Ultra wide-angle lenses - are they worth the cost, and the problems?

In recent years ultra wide-angle lenses have once again risen in popularity and general use. In early film camera days lenses with wide-angle views were rare. Indeed most lenses were either of a standard or longer focal length giving views that were classed as normal or closer. Today with digital imaging the question arises, are ultra wide angle lenses worth having when there are now alternative means of achieving the same ends using image stitching, at much cheaper cost and often with more versatility and higher resolution?

If you consider the 35mm film format, the first true wide-angle lens to arrive was the 35mm focal length, which produce views of 63º, the standard 50mm lens giving 47º. This increase in viewing angle was considered a real breakthrough, and a step forward in lens optical design, the provision of wider views without severe optical distortions or poor resolution, aspects which remain a major obstacle to overcome with all camera lens designs today. Slowly the lens angles were pushed even wider, first to 28mm (75º) and then to 24mm (84º). Progress was slow because this was before the age of computer aided design.

With the arrival of computer aided optical lens design and advances in lens optical elements the lens types produced leapt forward. Decent zoom lenses could be produced in various lengths and ratios along with types that had previously been seen as exotic at best but mainly just unworkable. As far as wide angle lens designs went this meant that not only did the view angles widen further, to 20mm (94º) and beyond, and classed as ultra wide angle, 15mm (111º) being the furthest it reached with corrected lenses, (those where straight lines are kept straight within limits), but full frame fish-eye lenses also arrived along with wide-angle zooms.

All these types of lenses have one common factor. Because of the design, the optical elements involved, and the low rate of sales, they are expensive to buy. Even those that don't necessarily perform all that well because of the problems involved in their design and construction.  However, towards the end of 35mm film SLR production the 18-35mm wide-angle zoom lens became not only quite popular but also dropped significantly in price, and good performing independent lens make versions for use with 35mm film SLR's, can still be found for sale new today at around £100 or less. Indeed in the early days of small sensor DSLR's when there were no matched focal length lenses made these wide-angle zoom lenses were often offered bundled with the cameras as they gave the equivalent views on these DSLR's to that of a 27-52mm zoom on an ordinary 35mm film SLR. Now of course standard zoom lenses running from 18mm upwards are quite common, 18-55mm, 18-70mm, 18-200mm etc. But they do not give of course the ultra wide-angle views that a 18-35mm gives on a 35mm film SLR or on a Full Frame DSLR.

To get those kind of wide-angle views on a small sensor DSLR you need much shorter focal lengths, and in recent years, as the small sensor DSLR's have become increasingly popular, so lenses with comparable focal lengths have been introduced, 10-22mm, 12-24mm etc. There is only one slight problem here, a small drawback, well there's a few actually, but this is the first to be encountered, the cost of these lenses is once again quite high. Anywhere between £300-£550. Not small sums for occasional use lenses, and these are such lenses, for many reasons, but mostly because of the large front elements they have to have.

Let's retrace our steps a bit to understand why, and the implications that arise. To get the wide-angle views, the lenses that provide them must have a large front element to capture the very wide view that they produce. And so this view isn't blocked or impeded in any way the front lens element must be proud of the lens barrel construction that retains it in place, it can't be recessed even slightly like most longer focal length lens front elements can. This in turn means the lens is subject to flare to a much higher degree than a normal lens, and the lighting conditions under which you can use a wide-angle lens, and particularly the ultra wide variety, are thus quite limiting. Directional lighting of any kind, natural or artificial, must be kept away from the lens at all costs. Behind you generally. Side lighting with a very wide angle lens can be as disastrous as shooting into the sun. 

Another problem is that the optical quality is often quite poor in comparison with other lens types, especially in the outer field, until the lens aperture is stopped down. This is usually compounded by the fact most wide angle lenses, and especially the zoom types, don't have very large apertures due to the need to keep the overall size of the front element - the diameter - down to as small as is practical for the reasons already mentioned, with f4 being fairly normal. So using apertures of f8-f11 is needed to get reasonably sharp shots right across the image frame. This is contrary to the general experience with most moderate wide-angle lenses which can be sharp as well as having good depth-of-field at quite modest apertures.

Now in film days these downsides and restrictions were accepted as part and parcel of getting a wide angle and ultra wide angle view, because there was no other way of achieving it. But in the digital imaging/camera era there is. Taking multiple shots and stitching them together.

This approach has several benefits. It's far less costly as you don't need a special lens for a start. It can be undertaken using easily obtained software and many common image editors now offer image stitching. It's also very versatile in that you can adjust and re-arrange the images you use to generate a panoramic/stitch image. So after the event of taking the shots you can choose just what kind of view you want. Perhaps best of though is that the final image can have a resolution, if you need it, of many times that of a single wide-angle shot.

Full details of stitching can be found here - Panoramic Basics

Nikon D800 & D800E

Nikon Have sprung a bit of a surprise with the D800 by fitting it with a 36mp sensor. This is quite some resolution hike and you have to wonder why the decision to take this route with this camera has been taken. Obviously it's targeted at those who might well consider one of the high resolution medium format digital cameras, with rates that now range from 22mp up to 80mp, and this would seem to be confirmed with the announcement of a version without a low pass filter, the D800E, to produce even higher quality images in respect of outright resolution and sharpness, even at the risk of introducing moiré, which is of course what a low pass filter removes at the cost of some image softening. In this respect Nikon are just following the lead of several other makers who have omitted this filter in their high resolution cameras to aid improved image quality.

Many will undoubtedly drool over the resolution without perhaps considering all the implications that will arrive with ownership of such a camera. So before you rush out to get one, at £2,599 around £500 cheaper than the new 22mp Canon 5D 3, consider this, (the D800E is £2,899).

Is your current equipment, computer, memory cards, HDD's, software etc, up to coping with the file sizes? For make no mistake, unless you have the best and fastest software and hardware, along with large and fast storage, both memory cards and HDD's, it will struggle to keep up with the demands placed on it by 36mp files.

More to the point perhaps is to ask the basic question. Do you really need such resolution? What would you use it for? Would it actually give you a usable advantage over a lower resolution? Yes, you can easily capture a lower resolution, but then what is the point in having a camera with a 36mp sensor. You might just as well buy a cheaper and lower resolution model in the first place.

Hitting the RAM limit

Many new computers these days come with much larger amounts of RAM than in the past. Because there is a limit as to how much 32bit operating systems can use, ('see' 4Gb but really only use 3Gb), most now use 64bit. This applies mainly to Windows machines, still the most widely used operating system, since most computers come with it pre-installed. As a result machines using the 64bit O/s are now the norm, along with anything from 3-8Gb RAM. 

So getting one with say 6Gb of RAM will be a distinct advantage right? Well, not necessarily, because this doesn't give the big benefit many might assume occurs. Why? Because any installed software is limited as to how much RAM it can access and use. On Windows this is 2Gb. 

If you use say Adobe Photoshop you can specify that it uses 100% of the available RAM. But that will be up to that 2Gb limit even if you have 4/6/8Gb installed. So you won't get faster operation, or quicker manipulation of image files. Indeed in this particular case having a larger/faster Hard Drive, and particularly a faster processor, will be of more benefit. 

All more RAM now means, at the present time, is that if you want or need to, you can have several applications open and in use at the same time without affecting or diminishing performance too much. This in itself will be of particular importance to some, but not to everybody.

This is a change from the recent past, when increasing RAM gave the best performance increase. Currently this is no longer the case. We have a new laptop with one of the latest second generation Intel i-core (virtual quad core) chips and can confirm that the increase in computer speed and performance is quite marked over previous Intel and AMD dual/quad core processors. We should also state that we find the new USB3 connection is very fast when used with USB3 compatible devices.

Olympus E-M5

An indication of the further ways camera makers are trying to tempt buyers to invest in a new digital camera can be seen with the introduction of Olympus of a new line of mirror-less micro 4/3rds cameras based around the basic concept of the original and well regarded OM SLR series.

However the concept is in styling only, although the camera does sport a sealed magnesium alloy body which is both dust and splash-proof. For the first in what is termed the OM-D series is the latest generation of digital mirror-less camera, and perhaps, finally, very near to getting the best use out of the design.

It has a new 16mp sensor, built-in EVF, and a vertically tilting 3" OLED rear screen. There is also built-in lens stabilization that works with any lens, twin control dials, and shooting speeds of up to 9fps.

Is there a downside? Well yes, (besides the price), there is no built-in flash. It's not the end of the world, but does mean either carrying an add-on one, (more money), or doing without. It could be a deal breaker for some in these days of most cameras having a built-in flash, for whilst they might not be that powerful, as a fill-flash source they can often be crucial in allowing shots that would otherwise not be possible. For using a high iso can't cover every difficult to take shot.

It will be interesting to see how this series of cameras develops, and whether it will gain the acceptance of the original OM series. Somehow we doubt it. Times change and often it is not wise or sensible to try and replicate the past.

 Kodak - RIP

Perhaps one of the saddest bits of news to emerge recently is that Kodak, once the King of the photography world, has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the USA. What is even worse is that it is as a consequence of a technology they invented, digital imaging and digital cameras, yet failed to invest in as others did in a silly bid to protect the cash cow of film production and processing which has historically produced the vast majority of their income and profits.

They produced the first digital camera in 1975, and in 1992 were ready to bring them into the mainstream, but ditched the plans to protect their film business. It was one of their employees, Dr Bruce Bayer, who invented the colour mosaic sensor pixel pattern that the vast majority of digital cameras still use today, and results in the sensors generally being referred to as Bayer sensors.

In early desktop publishing days they also produced the first Digital SLR's which the newspapers all used, but indecision in the direction to take led to other companies slowly overtaking them in all digital imaging sectors. Although it had been long forecast when digital imaging arrived that there would be mass causalities in the photographic world as a result, and indeed many famous and well know and respected brands have succumbed, we doubt anyone would have considered Kodak to be at risk.

Loosing the higher end camera market to others Kodak eventually went back to concentrating on their core market of the past, the ordinary consumer rather than those particularly interested in photography as a hobby or job. They produced a range of basic compact cameras but found this to be a very competitive market in which their size and name did not hold much sway with buyers, especially since many well known electronic companies had now entered the fray.

The end has come quite suddenly mainly as a result of the new breed of smartphone with their built-in cameras which has eroded this sector of the market even further. Why buy a separate camera when your phone has a 8mp one? The image quality isn't always brilliant, but often quite as good now as the more basic digital camera. And it's always in your pocket isn't it? 

This change, as much about social mobility as anything else, is thus at the core of Kodak's downfall. It also goes to show, as is often stated, that nothing really lasts forever. Many well known companies of recent decades are now but a distant memory.  They arrive to satisfy a need, grow as the need grows, and fade away just as readily as that need also fades with changed circumstances.

Recently after gaining further funding they have announced that they intend to concentrate in the future on producing printers and photo booths. Whether this will save them long term is quite unclear for there are many other well known and respected companies already occupying these market sectors. The only saving grace for Kodak is that they own many patents concerning digital imaging, and it is these assets which might save them, or at least allow them survive a while longer.