C.H.Ling wrote:
> IMO superwide in this range is too wide for landscape, normally it is used
> for interior, closer distance objects and special close up effects so should
> be diagonal or even vertical.
>
How awkward. Here I've just agreed with Andrew, who goes to some trouble
to appear disagreeable. And now I must disagree with you, who are a most
agreeable person. :-)
First, I must admit I've never had anything wider than the AOV of 17mm
on full frame. So my observations are limited to that experience.
Landscape
------------
I agree with you about conventional landscape. Even 17mm is wide enough
that it reduces distant landscape features too much.
However, there are other forms of landscape, miniature/intimate
landscapes and very close natural subjects.
The small scale of some natural landscape features can mean they can't
be shot from a distance, yet encompass a very wide field of view
close-up. This image and nos. 6 & 7 are shot from within the canopies of
dwarf oak trees. My feeling at the time I took them was that wider would
be better
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/ElfinForest/slides/_MG_1141ptl.html>.
Number 9 was taken from a boardwalk that protects the delicate habitat.
Backed up as far as I could go without falling off, I could only capture
part of what I thought was a very beautiful tree with 17mm. Again, I
think wider would be better. 12mm? I don't know, but wider than 17mm.
Interior
--------
I don't usually do a lot of interiors. But when I have, I don't recall
wanting greater coverage in the short dimension. Certainly not at the
expense of loss of any of the long dimension coverage angle.
Almost all the images in this gallery, even exteriors, were shot at
17mm. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
Looking at them again, I only see a couple where it appears to me that
greater short dimension coverage might be of use. On the other hand,
there are many where more long dimension coverage would have been
useful. I certainly remember feeling constricted by 17mm, and wanting
something wider. I don't think the short dimension coverage was ever a
conscious issue for me.
The Roman pool simply screamed for a wider lens. Vertical coverage of
the 17mm caught lots of ceiling detail, but it couldn't capture the
sweep of the room. Had I not been on a tour, and had a tripod, I think a
panorama would have been wonderful. However, neither of those things are
possible there. I think I may have the shots for a panorama of the
Neptune pool.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|