A couple of observations...

[Sanjay Sen]

The widest focal length that I had used was 28mm, that is, until I got the CV Super Wide-Heliar 15/4.5! First off, it is indeed quite a challenge (for me, at least) to compose with a lens that wide. I use the 15mm viewfinder that comes with the lens, mounted on a Bessa-L. Last week I got the first roll back from the lab, and I found that I'd managed to get my fingers, shadow, or some other object in nine out of the thirty-seven frames! I am pretty sure I didn't notice anything in the VF, so I have to be extra careful when using this lens and VF. I just finished the second roll today, so I am hoping I didn't spoil any more frames.

Secondly, the first roll referenced above was Kodak E100VS, expired in April 2001. This was part of a bunch, (about 70 rolls) of expired film I bought for ten bucks on Craig's List. I haven't cold stored these rolls, and I am pretty sure that the seller hadn't either. Anyway, this was a fun experiment and the colors are quite interesting! I have attached a few images -- shot on expired Kodak E100VS, with the aforementioned 15mm lens (some deliberately with the camera not level).

I am interested in hearing your experiences with this lens -- composition, subject, etc., -- or any other super-wide lens on 35mm. I am also interested in hearing about your experiences shooting expired color film/slides, if you like to do so.

[tomalophicon]

The first shot doesn't really grab me, I think it appears too cluttered or something.
The second 2 are awesome. The 3rd I reckon is the best of the bunch. I love the sky. The blue haze sort of adds to it.

[nate.m]

I used to shoot a 12-24mm sigma lens on a full frame 35mm digital body... The most interesting pictures will be the ones with a strong foreground element. A bunch of clouds in the sky will also add drama to the image. People will always look strange at this perspective, so I'd stick with more nature-y shots. I liked to get low and very close (2 ft or so) to a foreground element, drop the f stop for a lot of dof and click away!

[Sanjay Sen]

I am still experimenting with the perspective of such a wide lens. The first image has an interesting texture/grain in the sky, probably due to the expired film not being stored properly (?). However, the effect seems to have been lost when I attached the image.

[sun of sand]

28mm for me so no help from experience
but that dont stop me

I like the second photo you attached best


3rd is maybe better than 1st
I actually find the 1st easier to look at but the 3rd is maybe on the road to somewhere better
1st photo with a longer focal length cropped to top and bottom of two center trees is a good shot IMO
two trees/two gate things/two distant trees with circular opening between


framing with branches is done well

[KenR]

I agree that the 2nd photo shows off the lens at its best. IMHO, the other two have too much dead space and need to be cropped (or the 28mm lens.)

[Sanjay Sen]

I am interested in hearing your experiences shooting with an ultra-wide lens (and also with expired color film/slide).

[Tim Gray]

I love my 15mm. I put it on and just start snapping. It's a fun street photography lens too. Put it on 1-1.5m and just go.

I lost the finder though over Christmas and need to get a new one.

[2F/2F]

For the way I see things, 28mm is the widest lens I use when I do not want the wideness of the lens to specifically be a "part" of the shot.

I use 24mm and wider when I want the wide field of view to specifically be noticed, for various purposes.

I find little use for my 17mm Canon, though when it is used well, it is great!

A 15 or a 17, etc. is the kind of thing with which I might take 10x as long to go through a roll than with any other lens. It is not something I ever have on my camera unless I also have some other cameras with me. Only on a few occasions have I ever shot through a whole roll with my 17mm in one "sitting".


17mm Canon FD on Delta 3200 (Skanky Dave Chapelle-style Michael Jackson impersonator at the Motown museum right after Jackson's death). (Uncropped, but I will crop it when I print it.)


17-40 Canon, at 19mm, with 1.3 crop factor (25mm equiv. AOV). I got what I wanted in the end, but I had to trim a few loose objects from the edges to do it, and I also made it a more fat aspect ratio.

In both of these cases, I was not looking through the viewfinder, and ended up needing to crop. The wide lens allows this sort of "slop", with the drawback being that you usually need to crop a bit to neaten the thing up.

[sun of sand]

I am interested in hearing your experiences shooting with an ultra-wide lens (and also with expired color film/slide).

not to
you know

but you mentioned having a time finding good compositions using YOUR lens
so whether I've used one or not myself I can still try to help by pointing out which of your compositions I like best and why
If I stink with an ultra wide that ain't gonna help you none
better perhaps to show you where you IMO haven't

My first post was more about why i liked what i liked but felt it too lengthy and trimmed