Well extreme wide angle is only part of the equation with the sensor
size thing. The issue (which I know you wanted to avoid) seems to be
that smaller sensors make it harder to get wide at all. If you want the
same angle of view that you once had with a 35mm (focal length) prime
(a great walk-around lens that is usually inexpensive), you'd need a
24mm prime, which is much costlier. If you want the same as a 24mm
prime (another good walk-around lens for exploring urban spaces), you
need a 16mm prime, which is either fisheye or hasn't yet been made.
Essentially all you can get to go wide is something in a slowish zoom,
and until more APS-coverage lenses are made, that's too limiting. I
broke the bank buying a 16-35 f/2.8 L for my Canon 20d for that very
reason: it was the only fast spherical wide angle lens. It'll be goo
for full frame though, as I enjoy extreme wide angle (to return to your
question).

Extreme wide angle (which I'd say is less than 24mm in full-frame
format, 24 is just wide angle to me) is simply a fun option. Unlike
telephoto lenses, which give the illusion of compressing space but do
little to change the way a scene is viewed, extreme wide angle lenses
offer a view of a scene that is totally foreign to our typical
perception. That's exciting. It's also challenging. Using the 16mm end
of my zoom lens on a film body is rough work compositionally. But the
separation that one can acheive between foreground and background
elements, once accustomed to such compositions, is something that can
only be done in photography. And if you can do so wide open and get the
background to go soft too... well, that's even better. And that isn't
possible (yet) with current equipment on smaller-sensor bodies.

I'll also play devil's advocate and say that telephoto is just as
worthwhile for its inherent ease in focal separation, and I'd be just
as upset if the move to digital had limited those options. I don't use
them as frequently in my still photography, but in my cinematography,
it's essential.

Well I have both superwides and long telelenses. Both are highly
specialized. There are plenty of places where you can't get closer to the
subject, or where you need a distance to line up two subjects, and then
a long telelens is required.

The same thing applies to wide angle: sometimes you cannot increase the
distance between the camera and the subject. And sometimes, standing back
destroys the perspective.

I'm not sure if people are actually using superwides that much or if that
just like to talk about it. Interiors are a typical application of those
lenses.

Wideangle can be lots of fun. Fast super wide is rather extreme and
unusual but here's some examples of 16mm f/2.8 on a full frame sensor:
http://www.julian.li/nam/
-shows well what can be done

I'm 51.  My second 35mm lens was a 200mm.  So I'm kinda with you
there.

Except I've been discovering wider lenses over the years.  I used the
28mm end of a Vivitar 28-90mm enough that I bought a 24mm to see what
happened.  (I went from 1969 to 1983 before I bought the 24mm).  I
used the 24mm enough that I bought a 20mm to see what happened.  I
used that enough that I bought a 17mm to see what happened.  A few
years after getting my DSLR, I got a 12-24mm; not to see what happened
but because I *really missed* the wider angles, wider than 27.5mm FOV.

I use them for architectural exteriors and interiors, for some
landscapes, and "when convenient".

If you check through this gallery from last month, most of the photos
were taken with wide or very wide lenses.  (The ones without a focal
length recorded were shot with a Nikor 24mm f/2; an AI-S lens with no
chip, so the camera doesn't know.)  Oops!  I think the raw conversion
stripped the EXIF info, so it's not in the online images, but mostly
you can *see* they're pretty wide.  I don't believe any of them were
shot at over 24mm (real focal length), and a good number were at
12mm.

<http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/gallery/Muir%20Woods%20and%20Golden%20Gate%20Bridge/>

That depends on what the subject is, and what I'm trying to convey in
the image.

Ahh, but often the background isn't the main feature of the landscape.

Sometimes, yes.

I don't shoot portraits with extreme wide angle lenses.

Sometimes, yes.

No, software takes care of that.

Because often it fits in with how I see an image. I guess I just have
a wide-angle perspective on life.

Why? <g>

Al

 It's the perspective, stupid.

 Maybe that's what *you* get with extreme wide angles, but not someone who
knows how to use them.

 Does that bother you?  Do your subject intimidate you, forcing you to keep
your distance?

 Again, maybe *you* get those, but not someone with any level of skill.

 There are good extreme wide-angle lenses with very little edge distortion.
My guess, though, is that you are confusing perspective with edge
distortion, which is another hallmark of someone who doesn't know much about
wide-angle photography.

 Really?  EVERYBODY?  What about all of those folks with view cameras using
wide-angle lenses for landscapes?  Some folks have a hard time understanding
that a 90mm lens on a 4x5 camera isn't exactly a telephoto.

 Here are a few extreme wide-angle photos to look at.  Please identify
which ones have noses the size of grapefruits, tiny little subjects
appearing as specks in vast open spaces, or mountains that have disappeared
entirely:

http://www.pbase.com/palawrey/1022
http://i.pbase.com/v3/16/522216/2/51784721.NationalArtGallery.jpg
http://mk23.image.pbase.com/v3/16/522216/2/51784717.GreatSmokyMtnsNP7.jpg
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Pic/2004-11-07_16-16-16.jpg

steve

I'll tell you what.  Stand in a church, try to get a line of 15-26 people
into a single shot, and stand where the front pews don't get in the shot.
That's when a superwide angle becomes a necessity...
The 16-35 is not the lens we use most often, but when we need it, by god, we
NEED it!!

It all depends on what the client wants. Simple as that. If they want an
entire resort room to appear as though it is 12,000 sq ft, I'll use extreme
WA. If they want the subject's nose to be large, with the rest minimized, I'll
use an extreme WA. For a major WA shot for a triple-truck ad, I'll shoot 4x5
and do a pano, or maybe one of the WA cameras, depending on "what the client
wants."

Hunt

I always wanted the Nikkor 13mm f5.6 rectilinear but alas, now that I
can afford one, they are discontinued and are on sale second hand at
even more ridiculous prices.

TD

I've always liked super wides, and had a fisheye for my medium format
camera.

a.  wide angle is a view that is beyond normal human experience, so it looks
cool, looking at normal every day things, boring things look ... cool.
When in doubt, shoot it with a super wide.  I once had an editorial
assignment to shoot an open over stuffed file cabinet.  what to do with it,
with a super wide it turned into a gaping maw, perspective gave it
compositional appeal, foreground background separation.

b. perspective.  everything gets perspective, diagonal lines become
compositional vectors.

c. foreground stuff becomes 'heroic' and you have an instant foreground
background juxtabosition.  bushel of apples/apple orchard.

with a super wide, you can totally change the composition, radically change
the background simply by moving a few inches to one side or the other.  a
few stringy clouds become dramatic.