17 mil 1.8, not enough angle?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Braza, Sep 12, 2013.

  1. Braza

    Braza Mu-43 Regular

    60
    Jan 31, 2013
    Very often when I take a pictures on the 17mm 1.8, I have a feeling that there is not enough wide angle. And sometimes I think about replacing 17 to 12. Or just need to learn to take pictures? :) Does anyone has same thoughts?
     
  2. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    The 17mm isn't a wide angle really. It's more of an environmental/street/portrait lens. If you want wide, I'd get either the 14mm or the 12mm.
     
  3. gochugogi

    gochugogi Mu-43 Veteran

    It's a matter of personal taste and style. Use what feels right for your style and eye.

    The 17mm on half-frame takes in approximately 64 degrees, about the same as 35mm on full-frame. 35mm was considered wide back in (135 format) film days but I find it natural and easy to shoot. I can pre-visualize images at 64 degrees and merely need to raise camera to eye to capture it. 50mm on FF or 25mm on half-frame is traditionally considered what the average Joe sees with his nekid eye, but I always through it too tight. Needless to say, the 17 1.8 is glued on my E-P3 while the EF 35 2.0 IS USM lives on my EOS 5D MKII.
     
  4. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    Genuine wide angle lenses will exaggerate the perspective of an image, to the point where they are pretty inappropriate for most photographic situations. It's like an effect. You shouldn't really be thinking about it in terms of 'oh my lens isn't wide enough to fit this subject in the frame', but whether you want to take images with this sort of distorted view of the world.

    For panoramic / landscape images, you could always take multiple shots with the 17mm and stitch them together later. This is what I did the only lens I had was my 20mm, which let me take pictures like this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The 17mm has a similar angle of view as a 35mm on FF{old 135 film}. I never liked my 35mm when I shot film. It was never wide enough when I wanted to go wide! I eventually bought a 28mm and never used the 35mm again. I have not tried the 17mm in m4/3 because of my past dislike for this angle. Many street shooters swear by it however.

    I love my 14mm f2.5! Similar angle to my old 28mm. It is also a great lens at a very low price. Not super fast but fast enough for most things. It also focuses fast and is reasonably sharp with low distortion.
     
  6. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    USA
    It is what it is of course. It sounds simple to me, go wider. Try the kit lens for a while. It will get you to 14mm. If you like that and want a prime, get the inexpensive 14mm panny and you are done. If you need wider, try the 12 or one of the wide zooms.

    I personally like the FOV of the 17mm but I agree that sometimes you need a wider field of view. While I was in the confines of NYC, I shot 90% of my shots with the 12mm and it was not always wide enough. Typically I am in more wide open spaces and the 20 or 25mm is great for what I need.

    It is not a matter of learning to take better photos, it is a matter of having what you need to do the job.
     
  7. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Jason
    I like the 17mm focal length for everyday shooting. However, if I'm doing city scapes or landscapes I like 14mm better, which begs the question, why isn't there a f2.0 or f1.7 14mm lens?
     
  8. nardoleo

    nardoleo Mu-43 Veteran

    332
    Apr 2, 2013
    Singapore
    Leo
    I used my 12mm/2 as my street lens. Perfect for outings with friends. Was having GAS and thinking of getting the 17mm/1.8 but jus couldn't justify it since I also have the 25/1.4.

    Go rent the 12mm and see for yourself if you prefer it to the 17mm.

    Sent from my trusty Samsung Galaxy Note 2
     
  9. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    Agreed.

    I have always felt that 24mm (35mm equivalent) or shorter was necessary to produce a sense of space when shooting interiors, whether architectural shots or people. Longer focal lengths just don't produce enough context. In M43, my 9-18 has become a favorite and I recently bought a 12/2 for tourist photos inside dim churches, caves, castles, etc.

    I like the 18mm end of the 9-18 for precisely the reason Liamness mentions: it's not really wide angle. So the 9-18 is a very versitile lens for street-type photography.

    I'd encourage you to try a 12 or the 9-18. I think that either will give you what you're missing.

    Sorry, Liamness, on this point we don't just disagree. Your statement is factually incorrect. Perspective distortion depends ONLY on the distance between the camera and the subject. The lens has nothing to do with it. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography) I would even argue that it is not distortion at all. It is an accurate rendition of reality, of the subject as it would be seen by the eye at the same distance.
     
  10. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    I wasn't saying it was a bad thing, just that for me that's what wide angle lenses are for, creating drama through the use of exaggerated perspective. Personal opinion warning. Although nice of you to be so apologetic when correcting me!
     
  11. rnagoda

    rnagoda Mu-43 Veteran

    260
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tucson, AZ
    Robert
    This is really dependent on 1) what you are taking pictures of and 2) your personal style.

    Obviously this is a pretty standard focal length (being approx. equivalent to a 35mm lens on full frame) and is very popular and usable. But if it doesn't suit you, it doesn't suit you. If it's an option you can simulate a wider angle by stepping further back from your subject, but that will change some of the composition aspects of your shot and that may or may not be a good thing.

    I know a photographer who shoots with a 50mm lens on a APS-C camera nearly exclusively, so giving her a 80mm equivalent focal length. She does this indoors, at events, outdoors, etc. - I very rarely see her change lenses. She has it worked out, knows what she needs to do to get the shot and has developed a style which suits that focal length and it works very well for her. So, clearly, it can be done, and the only question is whether you want to do it.
     
  12. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    652
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    I sometimes even have the same feeling with my fisheye (180° diagonal FOV) !

    You may find in many cases where you want a little bit more that you can combine 2+ shots in a panorama. Microsoft ICE is free & dead easy to use for this. The trick is difficult/impossible to use if your subject has movement, and really requires consistant exposure/focusing (manual settings selected to be suitable for all shots). I usually find it works out fine with handheld shots as long as you allow enough spare for overlap & cropping.

    I've yet to find a decent solution for when I want a longer reach than my longest lenses can mange. You can only crop so much, and teleconverters need top quality lenses...