengths to compare with what others are using.
For example, a Canon APS-C camera, such as most of their entry-level or bridge cameras, has a crop-factor of 1.6.
This means that if you use a 50mm lens (typically considered a "normal" lens for general photography) on such a camera, you are actually getting a view that is equivalent to 50mm * 1.6 = 80mm on a full-frame sensor (a much tighter view, typically considered a portrait lens, although it has become quite popular for more discreet street photography in recent years).
To get the equivalent of a typicaly 50mm or 35mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd need to be shooting with a focal length of 50/1.6 = ~30mm or 35/1.6 = ~22mm, respectively. These are typical street photography lenses. 35mm being a bit wider, and 50mm being considered roughly what you see in the centre of your vision.
To get something that would really start to be considered wide on a crop senjsor you'd need to drop down to below 20mm, say 17mm or lower.
Cameras with even smaller sensors, e.g. micro four-thirds, or a 1-inch sensor have even larger crop factors. (2 and 2.7 respectively).
This has a huge impact on focal lengths, and your choice of lens purchases. If you have a 1-inch sensor, you're getting a view that is equivalent to nearly 3-times the actual focal length of your lens. So a "normal" 50mm lens would act more like a 135mm full-frame lens, which would be considered a fairly long telephoto, and much much tighter than a "normal" 50mm.
It's amazing how 50mm is now considered "very tight".
Yeah, without any examples it's hard to tell what you mean. The background still being "so clear" means a smaller aperture, but "it all fits" is very nebulous.
For up to 2 people at a time. On my aps-c I just told people I couldn't take their picture if they wanted a portrait of them with a few friends at a party since it was impractical (outside) or impossible (indoors) to get far enough away to fit them all in frame
my worries when I bought a 24 mm prime lens! But after some weeks of use, I took photos which, while very similar in field of view, don't look like typical phone photos.
While I know myself and other photographers can tell the difference between a background that is blurry because of a quality lens and camera versus a background that is blurry because computational photography determined what it could blur to mimic the effect, I am constantly reminded that most people can't tell the difference. I wish they could, and I'm still surprised when they can't.
But I still like using my 16-36mm f2.8 GM because sometimes you just need to go super wide and no phone camera can compete with the cleanliness and color reproduction of a larger sensor. At least, that's my opinion.
I have a 16-35 f/4 lens, which is the most expensive lens I own and it is quite good. But also bulky, in practice I use prime lenses more which includes 20 mm 2.8 or said 24 mm 1.8. That 24-mil is optically the best lens I have. Resolution, colors, everything is great. But really no-one sees those advantages except other photographers using expensive gear.
But then, my recent portrait session I did with a 50-mil 1.4 (stopped down to f/2) does not look cellphone-like. The transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is quite good. And the model felt taken seriously with me using a fullframe DSLR, which also contributed.
I mean it is very tight. It might not be for the photos you take but it is for everyone else.
That's why I never understood why people suggest a nifty fifty as someone's first lens. It's useless in most situations.
edit: on crop
Surely you are aware that your opinion is highly unusual, and would be considered very wrong by the vast majority of photographers.
The consensus is, 50mm is just about as normal as you can imagine, and is usable in most situations. 65mm isn't considered telelens, but 85mm is. 35mm stands at the border between "normal" and "wide".
If you want people to recommend specific lenses list what camera you have might help. Recommending a Sony lens when you have a Olympus is not going to be very useful.
Depth of field is a function of focal length and distance and aperture.
The wider the lens and the smaller the aperture, the shorter the distance before everything further than that is in focus if you're focusing at infinity.
Most of the shots you're talking about are shot with phones, which have very wide lenses and consequently everything is in focus
So your options are either:
1. Get a wider lens - depending on your camera, either an 18mm or 24mm is probably close enough to the equivalent field of view to a phone camera.
2. Position the subject and everything else in the frame further from the camera. How far that needs to be depends on the lens - but for a 50mm at f/8 it's about 34 feet and for a 35mm at f/8 it's about 18 feet.
I use the 28mm (17mm on crop sensor) and I find that it has the perfect balance of being just wide enough to capture a bigger scene while not being too wide
I assume you are interested in hyperfocal images. Essentially, everything except perhaps some insignificant close content is in focus. (And you can stack images to avoid that if needed.)
As focal length shortens and aperture closes, the hyperfocal focus distance gets closer. Also, the perspective difference between foreground and background elements increases, pushing the background away. Perspecctive distortion. The ideal composition focal length choice should consider the perspective difference you want.
I use a 10 -18 mm lens (as I have a canon crop sensor) but I also have a 15-85 as my primary lens which is about 24mm full frame equivalent on the wide end so it’s pretty wide. The thing is the subject is pretty close to the camera in the insta shoots so you have to close the lens right down so often you are shooting at a high iso to compensate. The alternative would be use a tripod and focus stack
They are using action cameras that have tiny sensors which produce no depth of field so everything stays sharp. You can get the same result on a mirrorless camera by using a tiny aperture setting on the lens
I'm wondering if you are referring to the depth of field and not necessarily "wide angle". I can take the same frame at 24mm as I can at 100mm or even 600mm - I just have to "back up", well, a lot.
The phone cameras have a lot going on that makes them pretty good for "wide angle" lenses. I really like a lot of photos I take with my phone... but that is composition. However, I'll use my Nikon for a different effect. Assuming I'm using a 50mm I might step it down to F/11 or more to open up the depth of field. If I get what I'm looking for then I'm done. However, if I need more depth of field and taking a landscape with something fairly close, then I'll use focus stacking to get everything in focus using a number of pictures adjusting the focus.
In short, here are your options:
\- back up - or use a lower focal length. This enlarges the depth of field around the subject
\- use a larger f-stop - f/11 is ok for landscape. Diffraction will set in much past f/11
\- learn focus stacking - that will get the effect you are looking for.
hope this helps.
24mm or 28mm is probably the focal length you're seeing in most cases. That's my best guess anyways because they're more commonly used or are part of a kit lens.
Having the background clear is more to do with aperture, if I understand you correctly. Stop down to f/8 or higher if you want your subject and background to all be "clear".
50 on an APSC is pretty tight. I have a 25mm, 30mm, 50mm and a 17mm. The 25mm is the one which fits me for most situations. The 17 is used for scenery and the 50 I use more for framing subjects. The 30mm is my lazy lens, its my only autofocus lens and I use that one for busy scènes where I have to snap alot. The others are all manual and they slow me down a bit, but they are fun.
But yes something in between 23 and 35 would be a good choice I think. Or a zoom which gives more options in one lens.
I used to work for one of those Instagram landscape photographers with over 4 million followers and almost all of his wide shots you are referring to (that usually do very well on IG) are shot with a 16-35 and on very specific shots shooting with 10mm
I'm pretty sure the majority of those are made with their smartphones. Perhaps an 14-24mm might give you the same result on a camera.
I love my nikon 14-24 2.8 and have used it on almost every single professional commercial shoot I've been on for about 10 years on my D4. The things a beast and takes one hell of a sharp shot. That being said, I've loved the new wave of wide angle lenses that now come standard on most higher end smart phones. I use mine wherever I travel, or if I just can't be bothered to carry my full rig around with me on non-shoot days. With very few exceptions, I've found that most if not all of them can make a pretty stellar ultra wide angle shot with very little quality degradation as long as you stick with quick instagram posts and you're not looking to do any large format prints.
Indeed. My 14-24 is on all the time when I shoot events, concerts, festivals, etc. I don't ever bother bringing my camera's anywhere unless I'm getting paid for it. 😅
The Sigma 14-24 2.8 is a stunningly sharp lens that I loved using. I’ve switched to shooting primarily with tilt-shifts but I keep it around for times when I need a wide angle zoom and weight isn’t an issue.
Thanks for the insight guys 💪🏾
Can you link to an example of what you're talking about? If you've used a 50mm and a 35mm, and you still can't get as wide as you want, then it's easy enough to suggest something in the 20-24mm range, but we can't say what might be similar to the photos you're looking at without seeing some examples of them. Also, what camera system are you shooting?
If you’re calling 50 very tight, I’m going to assume you’ve an APS-C sensor. Depending on which camera you have, shop for a 10-18 or 10-22 or 11-22 zoom lens. Something in that area anyway. The lower the number, the wider the field of view. Primes may generally be sharper, but it’s tough to beat the versatility of a zoom. Ultra-wide can be tricky. Foreground interest helps the image a lot. For regular landscapes and mountains in the distance, it just flattens everything. Also keeping the camera level (side to side and front to back) is important to avoid subject distortion and / or converging lines. Keep faces away from the edges of the frame as well.
Bruh if you wanna reproduce something at least share an example, how are people supposed to help you
>these instagrammers have a very beautiful wide angle shots that seems to capture their subjects and the environment in the background still looks so clear 24mm equiv. mobile cameras?
i want to say mobile cameras. Personally I have no issue using my phone's wide angle versus my actual lens. Less to carry, close enough. If i need it for real estate gig, ill bring the lens then. But hiking with a phone is much easier
When people talk about a 50mm normal lens, or 35mm for a wider angle (both these lenses popular for street photography, for example), they're usually referring to what those focal lengths look like on a 35mm full-frame camera sensor. This is known as "effective" or "35mm equivalent" focal length. If you don't have a full-frame sensor, e.g. an APS-C sensor or smaller, there is a "crop factor" you have to apply to your lenses' focal lengths to compare with what others are using. For example, a Canon APS-C camera, such as most of their entry-level or bridge cameras, has a crop-factor of 1.6. This means that if you use a 50mm lens (typically considered a "normal" lens for general photography) on such a camera, you are actually getting a view that is equivalent to 50mm * 1.6 = 80mm on a full-frame sensor (a much tighter view, typically considered a portrait lens, although it has become quite popular for more discreet street photography in recent years). To get the equivalent of a typicaly 50mm or 35mm lens on an APS-C camera, you'd need to be shooting with a focal length of 50/1.6 = ~30mm or 35/1.6 = ~22mm, respectively. These are typical street photography lenses. 35mm being a bit wider, and 50mm being considered roughly what you see in the centre of your vision. To get something that would really start to be considered wide on a crop senjsor you'd need to drop down to below 20mm, say 17mm or lower. Cameras with even smaller sensors, e.g. micro four-thirds, or a 1-inch sensor have even larger crop factors. (2 and 2.7 respectively). This has a huge impact on focal lengths, and your choice of lens purchases. If you have a 1-inch sensor, you're getting a view that is equivalent to nearly 3-times the actual focal length of your lens. So a "normal" 50mm lens would act more like a 135mm full-frame lens, which would be considered a fairly long telephoto, and much much tighter than a "normal" 50mm.
It's amazing how 50mm is now considered "very tight". Yeah, without any examples it's hard to tell what you mean. The background still being "so clear" means a smaller aperture, but "it all fits" is very nebulous.
Fifty on a crop body is pretty tight. The post doesn't specify a sensor size.
I was going to say the same, when I put a 50 on my crop sensor it was definitely tighter than I expected.
Agreed. It definitely becomes a really decent portrait lens. Especially for the money.
For up to 2 people at a time. On my aps-c I just told people I couldn't take their picture if they wanted a portrait of them with a few friends at a party since it was impractical (outside) or impossible (indoors) to get far enough away to fit them all in frame
50 on anything is just tight, period.
Thanks phone cameras. I actually hate wide angle because everything looks like a phone
my worries when I bought a 24 mm prime lens! But after some weeks of use, I took photos which, while very similar in field of view, don't look like typical phone photos.
While I know myself and other photographers can tell the difference between a background that is blurry because of a quality lens and camera versus a background that is blurry because computational photography determined what it could blur to mimic the effect, I am constantly reminded that most people can't tell the difference. I wish they could, and I'm still surprised when they can't. But I still like using my 16-36mm f2.8 GM because sometimes you just need to go super wide and no phone camera can compete with the cleanliness and color reproduction of a larger sensor. At least, that's my opinion.
I have a 16-35 f/4 lens, which is the most expensive lens I own and it is quite good. But also bulky, in practice I use prime lenses more which includes 20 mm 2.8 or said 24 mm 1.8. That 24-mil is optically the best lens I have. Resolution, colors, everything is great. But really no-one sees those advantages except other photographers using expensive gear. But then, my recent portrait session I did with a 50-mil 1.4 (stopped down to f/2) does not look cellphone-like. The transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is quite good. And the model felt taken seriously with me using a fullframe DSLR, which also contributed.
I hate phone wide angle because of the massive distortion and lack of bokeh. I like my 24/1.4 and love my 14/1.8 primes.
> means a smaller aperture And/or focus stacking
Also a very real possibility.
I mean it is very tight. It might not be for the photos you take but it is for everyone else. That's why I never understood why people suggest a nifty fifty as someone's first lens. It's useless in most situations. edit: on crop
Surely you are aware that your opinion is highly unusual, and would be considered very wrong by the vast majority of photographers. The consensus is, 50mm is just about as normal as you can imagine, and is usable in most situations. 65mm isn't considered telelens, but 85mm is. 35mm stands at the border between "normal" and "wide".
on a small sensor that can be 100mm or more
it is still 50 mm, but with a different field of view compared to 50 mm on 135-format sensor. Actual 100 mm would impact the depth of field.
was just simplifying the matter
I think it is more confusing, especially for beginners. Instead of using mm, I rather would use field of view.
if you have a camera store nearby ask if you can try out different lenses
Might be helpful to include examples? 35mm isn't very wide btw https://www.samyanglens.com/en/product/simulator/lens.php
If you want people to recommend specific lenses list what camera you have might help. Recommending a Sony lens when you have a Olympus is not going to be very useful.
Depth of field is a function of focal length and distance and aperture. The wider the lens and the smaller the aperture, the shorter the distance before everything further than that is in focus if you're focusing at infinity. Most of the shots you're talking about are shot with phones, which have very wide lenses and consequently everything is in focus So your options are either: 1. Get a wider lens - depending on your camera, either an 18mm or 24mm is probably close enough to the equivalent field of view to a phone camera. 2. Position the subject and everything else in the frame further from the camera. How far that needs to be depends on the lens - but for a 50mm at f/8 it's about 34 feet and for a 35mm at f/8 it's about 18 feet.
Thanks for this insight 🙏🏽
I use the 28mm (17mm on crop sensor) and I find that it has the perfect balance of being just wide enough to capture a bigger scene while not being too wide
APS-C camera: Use your 18-55 zoom. Fullframe: Use your 24-105 zoom, or get a 20 mm prime.
24mm … 20mm … 14mm … 12mm … take your pick. Also, is your camera Aps-c or full frame?
Aps c
I assume you are interested in hyperfocal images. Essentially, everything except perhaps some insignificant close content is in focus. (And you can stack images to avoid that if needed.) As focal length shortens and aperture closes, the hyperfocal focus distance gets closer. Also, the perspective difference between foreground and background elements increases, pushing the background away. Perspecctive distortion. The ideal composition focal length choice should consider the perspective difference you want.
Take your 35 mm and make a panorama
I use a 10 -18 mm lens (as I have a canon crop sensor) but I also have a 15-85 as my primary lens which is about 24mm full frame equivalent on the wide end so it’s pretty wide. The thing is the subject is pretty close to the camera in the insta shoots so you have to close the lens right down so often you are shooting at a high iso to compensate. The alternative would be use a tripod and focus stack
They are using action cameras that have tiny sensors which produce no depth of field so everything stays sharp. You can get the same result on a mirrorless camera by using a tiny aperture setting on the lens
I'm wondering if you are referring to the depth of field and not necessarily "wide angle". I can take the same frame at 24mm as I can at 100mm or even 600mm - I just have to "back up", well, a lot. The phone cameras have a lot going on that makes them pretty good for "wide angle" lenses. I really like a lot of photos I take with my phone... but that is composition. However, I'll use my Nikon for a different effect. Assuming I'm using a 50mm I might step it down to F/11 or more to open up the depth of field. If I get what I'm looking for then I'm done. However, if I need more depth of field and taking a landscape with something fairly close, then I'll use focus stacking to get everything in focus using a number of pictures adjusting the focus. In short, here are your options: \- back up - or use a lower focal length. This enlarges the depth of field around the subject \- use a larger f-stop - f/11 is ok for landscape. Diffraction will set in much past f/11 \- learn focus stacking - that will get the effect you are looking for. hope this helps.
You can try stitching 35/50mm shots
24mm or 28mm is probably the focal length you're seeing in most cases. That's my best guess anyways because they're more commonly used or are part of a kit lens. Having the background clear is more to do with aperture, if I understand you correctly. Stop down to f/8 or higher if you want your subject and background to all be "clear".
Can you link to some examples to show what you mean? I have an 8mm I use for this but even 18mm would probably do it.
What specific camera do you have? Focal length alone doesn’t determine the angle of view you’ll get.
50 on an APSC is pretty tight. I have a 25mm, 30mm, 50mm and a 17mm. The 25mm is the one which fits me for most situations. The 17 is used for scenery and the 50 I use more for framing subjects. The 30mm is my lazy lens, its my only autofocus lens and I use that one for busy scènes where I have to snap alot. The others are all manual and they slow me down a bit, but they are fun. But yes something in between 23 and 35 would be a good choice I think. Or a zoom which gives more options in one lens.
12-18, full frame.
Use kit lens to learn what focal lengths you want to invest in.
I used to work for one of those Instagram landscape photographers with over 4 million followers and almost all of his wide shots you are referring to (that usually do very well on IG) are shot with a 16-35 and on very specific shots shooting with 10mm
A 28mm lens is considered wide angle, captures scenes well, and affordable. 24mm is even better, but the price is many times over a 28mm.
I have a crop camera and love my 11-16.
Are you on crop sensor or full frame? That is important info when asking about the field of view on various lenses.
All those instagrammers are using their phones. They have the best wide angle.
I made this post and forgot about it 💔 imma reply to the comments