Is there a set point when wide becomes ultra wide?
Just curious, I've seen both wide and ultra wide pop up here often in discussion. Is it a matter of preference, or is there a standard? I consider my Tokina 11-16 ultra wide (obviously) but I'm on the edge whether the short end of my 24-105mm would be considers ultra wide or not. Just a thought that popped into my head last night while shooting fireworks.
Is there a set point when wide becomes ultra wide?
Typically (FF equivalent):
Wider than 24mm = ultrawide angle
24mm - 35mm = wide angle
36mm - ~60mm = normal
~60mm - 100mm = short telephoto
100mm - 300mm = telephoto
Longer than 300mm = super telephoto
Technically, 24mm on APS-C isn't even wide angle, it's normal (which is why I don't usually recommend 24-xx zooms as walkaround lenses for crop bodies).
Is there a set point when wide becomes ultra wide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Black_Dog
I have always thought of ultra wide-angle lenses threshold as the point where distortion becomes really noticeable, which is about 24mm on a 35mm film camera. I recently learned there is a technical reason for that.
An ultra-wide angle lens is one whose focal length exceeds the short dimension of the film or digital sensor.
A 35mm film negative or full frame sensor measures 36mm x 24mm, so anything wider than 24mm is considered ultra wide-angle for that format. Likewise, Canon's APS-C sensors measure 22.3mm x 14.9mm, so anything wider than about 15mm is ultra wide-angle.
That's an interesting idea, but I believe it is more likely coincidence and lens design. For example, the EF 28mm f/1.8 has worse barrel distortion than the EF 14mm f/2.8L. Likewise, ultrawide zooms (16-35, 17-40) set to 20-24mm have less barrel distortion than the 24-105L at 24-28mm.