Photomerge as replacement for ultra-wide lens?

[rajpradhan]

I am going to Ladakh (in Himalayas) next month. I am seriously thinking of adding an ultra wide lens to my kit to capture the magnificent mountain-scapes there. Sigma's new 8-16mm seems a good one. But that will cost 1100 $.

I am thinking of using Photoshop's Photomerge function as an alternative. If I take 9 pictures (in a 3x3 matrix) and merge them, I have found that it is equivalent to about 6mm lens. Another advantage is that the pixel count is almost quadrupled allowing me four times bigger prints with same resolution. Good for exhibiting!

So I can save the money on ultra wide and rather go for a macro lens.

So what do you think?

[OsmosisStudios]

Stitching != wide angle lens.

While you can get a wider angle of view, it doesnt do the same perspective muddling as a wide angle lens. Both have their place

[dcclark]

No, no, no.

Ultrawides don't just let you get a wider photo. The real reason to use them -- from my point of view, at least -- is that they give you perspective distortion. Everything is pulled towards the edges in a beautiful way.

If that's not what you want -- if you just want a bigger, wider photo -- then stitch away. But you may have a mistaken idea of what ultrawides do.

[Sime]

Sadly, the 8-16mm Sigma gave me some very second rate results - I've recently reviewed it.

[inkista]

Sime, given how much I shoot with my Sigma 8mm fisheye, I can't say I'm that surprised. When you go that extreme, it's going to be incredibly hard to build a super lens.

I wouldn't think of panostitching as a replacement/substitute for an ultrawide, but more an alternative. It requires a different skill set and gives a different feel, and if it works for you, then there's no reason not to use it and rely on it. I love panostitching in and of itself. But an ultrawide lens is a different thing, especially in terms of distortion, perspective, and the how a space is rendered in a shot. An ultrawide can lend a visita a bit more oomph than panostitching, which tends to yield more "classic" results, vs. the funkier/livelier feel of an ultrawide. Just my two cents.

[Sime]

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed, I'd hoped it would surprise me, lots (and lots) of fringing.

[rajpradhan]

Thanks for the advice guys. I bought Canon 10-22 wide zoom for my Spiti tour and really the pics have come out quite beautiful. See them at Spiti Valley pictures by rajendrapradhan - Photobucket