any final thoughts on ultra wide angle?
My thoughts is that it can be fun, but also difficult to compose.
>>4496504Uwa? More like UwU.
>>4496504I had a Canon EF-S 10-22 which i thought was going to be badass to have but ended up being nearly useless. Like the other Anon said its tough to compose a decent image because its so wide that everything is in frame. I guess it depends what youre shooting but i didnt like it for landscape like i thought i would
>>4496620>ultra wide>for landscapesHoly retard. They are for interiors and creative product/portrait work.
Idk if 16mm counts as "ultra" wide but I love my EF 16-35 F4L. It doesn't distort the image like fish eye lenses, and in general is very pleasing for just about anythhing: pics of groups in small places, architecture, vlog style filming etc. You can pick one up for under 400Fish eye lenses are another story altogether, the only thing they look good on conaistently that I've seen is those stadium panoramas
>>4496620>>4496645UWA is absolutely okay for landscape but shouldn't really be the default choice. However, the 10-22mm range includes the 24-35mm section which is normally the ideal spot for landscapes AND UWA lenses tend to have less distortion than GP zooms in that range.You can also go for a prime which is often better but also good luck getting the framing right.>>4496650Literally my favorite lens now and most used. I personally think anything 20mm and wider counts as UWA but technically <24mm is.
>>4496645Sorry boss, my mom usually said 'special'
>>4496620I bought that lens for when I got my 40D and now it's on my 7 d. It looks okay Ash outside. I think the ones that I tried to do is showing the nice Vistas when I was out hiking up in Squamish. Too much to take in. My 21 mm on my 6D Mark 2 I love.>>4496645There are no hard and fast rules with that. I've taken great interior shots with just a 35 and my 45. It all depends on the subject and the framing
