Wide-angle as a permanent accessory ?

[Brian S. Kirbis]

In reading over previous threads, I came across one regarding whether or not to leave the wide-angle lens permanently attached . . .

Ken stated that his wide-angle never comes off his camera. Does this lens truly provide for a better shot in all situations? Would Ken or someone else please elaborate on this? Do those who leave their wide-angle on permanently use a mattebox rather than filtering on the backside of the lens?

Thanks!
Brian

[Graham Bernard]

I got a 2nd XM2 as backup. It is now my main camera - this has the WD on it at all times.


"Does this lens truly provide for a better shot in all situations?" I guess what you are asking is, does it actually get in the way . .. well, less glass in front of the original lens the better - I'll let others decide on that one! However, I only see a lot of effect when zooming through and seeing the exposure dropping off.


"Do those who leave their wide-angle on permanently use a mattebox rather than filtering on the backside of the lens?" .. er . . . please explain? But, again I guess you mean non-graded filters and non-pola? If you wish to use these then you WILL need to obtain a matte box. PLUS having the matte box offers you the convenience of NOT having to unscrew the WD to sandwich a filter in-between. However, I do have/leave a skylight OR swap for UV when I need.

Any of this help you?

Grazie

[Ken Tanaka]

What Grazie said, basically.

The nature of what you shoot will dictate the appropriateness of a wide-angle's use for you. In my case, I found that I did not need the long telephoto range often. Rather, I more often needed the ability to grab wider shots close to my subjects and wide shots with subjects moving through the frame. Hence, I generally left the wide adapter on the camera.

One exception would be when I needed to pull a subject off of the background a bit by using a slightly shallower depth of field. These were, of course, adapter-free stand-off shots using the tele with the iris as close to wide-open as possible. Use of the wide adapter would have defeated the shallow(er) DOF effect.

So if you shoot nature, your family, or other general subjects you will likely find that the wide adapter is useful some of the time, but not always. If you shoot dramatic or documentary work I think you'll find it's useful most of the time. If you get tired of screwing the thing on and off you may do what Grazie did: get a 2nd camera!

[K. Forman]

I love my GL1's wide angle too, just like everyone else. However, I find it's zoom pretty weak, and having the wide angle tends to shorten things even more. So, it depends on what you need for every shot. You may also look into a good tele extender too, for those other times.

[Brian S. Kirbis]

Thanks guys! I had previously been conservative with my WD - confined spaces or landscape, but will have to start shooting more side by side comparisons to see it's performance for other shots.

[Brian S. Kirbis]

That was my next question, Keith, but feared starting a new thread before doing some archive hunting. So . . . could you explain more about those 'other times' the tele extender would be useful and what other lenses might be considered essential?
My shooting conditions will be documentary field work in some rather remote areas, i.e. combination of landscapes, medium shots of daily activity and/or ritual practices & interview.

[K. Forman]

I shoot live events mostly, and try to do wildlife in those inbetween times. If i were in a small club shooting a band, a wide angle is great. If I'm trying to shoot those peregrine falcons 50 ft away, a tele is needed. In a decent sized auditorium, the standard lens is fine, depending on where I get set up.