Amateur question. What, if any, is the difference between a wide angle and panoramic lense?
Wide angle vs Panoramic
- Thread starter Gemini
- Start date
This came up when I googled it.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
hmm.. you had better results than I did. I'm looking for a particular lense and I see lenses as well as lense attachments. Some say wide angle some say panoramic. Thanks.
I often use a wide angle lens when I'm diving. It's just a way to get a larger field of view. This is useful for me, because shots taken while diving tend to be, of necessity, taken from close to the subject. Moving back from a subject under water to get a larger field will REALLY screw up your lighting.
Panoramics are a series of pictures taken from while rotating the camera around a common pivot point, and then splicing the pictures together.
There are also panoramic lenses which, as I understand them, take a 360 degree photo on one snap. I've never tried one, but the samples I've seen seemed to have a lot of distortion in the image, sort of like a funhouse mirror.
This is a shot I took off Cozumel of a scorpion fish (they're quite venomous, and their camo is one reason why good divers are anal about bouyancy control and never ever touching anything...). Without the wide angle lens, I'd have had a choice of moving back or not getting the whole fish in the frame. Moving back, thanks to the refraction of water, would have resulted in the loss of much of the color (although this one is laying in a bed of seagrass, so there's less color than in other places). Even big strobes are only useful at short range underwater.
View attachment $SANY0057.jpg
Another scorpion fish, laying under a reef, showing the color of the coral.
View attachment $SANY0059.jpg
This is an unfiltered shot of a reef, taken from too far away for strobes to be of any use. Not too exciting...
View attachment $PICT0176.jpg
This is the same section of reef, from much closer, showing the color these reefs really have. It was taken directly below the round coral in the center of the prior picture. The cowfish in the picture is about 2" long, to give you an idea of the scale.
View attachment $PICT0177.jpg
This is a panoramic shot of Amberley Castle in southern England. Sue and I got married on the battlements right next to that gatetower on the right (as you look at the picture). It's spliced together from two other shots.
View attachment $Amberley Pano 01.jpg
These are the two pictures I used to create the panoramic shot. Obviously, moving back to capture the entire front wall of the castle would have resulted in very little detail, even if I later cropped and zoomed the shot.
View attachment $DCAM0382.jpgView attachment $DCAM0383.jpg
If you look at the panoramic shot carefully, you will be able to see where it was spliced. In my defense, the shots were taken without a tripod. For best results, use a tripod to ensure that all the pictures are taken from exactly the same point of view.
Panoramics are a series of pictures taken from while rotating the camera around a common pivot point, and then splicing the pictures together.
There are also panoramic lenses which, as I understand them, take a 360 degree photo on one snap. I've never tried one, but the samples I've seen seemed to have a lot of distortion in the image, sort of like a funhouse mirror.
This is a shot I took off Cozumel of a scorpion fish (they're quite venomous, and their camo is one reason why good divers are anal about bouyancy control and never ever touching anything...). Without the wide angle lens, I'd have had a choice of moving back or not getting the whole fish in the frame. Moving back, thanks to the refraction of water, would have resulted in the loss of much of the color (although this one is laying in a bed of seagrass, so there's less color than in other places). Even big strobes are only useful at short range underwater.
View attachment $SANY0057.jpg
Another scorpion fish, laying under a reef, showing the color of the coral.
View attachment $SANY0059.jpg
This is an unfiltered shot of a reef, taken from too far away for strobes to be of any use. Not too exciting...
View attachment $PICT0176.jpg
This is the same section of reef, from much closer, showing the color these reefs really have. It was taken directly below the round coral in the center of the prior picture. The cowfish in the picture is about 2" long, to give you an idea of the scale.
View attachment $PICT0177.jpg
This is a panoramic shot of Amberley Castle in southern England. Sue and I got married on the battlements right next to that gatetower on the right (as you look at the picture). It's spliced together from two other shots.
View attachment $Amberley Pano 01.jpg
These are the two pictures I used to create the panoramic shot. Obviously, moving back to capture the entire front wall of the castle would have resulted in very little detail, even if I later cropped and zoomed the shot.
View attachment $DCAM0382.jpgView attachment $DCAM0383.jpg
If you look at the panoramic shot carefully, you will be able to see where it was spliced. In my defense, the shots were taken without a tripod. For best results, use a tripod to ensure that all the pictures are taken from exactly the same point of view.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #5
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all that. Thanks for sharing the pictures. May I ask what lense you were using?
Underwater, I use a Sanyo Xacti in an Epoque pressure housing (you can waterproof a camera by putting it in a Ziploc bag, but withstanding the pressures is another thing entirely...), with an Epoque DCL-20 wide angle lens. It's a 0.56x lens. Open water dives during the day are shot with a red filter. For night dives, or dives in an overhead environment, I use a UK Light Canon converted to mount on the camera. No strobes, because they don't work with video anyway. If I need more light, I use whatever dive light I'm carrying, which varies depending on the dive. Cave lights are too much for a night dive - they make the critters think it's daytime and they go hide. 
Above water, I use the same Sanyo Xacti for video. For stills, I use an Olympus E-410, with either a 14-42mm or 40-150mm Zuiko digital lens.
Nothing fancy about either camera. I'm sure a professional would be amused both by the cameras and by my results. But we like them.
Above water, I use the same Sanyo Xacti for video. For stills, I use an Olympus E-410, with either a 14-42mm or 40-150mm Zuiko digital lens.
Nothing fancy about either camera. I'm sure a professional would be amused both by the cameras and by my results. But we like them.
they used to sell those disposables with panoramic lens, sweet deal, I wish I could find them still.
They essentially put two regular pictures together as one.
So nowadays you have to put more pictures together in editing....I know I have seen lenses like that in the past - or cameras - but that's been a log time ago, I think when they prought out the advantix cameras...
On my Olympus camera is a panorama feature, but you have to equip a special memory card. and since the camera is on loan atm, I can't see if it works.
but a wide angle gives you more of the regular picture, usual proportions, the panoramic view is - for lack of better words - cropped at top and bottom.
They essentially put two regular pictures together as one.
So nowadays you have to put more pictures together in editing....I know I have seen lenses like that in the past - or cameras - but that's been a log time ago, I think when they prought out the advantix cameras...
On my Olympus camera is a panorama feature, but you have to equip a special memory card. and since the camera is on loan atm, I can't see if it works.
but a wide angle gives you more of the regular picture, usual proportions, the panoramic view is - for lack of better words - cropped at top and bottom.
I have a 10-20mm wide angle lens made by Sigma. It took some practice for me to to get used to it but now I am loathe to go out without it
Mine Falls Park 042-2 by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Wannalancit Mills by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Kancamagus covered bridge by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Haunting Me by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Tracks by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Mine Falls Park 042-2 by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Wannalancit Mills by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Kancamagus covered bridge by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Haunting Me by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Tracks by Sikaranista, on Flickr
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
Thank you all very much for the replies and the pictures. I'm buying the lense for my wife who's been wanting a wide angle for her Canon rebel. Since she's just learning as I am, it doesn't make much sense to just go throw money at something without understanding what features really are essentials. Lots of what I've been reading says what they're using, but not so much why they're using it or what's a good qualify for a beginner.
There are generally not many features on wide angle lenses. You mention you and your wife are beginners, chances are yu are using auto focus often and may appreciate one with image stabilization, although that will raise the price a bit.
Its not the best lens for close-in work, or for shooting people, but there are times when such a lens can get a shot that a midrange lens cannot....as Dirty Dog demonstrates. It's not as sharp as a midrange lens. The aperture control is there but you may find you don't use it as often as you would with a midrange lens.
There are ultra wide lenses that go wider than 10-20mm, but the wider the lens, the more the distortion. Just because something can fit within the field of view does not mean it should....and building a panorama image usually results in a more natural image. Vertical architectural look particularly bad with the image distortion:
EDIT...photo didn't upload, let me retry
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Its not the best lens for close-in work, or for shooting people, but there are times when such a lens can get a shot that a midrange lens cannot....as Dirty Dog demonstrates. It's not as sharp as a midrange lens. The aperture control is there but you may find you don't use it as often as you would with a midrange lens.
There are ultra wide lenses that go wider than 10-20mm, but the wider the lens, the more the distortion. Just because something can fit within the field of view does not mean it should....and building a panorama image usually results in a more natural image. Vertical architectural look particularly bad with the image distortion:
EDIT...photo didn't upload, let me retry
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
OP
- Thread Starter
- #11
I saw a response to some pictures you had posted a few years back doing a search describing these minor distortions, but I have to admit I couldn't see any of what poster was referrin to.
The wider the angle, the more the "fish bowl" appearance of the shot.
So....these are pictures that didn't make the cut, so to speak.
These are as couple historic buildings in Wilton, NH. It is a very unnatural look.
Because the lens is wider and more distorted than the field of normal human vision, its possible to capture a perspective of an image that is unintentional. Most folks that see this picture think the train in the picture had broken down. (It hadn't...the track grade was very steep, and the engineer and brakeman were just enjoying a bit of downtime before they had to call their passengers back for boarding)
I happen to like the photo for the amusing juxtaposition, but it didn't quite capture what I intended. These two better highlighted the grade:
So in conclusion...a wide angle is not a magic bullet. It will capture a wider field of view, but ht it captures may not be what you want. It does not offer much control...with a 10-20mm you choices are wide and wider. It will take a bit of practice. I found it frustrating at first and went as far as calling the camera shop to inquire about returning it. They graciously agreed to the return, but I ended up keeping it. I am glad I did.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
These are as couple historic buildings in Wilton, NH. It is a very unnatural look.
Because the lens is wider and more distorted than the field of normal human vision, its possible to capture a perspective of an image that is unintentional. Most folks that see this picture think the train in the picture had broken down. (It hadn't...the track grade was very steep, and the engineer and brakeman were just enjoying a bit of downtime before they had to call their passengers back for boarding)
I happen to like the photo for the amusing juxtaposition, but it didn't quite capture what I intended. These two better highlighted the grade:
So in conclusion...a wide angle is not a magic bullet. It will capture a wider field of view, but ht it captures may not be what you want. It does not offer much control...with a 10-20mm you choices are wide and wider. It will take a bit of practice. I found it frustrating at first and went as far as calling the camera shop to inquire about returning it. They graciously agreed to the return, but I ended up keeping it. I am glad I did.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Probably the Mine Falls Park photos. Here is a better example:
I had to really tweak this photo with a perspective correction tool, and even with photoshop, I was unable to get the flagpole straight, because it was near the edge of the lens.
Memorial (distance) by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Yet when the same flag was photographed from the center of the lens, from a similar distanceit, appears perfectly straight.
Memorial Fountain by Sikaranista, on Flickr
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
OP
- Thread Starter
- #15
Okay, so where can I just buy a magic bullet? lol. kidding. I had no idea there was so much involved with a shot..but then, I'm just a point and shoot guy. My wife is the one who's really into this. This is really interesting stuff you guys are putting up though. Makes someone like me have a greater appreciation for a quality shot.
So what would be a good lense do you think?
So what would be a good lense do you think?
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm...&qid=1353869305&sr=8-2&keywords=sigma+10-20mm
This is the one that I am using. I think it would be a great compliment to her Rebel, I have a Rebel XTi that I grabbed for short money on eBay, I will often keep the wide angel on the Rebel and the midrange lens on my main 50D camera so I can quickly switch between different shots without changing lenses
Just a note, if you do order online, make sure you are ordering a Canon mount. If you buy in person the store will catch this, but online it is easy to make mistakes.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
This is the one that I am using. I think it would be a great compliment to her Rebel, I have a Rebel XTi that I grabbed for short money on eBay, I will often keep the wide angel on the Rebel and the midrange lens on my main 50D camera so I can quickly switch between different shots without changing lenses
Just a note, if you do order online, make sure you are ordering a Canon mount. If you buy in person the store will catch this, but online it is easy to make mistakes.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
That's awesome. I've seen this lense at several of the places I've looked. Thanks for the tip of the mount...I would not have known to even look for that.
Just to nibble at the question in the OP, there is no formal distinction between a wide-angle and a panoramic lens. The closest you will get to a meaningful definition is that it is down to aspect ratio. 2:1 or greater generally being considered to be panoramic.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Taiji Quan for Self Defense- Latest: windwalker099
-
-