When my wide angle lens is just not wide enough

[RagingInMiami]

Although I am very pleased with my Canon 5D because my 20mm lens is actually a 20mm lens (as opposed as a 32mm lens as it was with my 10D), there are times when a wide angle is just not wide enough. As in this case, when I was trying to capture the entire image of the building in both the reflection and the actual building. I guess I can always photoshop it together, but that is always a hassle to do and not nearly as original. Technical info on bottom.






Tech info for top photo:
Shutter speed: 1/10 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Exposure mode: Program
Exposure compensation: -1/3
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Partial
ISO: 1000
Lens: 20mm

Tech info for bottom photo:
Shutter speed: 1/8 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Exposure mode: Program
Exposure compensation: -1/3
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Spot
ISO: 1600
Lens: 20mm

[JeffR]

1. Even without the entire building

The second shot gets a "Wow":wow:

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Beautiful, Raging...

I love that you get the true color at night without the golden glow. The camera, the photographer or your PhotoShop abilities?

[RagingInMiami]

3. Thanks, Blue

But in full disclosure, I did my usual PS processing with something I don't usually do: the addition of a cooling filter at the end, which brought out the true blueness of the building.

[RagingInMiami]

10. The other thing I did was use a "flourescent" exposure

during the RAW processing. Usually, I use one of the other settings because flourescent doesn't look good, but in this case, it helped bring out the blue.

[F.Gordon]

4. Is there are "rule" that says you have to capture

... both the subject and the reflection?
:shrug:

These are both great. Fave is the 1st... no the 2nd... no the 1st :crazy:

20mm is pretty friggin' wide. You could drain your bank account and get a 14mm non-fisheye wide angle but in the Canon software stuff is a great "sewing kit". Have you ever tried using it?

[Blue_In_AK]

5. or you could get the 10-20 mm Sigma like I have.

It's incredibly wide even on my camera - I can't imagine what it would do on Raging's.

[F.Gordon]

6. True dat'

... but I think the Sigma 10-20, like the Canon 10-22, is designed for a cropped camera. It has sumtin' to do with the way the little magical elfs sprinkle pixie dust when it passes through the glass.
:smoke:

"I think" that the widest you can go on a full-frame camera without it becoming a fisheye is 14mm. I could be wrong. Besides... Ragin' is a "speed freak". Check out the f/2.8 he's using. Sigma does make a 14mm f/2.8 prime non-fisheye wide angle.

Edit? quote things... for maximum clarity.
:freak:

[TahitiNut]

7. Yeah ... ISO 1000 and ISO 1600 ... at night? (Wow!)

I admire a steady hand (shudder) and a full wallet. :silly:

[RagingInMiami]

8. You mean empty wallet

One does not spend that much on camera gear and maintain a full wallet. And it's not so much a steady hand as the fact that I take continuous shots in these instances, rather than a single shot.

This enables the second or third shot to come out much steadier than the first because you're already pressing down the shutter. That's the beauty of digital over film because in film, every image is sacred.

[RagingInMiami]

9. Back when I lived in Arizona

I had purchased a Canon S-50, a high-end point and shoot that was my first digital camera. Up until then, I had only owned a Canon Elan IIe.

It came with that Canon stitch software and I used it to stitch together four shots of a lake down the street from my house. I lived in an area called Tempe Lakes, which was the closest I could get to having Florida in the Arizona desert.

It was a cool shot because the sun was rising behind me, so there was a reflection of the houses on the water, kind of like the shot in this thread (except it was a man-made lake instead of a dirty rain puddle).

I ended up making a huge mounted picture for my living room wall of that panoramic shot and everybody loved it. When I finally got fed-up with Arizona, I sold the picture for a $150, a giveaway considering it cost me more than $50 to print and mount it. It was huge and because I ended up driving across the country in my little Honda Civic Coupe, there was no room for it. Plus, I needed the money.

That was the first time I ever sold a photo (I had been published many times as a staff writer for several newspaper, but I don't count those). Before I left Arizona, I bought the Canon 10D and sold my Canon Elan IIe for $100 in a pawnshop.

Photoshop has a "photomerge" function, but I wasn't thinking about that when I was taking this shot, so I didn't make sure to align the two ends that I would merge, something that is crucial to do in these instances. When I tried to merge the photos that I had, they just would not connect in a realistic manner.

Next time, I will keep that photomerge option in my mind.

My next lens is either going to be the Canon fisheye or the Canon 50 mm f/1.4, both which are listed below.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=12069&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[F.Gordon]

11. Bummer that you had to sell your pano

.. and your Elan. I guess most of us have been there. I had to sell my Nikon years ago. Food and lodging have a funny way of taking precedent at times.

Have you ever used an "unprotected" lens like the Canon Fisheye? They flare like crazy, which isn't a bad thing if you want it to and you have to be cautious of carrying around the exposed glass. Keep the cap on until you are ready to use it. Between the two I'd go for the 50mm f/1.4 - or.. wait and save your pennies and when you can swing it get the 35mm f/1.4 "L".

Regardless.. doesn't matter. You have the ability to make ANY lens sing.