Jump to content
Buck777

Road trip with the 23,18-135 and the 10-24. Disappointed with one!

Recommended Posts

Buck777   

X-T1 with three lenses on a road trip. The 18-135 cane into its own when checking out a whale breaching with the reach and WR. Peace of mind. 

I'm loving the 23mm. It's on my camera the most. 

The 10-24 I've really struggled with. I'll blame me but with it I'm struggling to produce again close to my others. Time will tell 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lumens   

I must admit I struggle with the 10-24 a bit myself.  I own the 18-135 also and find it most useful, it is the most versatile lens out there I love it for simple casual shooting.  

But the 10-24 I consider more of a specialty lens.  It is marvelous for landscape and times when I have a lot to get into the picture.  For general shooting I struggle with it in that I don't find enough reach and I find myself having a hard time getting a good composition, but when I stop and take a look at the whole picture I find myself pulling it out.  Keep it with you, it is a great lens when the time arises that you need a wider angle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last system was FF Nikon and my wide angle was 17-35mm but rarely used much wider than 24mm which to me was as wide as I could comfortably compose with. The problem with extreme wide angles is that so many (read most IMO) use it to include more landscape to show the grandeur of a wide vista, when it actually diminishes it and detail becomes so small as to be almost invisible unless a really huge print is made in fact I prefer to use tele FLs to pick the best compositions.

However it is the difficulty in making good compositions with extreme wide angle lenses that makes me wary of using them. 24mm FF was the widest I was happy with but when the 14mm was offered by Fuji with no mention of a 16mm coming I decided to buy it and quite quickly found it a comfortable focal length to compose with and it became enough of a favourite for me not to swap it for the new 16mm.

I do sometimes miss wider angle lenses for creative angles to exaggerate near subjects while stretching out the background behind but keeping it all sharp.

I also find the 14mm of such high quality it makes a great companion to my 23mm and 35mm lenses for close street work so that my 18mm hardly gets a look-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
artuk   

My last system was FF Nikon and my wide angle was 17-35mm but rarely used much wider than 24mm which to me was as wide as I could comfortably compose with. The problem with extreme wide angles is that so many (read most IMO) use it to include more landscape to show the grandeur of a wide vista, when it actually diminishes it and detail becomes so small as to be almost invisible unless a really huge print is made in fact I prefer to use tele FLs to pick the best compositions.

However it is the difficulty in making good compositions with extreme wide angle lenses that makes me wary of using them. 24mm FF was the widest I was happy with but when the 14mm was offered by Fuji with no mention of a 16mm coming I decided to buy it and quite quickly found it a comfortable focal length to compose with and it became enough of a favourite for me not to swap it for the new 16mm.

I do sometimes miss wider angle lenses for creative angles to exaggerate near subjects while stretching out the background behind but keeping it all sharp.

I also find the 14mm of such high quality it makes a great companion to my 23mm and 35mm lenses for close street work so that my 18mm hardly gets a look-in.

I agree with your comments. I might also add that the classic mistake with wide angles is to zoom out to "get it all in" with the results you describe. My opinion is you need foreground details and to get in close, and use the field of view and perspective you talk about to create an unusual viewpoint with impact. Anything under 35mm can have the problem. The skill is understanding how to use the perspective to create drama and an unusual viewpoint. The only exception is interiors where anything with a 90 degree field of view or wider is helpful in the genuine case of needing to get it all in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
farrell   

I agree with your comments. I might also add that the classic mistake with wide angles is to zoom out to "get it all in" with the results you describe. My opinion is you need foreground details and to get in close, and use the field of view and perspective you talk about to create an unusual viewpoint with impact. Anything under 35mm can have the problem. The skill is understanding how to use the perspective to create drama and an unusual viewpoint. The only exception is interiors where anything with a 90 degree field of view or wider is helpful in the genuine case of needing to get it all in.

Great verbalizations of my intuitive dislike of crazy-wides;lack of "shooting room" is for me the only reason to use them, when a poor result is better than none. Any out there who are as old or nearly as old as I am will recall when 35mm was a wide angle lens in 35mm.  I think the Leitz-legacy 3:2 aspect ratio is partly responsible for that, but after all these years the classic 5:4 just doesn't look right to me even after years of shooting cut film.

I'm not so highly disciplined as to work at improving my skills with hardware I don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one place I have found very wide angles to be useful in in shooting cities. My wife and I visited Havana a year ago and I used my Nikon D810 and 16-35mm a lot to capture the feel of the city streets. That was before I converted to Fuji. Now, I would use my 16mm and be happy with that on my XPro-2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those round hay bales just attract a photographer like bees to a flower. Some go home dreaming about getting a better pic the next summer. 

Here's my take on them. I originally had a go of using the x100, but then returned a year or so later and took this with the X-E1, 18-55 zoom attached. The example below doesn't show the detail in the end of the hay bale due to the contrast. The flickr version is better in full screen.

haybale-version--1-smaller_13947443871_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both the pictures in this thread bear out what Artuk and I were saying about wide angle use. The wider angle the lens is the more need for a foreground object. In this case it can only be a hay bale - perhaps even just the edge of one but close enough to the camera to see detail with the main vista and further hay bales spreading out behind and giving a greater sense of depth and scale to the image. If you can't get up close to something then get down low and show some detail in the ground - or hay stubble.

Hope you don't mind Rob. Too good a sky to miss out on. (Nik col FX) - Tonal contrast filter @ default and standard setting then a Silver FX layer - a slight increase of blacks and whites and 28% sepia tone this (SFX) layer's opacity then reduced to 70%. Quick and dirty.

Vic

haybale-version--1-smaller_13947443871_o.jpg.00759163dbe53f5853db7cf342702dc6b.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Vic. That makes it 'pop'!!

Often I don't have the patience or time to fiddle around with the finer points of post-processing. Even getting a horizon level is often ignored due to a lack of time or concentration.

I think I must be the first on the forum to have someone adjust and improve their photos. Must put up more for you to have a go on!

Rob

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I do find the 10-24 useful, though not that often. Street photography sometimes. But where I do use it more frequently is on an infra-red converted X-E1. Being able to include lots of interesting sky in IR works well for me.

I, too, like Vic's conversion of your hay bales image Rob.

Chris

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChrisPoole said:

 I do find the 10-24 useful, though not that often. Street photography sometimes. But where I do use it more frequently is on an infra-red converted X-E1. Being able to include lots of interesting sky in IR works well for me.

I, too, like Vic's conversion of your hay bales image Rob.

Chris

Thanks Chris

Good to know the 10-24mm works for IR - I can add it to my list of good IR lenses. I don't have the 10-24mm, the lens I use for 95% of my IR is the 14mm focused to about 5ft aperture at f5.6 - f8 to give sharpness from a couple of feet to inf. Some from my DPR Infrared gallery here: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2871600606/albums/infrared-590-converted-x-e1 (590nm converted XE1 mostly with additional 720 lens filter),

9 hours ago, robthebruce said:

Thanks Vic. That makes it 'pop'!!

Often I don't have the patience or time to fiddle around with the finer points of post-processing. Even getting a horizon level is often ignored due to a lack of time or concentration.

I think I must be the first on the forum to have someone adjust and improve their photos. Must put up more for you to have a go on!

Rob

Feel free - I'm often bored and I enjoy PP but no guarantees you'll always like them :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




×