Or 15mm equiv in dslr aps-c format
In the olden days of 35mm film 24mm was the widest you could get (or at least afford) and was great for mountain landscapes and getting feel of exposure with a climber in the foreground. I loved my Ricoh GR 35mm compact which had a fixed 24mm lens for the same reasons. New ultra wide zooms e.g. 10-20mm (aps-c) are very tempting for my dslr having seen many of the wild images out there, but are heavy and bulky on my nice and small Pentax K-S2 body and I'm agonising between getting one or a nice compact and light Pentax pancake 15mm (24mm 35mm equiv) prime. Main benefit of the prime is being more likely to take it on a climb, ski tour, less faffing in choosing a zoom setting, built in retractable lens-hood and arguably optical quality. Downside is lack of versatility. Not much price difference the two.
The Pentax 15 is certainly much smaller and lighter than the UW zooms. However for optical quality it might be worth checking some of the online reviews. Doesn't seem to have quite the quality you might expect of a prime. Also not really wide enough to class as UW.
> Unlike with landscape or people photos, in the mountains, you often can't just step forward or back to change perspective. I like zooms.
But you can crop easily. With modern good quality high MP sensors and good prime lenses you can crop a lot and still have more than enough pixels for a high resolution screen or 8x10 print. For example this image is approx. 20% crop of the full size picture taken on a 50mm fi.8 prime with a 10Mp camera. it was good enough to be used in the Rockfax Western grit guide. I think you would be hard pressed to get as good a result with the available light using a zoom without getting flare and other problems http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=33775
thlcr1 Yes of course I've read the reviews. The main concern of many reviews is sharpness, in practice when you stop down there isn't much between them. Conversely problems with many of the alternative zooms, particularly in a climbing situation include chromatic aberration (purple fringing) - eg on mountain skylines and flare when shooting into the light/sun. I find you also get much better colour rendition with a prime.
it's often said that the best camera is the one you have with you. If you're wandering around the bottom of Stanage this is not such a limitation. But in many climbing situations a DSLR can be more demanding to carry than a compact despite the huge photographic benefits. A prime lens can enable you to carry a small prime lens where a zoom would be too bulky. This image was taken from a mid route belay using a 35mm film SLR with 28mm prime lens. The detail on an A3+print from a high res film scanner is astounding. I wouldn't have been able to climb the route with a bulky zoom lens http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=22543
One occasion when I did take a dslr and zoom was on a big multi pitch route on the Fire pinnacle at Riglos. I particularly wanted to get a shot looking down on a vulture. The shot is ok but would have been much better with the 50mm prime, which I have bought since and also so much easier to carry on the climb http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=82740
So, after a lot of thought I'll probably go for the prime 15mm. It can be strangely liberating to just take one lens selected to suit the day's activities, if necessary with a second compact prime in your pocket/pack.
Having said that my best of a Sigma EX 100-300 full frame also comes in very useful sometimes
What does class as an ultra wide, and what use is it apart from those novelty shots you often see in conjunction with over use of HDR and the saturation slider? A better and more accurate way of getting a very wide panorama is a 50mm prime on a tripod with manual exposure and stitch several images together.
> What does class as an ultra wide, and what use is it apart from those novelty shots you often see in conjunction with over use of HDR and the saturation slider?
I rarely use my ultra wide (11-16 Tokina f/2.8 on a crop sensor) for wide landscapes, it's more often to get in really close on a subject but include plenty of context. Also they're great in confined spaces, such as interior architecture where stitching just wouldn't work as well.
> What does class as an ultra wide, and what use is it apart from those novelty shots you often see in conjunction with over use of HDR and the saturation slider? A better and more accurate way of getting a very wide panorama is a 50mm prime on a tripod with manual exposure and stitch several images together.
No idea what actually constitutes a UWA to be honest maybe 12mm on crop frame but it's just an arbitrary definition really. As for what use are they, thought you were considering getting one? I actually quite like some of those type of shots. Just that possibly likes yourself, I've been put off getting one due to size and weight.
I think stitching photos can be an excellent way of achieving wide shots, and i use it quite a lot. However it can also be difficult to predict your results as you can't see what your final picture will be like until your back home and working on the computer. Bit late then if you've got it wrong. Think i'd also start with something a bit wider than a 50mm. On crop frame it's practically a short telephoto. Would require a large number of shots in both the vertical and horizontal planes, to get a truly wide angle result.
Despite my remarks about the Pentax 15, I was actually quite tempted to try one, still would if I had the chance to get one at a reasonable price. Just trying to sound a note of caution about Prime's always being better optical quality. They usually are of course, and may be in this instance but its not always quite that simple.
