How to Choose and Use Wide Angle Lenses

Main Image: A field of sainfoin beneath the village of Campi Vechio, the Valnerina, Monti Sibillini National Park, Umbria, Italy.Canon 1Ds mkIII, 24mm TS-E lens, 10x ND filter + 0.9ND grad, ISO 50, 6 mins @ f16

In Part One and Two of this occasional series on how we use and choose our precious lenses we looked at medium and long lenses; now it's time to get wide. All through this discussion the big debates of zooms vs primes, speed vs weight and performance vs cost have been the Big Issues. Now that we're considering bulging wide optics with curvy front elements nothing changes. Or does it?

Well, yes. For a start we can pretty much discount the speed vs. weight issue. Generally speaking the weight and bulk of wide angles isn't really something to lose sleep over, by definition short lenses are all fairly portable. The difference between a 300mm f4 and it's f2.8 stable mate is felt immediately as the load is shouldered; some 1.5 kg of considerable bulk and aching shoulders is the price to be paid for one extra stop of speed.

In the world of wide angles it's not such a factor, yes a 24mm f1.4 is beefier then an f2.8 but compared to all the other stuff we have to lug about an extra 380gm is not a Big Deal. So, the choices are simpler, right? Not for me, because at these focal lengths of less then 35mm other factors come into play to muddy the waters; and that's all down to how I and I suspect many of you use your wide angles. So before we go any further let's look at how, when and why wide angles are used in the field.

Sometimes it's a case of just getting it all in. As long lenses let us pull in the frame filling detail of an elusive prowling cheetah extreme wide angles let us include everything around us, the village square, the sky above and your feet below, not to mention the odd stray Lowepro, the rubbish bins and regrettable tourists. But of course choice of appropriate focal length is far more then that, it's a decision based on perspective and what we want to emphasise in the composition.

Standard lenses replicate our natural view and record a pleasingly balanced perspective between foreground and background. Long lenses compress perspective and reveal the true scale of distant subjects, whilst wide-angle views emphasise the foreground and make near objects big and bold in the frame at the expense of the background. When contemplating how I'm going to compose a picture I like to weigh up these choices before the camera bag is opened. I'm often asked what's my most used lens, to which I answer the 24-70mm, predictably, but when it comes to what's my most used focal length I don't know, there's a time and a place for all of them.

But there's no doubt in landscape photography in particular a wide-angle perspective with strong foreground interest is a tried and tested formula that is almost a default setting, you can't beat it. And nine times out of ten that perspective and composition requires crisp sharp detail from the poppies in the foreground to the hills in the far distance. With long lenses the minimal depth of field is part of the attraction, with wide angles ultimate depth of field is often the required look.

Now I'm going to make a sweeping statement here that is true for me at least, feel free to disagree vehemently. My 70-200mm f2.8 is often used wide open at maximum aperture, my 16-35mm f2.8 rarely. And hardly ever do I see my long lens stopped down to the minimum aperture of f32, but the wide zoom is frequently down at f22.

There are many exceptions to this generalisation, I spent a whole trip in Laos shooting with a 24mm f1.4 lens wide open, and sometimes I'll stop down the long artillery when all is bolted down firmly and I need a slow exposure to record our swaying world. But clearly these different priorities affect how I choose my lenses.

In a nutshell for wide angles speed is less important to me then corner to corner and foreground to background crispness.

Ultimate depth of field with superlative optical performance; that's the requirement. It's a Big Ask.

Dusk at Sheep's Head from Doneen Head, Co Cork, Ireland. Canon 1Ds mkIII, 16-35mm II L f2.8 lens, 3x ND filter + 0.9ND grad, ISO 50, 8 secs @ f16

Compromise, compromise, compromise; it's been the theme throughout this ramble round the photographic world of optics. Now I should stress that this study is a very personal view of what I need from my equipment; we all think and work differently and that's as it should be. For me optical quality is probably the number one requirement. We've already talked about the zoom v prime debate for medium and long lenses and it is my view that the flexibility of zooms in the medium range makes them indispensable tools with performance virtually inseparable from comparable prime optics. At the wide-angle end I don't think that's true, the wider you go the more difficult the compromises between the convenience of a zoom and optical performance seemingly become.

I remember when I bought my first SLR, an Olympus OM 10. Back then in 1980 THE wide angle was the 28mm, 24mm was risqué and 21mm; well, that was just so extreme. Now we take for granted focal lengths of 16mm or wider, and we expect them to be affordable and optically perfect. Spare a thought for the lens manufacturers; one glance at the front of a bulbous 14mm optic tells us these are not easy lenses to make. Throw in the complexities of variable focal lengths and it stands to reason that compromises have to be made.

Now I don't want to spark off another skirmish in the interminable Nikon v Canon Holy War, and there are many other lens manufacturers to consider, but it is a fact that many professionals have concluded that irrespective of what system you're using at focal lengths wider then 28mm prime lenses have a distinct edge. Cue loads of e-mails along the lines of “my 14-24mm is superb”. That may well be, and getting overly obsessive about lens sharpness is one sure way to leading a very a sad life, ultimately it's the pictures that matter.

My 16-35mm II L lens is a flexible, handy, versatile tool that I wouldn't be without, but it can't be ignored; the 24mm f1.4 prime lens is noticeably crisper then any zoom. But for me it's not just about straight optical performance because with landscapes I'm often stopping down to tiny apertures to get the depth of field I need, and that throws up another problem; diffraction.

Dusk on the Isla del Sol, Lake Titicaca, Bolivia. Canon 1Ds mkIII, 24mm II L f1.4 lens, polarising filter, ISO 160, 1/40 secs @ f7.1

Time for a bit of science. Light is energy that radiates as a waveform. Diffraction refers to the spreading out of such waves past small openings, like the aperture in the lens diaphragm when stopped down to f22. This spreading causes unsharpness, which is why lenses always operate at their best at mid range apertures around f8. There's no doubt the resultant softness caused by diffraction is noticeable at anything smaller than f16. But if you need depth of field from the yellow jobbies just millimetres from the front lens element all the way to Monti Sibillini in the distance you've just got to stop down. Worrying about the lens sweet spot isn't an option, using the aperture that delivers the required depth of field is the only way. Or is it? Well, you can always tilt a little.

Monte Vettore and the wildflowers at Forca Canapine at dawn, Monti Sibillini National Park, Umbria, Italy. Canon 1Ds mkIII, 17mm TS-E lens, ISO 100, 0.6 sec @ f11

Take my 17mm f4 L TS-E tilt and shift lens. Basically it's a handy bendy lens capable of contorting itself into strange shapes by shifting up and down, right and left, and tilting backwards and forwards. Why? Shift movements are handy for correcting converging verticals, and with a bit of tilting we can achieve massive depth of field without having to stop down to a minimum aperture. Now I could talk to you about Scheimflug's Principle concerning the intersecting lens, sensor and subject planes but I can hear you nodding off from here. In a nutshell by tilting the lens forward almost infinite depth of field can be achieved.

How much tilt is needed? You'll have to read up on Scheimflug and practice. It takes a bit of thought and fiddling about, but the rewards are significant. Firstly, the lenses themselves are bighting sharp, in Canon's case arguably the sharpest lens you can bolt on a 5D mkII or 1Ds mkIII. Secondly the option of using tilt to deliver the required depth of field whilst working at a mid range aperture without diffraction rearing its ugly head means that premium lens performance really shines through. Of course auto focus is out, and TTL metering goes to pot when movements are dialled in. They also cost an arm and a leg. Nothing's ever simple in this life, is it?

The Eiffel Tower in spring, Paris, France. Canon 1Ds mkII converted for infra red, 17mm f4 L TS-E lens, ISO160, 1/80 sec @ f11

There's no doubt tilt and shift, or perspective control lenses to give them their proper title, are incredibly handy for architectural, travel and landscape work. They're also expensive, are only available in a few focal lengths and relatively bulky. But the promise of almost infinite depth of field combined with the very best optical performance is just too tantalising to pass. Now for my landscape work the 17mm and 24mm tilt & shifts are de rigueur.

That's all well and good, but in a crowded market place in Laos auto focus and a fast maximum aperture are the order of the day. Back to square one. More compromises to be considered. Do you know what I'd recommend? Ignore all this, get a useful flexible wide-angle lens you're happy with and get on with the business of making stunning, perceptive, unique pictures. That's what it's all about.

The Jurassic Coast from Golden Cap, Dorset, England. Canon 1Ds mkII, 15mm fisheye lens, two exposures, f16

Biography

http://www.davidnoton.com

Born in England in 1957, David spent much of his youth travelling with his family between the UK, California and Canada. After leaving school David joined the Navy in search of further travels and adventures – and it was while sailing the seven seas that his interest in photography grew. After several years at sea he decided to pursue his passion for photography and returned to study in Gloucester, England.  After leaving college in 1985 he began work as a freelance photographer specialising in landscape and other travel subjects, which over the last 25 years, have taken him to almost every corner of the globe.

David is now established and recognised as one of the UK's leading landscape and travel photographers. His images sell all over the world – both as fine art photography and commercially in advertising and publishing. He has won international awards for: British Gas/ BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Awards in 1985,1989 & 1990 and also writes regularly about landscape and travel photography for a number of national and international magazines. David has worked for numerous clients including British Airways, Sainsbury's, Geo, Toyota, Qantas, Sunday Times and the Telegraph.  During the last twenty years he has also worked extensively for the National Trust covering much of the UK's landscape and coastline, which has featured in many high profile publications and several highly acclaimed photographic exhibitions. Most notably:

'New Vision' Contemporary Art Photography – AOP Gallery
'The Coast Exposed' – Maritime Museum Greenwich and the Lowry
'Climate Change – in Britain's Back Yard!' – London, Nottingham, Wales, Belfast, Bristol

“l'm still passionate about photography. All aspects fascinate me; from capturing the first light of day on a frosty landscape or making the most of a bustling market in Vietnam to portraying the dignity of a wrinkled face in China.”

David spends much of the year travelling with his wife Wendy. When not travelling they live in England, near Sherborne in Dorset.

All images in this article © David Noton