Should I get a wide or ultra-wide add-on lens for an iPhone 6 Plus travel photos?
Asked 8/2/2015
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m new to photography and want an add-on lens for my iPhone 6 Plus for a city vacation. I’ll mostly shoot landscapes, streets, markets, tourist spots, and some video. I’m deciding between a wide lens and an ultra-wide lens.
My main concern is whether ultra-wide is actually better for everyday travel use, or if the extra field of view usually comes with too much barrel distortion and lower image quality. I’d prefer something immersive, but I don’t want photos to look obviously distorted or cluttered.
For general travel photography on an iPhone, should I prioritize a moderate wide lens with less distortion and better image quality, or an ultra-wide lens that fits more into the frame? Also, are phone conversion lenses practical as an all-the-time lens, or better used only occasionally?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For general travel use, a moderate wide lens is usually the safer choice than an ultra-wide.
Why: ultra-wide adapters can fit much more into the frame, but they also tend to add more barrel distortion and can make images feel cluttered rather than more immersive. If you already dislike that look, you probably won’t enjoy using an ultra-wide for most shots.
Also, iPhone conversion lenses are usually best treated as occasional tools, not something you leave on for every photo or video. The iPhone 6/6S camera is already roughly equivalent to a 30mm full-frame lens, which is already fairly wide.
So for your stated goals, prioritize lower distortion and better overall image quality over the absolute widest field of view. Use extra width when a scene truly needs it, not by default.
In short: if distortion bothers you, choose the wide lens. If you specifically want a dramatic, exaggerated perspective for selected shots, then ultra-wide can be fun—but it’s less suitable as an everyday travel lens.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
0
I'd caution against trying to get too many things in the frame, because that produces a noisy and cluttered photo. I find that simplifying my photos to have fewer subjects makes for a much better photo.
I haven't used either lens you're asking about, so take this answer with a grain of salt, but I'd suggest not buying any lens you don't like the quality of. There are going to be other opportunities to take photos that don't require the OlloClip.
Even the Moment seems to have its limitations, such as having a plate permanently attached on the back of your iPhone (you can take it off, but you can't reuse it, and it pulls off some of the paint from your iPhone when you do), making the iPhone look ugly. And the lenses are hard to change, and don't lock into place, and the aforelinked reviewer dropped one of the lenses 400 feet down a cliff. On the other hand, this review claims the lenses are good.
Given these issues, and the $100 price of the Moment, I'd personally buy neither, which may or may not be the right decision for you — only you can make that decision. But, more importantly, I think you should be clear about exactly why you're considering a wide or ultrawide lens (the first paragraph in this answer) before you buy one.
Originally by user22575. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user22575
11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can an iPhone capture nearly a whole rugby field without a strong fisheye look?
Should I choose a fisheye or a rectilinear ultra-wide lens for architectural interiors and exteriors?
For sightseeing in NYC and Washington, is a 35mm lens on APS-C enough, or should I bring my zoom too?
Do I need an ultra-wide zoom for travel landscapes on a Canon APS-C DSLR?
How can I make my travel photos more compelling and memorable?