Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Superwide week!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: Superwide week! Reply with quote

Please post you shots with a Superwide (up to 23mm), a Fisheye or a WA converter...
Please name the lens (and cam) and if possible the parameters (aperture, speed, etc.)

Monday, 15th to Sunday, 21st of October!

Remember this is not supposed to be a contest, just an "exchange" of photos. You can post more than one shot, but I would suggest max. 3 per lens, OK? Otherwise we might drown in pics. Wink

Enjoy!

P.S.: Film and digital are "allowed", as well as MF and AF lenses. We do not want to be restrictive, right? This idea is about photography, not dogmas. Wink


Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:48 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cannot play here... I've got no Pelengs neither Zenitars to play with.
Let's wait to next week and see how well all of you do this one!.
Best regards,
Jes.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jes, if it's up to me, you could use your Sigma 18-200 although it is an AF-lens. It is about focal lengths.
And 18mm is a "superwide". Any 20mm MF lens will show a 30 or 32mm perspective at crop DSLRs.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
Jes, if it's up to me, you could use your Sigma 18-200 although it is an AF-lens. It is about focal lengths.
And 18mm is a "superwide". Any 20mm MF lens will show a 30 or 32mm perspective at crop DSLRs.


Is this valid?. I understood should be superwide after multiplying by the crop factor... If not we're in advantage to the 5D owners Wink
18 x 1,6 would show as 28mm, that it's outside the range...

Best regards,
Jes.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't worry about any possible multiplication factor Jes - if the focal length of your Sigma zoom is marked as being 18-200 then it covers the superwide category. Like Carsten says, it's the lens focal length that counts...

Use it and take part. Cool


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bob955i wrote:
D... it's the lens focal length that counts...

Exactly, and this doesn't change. Wink

bob955i wrote:
Use it and take part. Cool

Right!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Superwide week! Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
Please post you shots with a Superwide (up to 23mm), a Fisheye or a WA converter...
Please name the lens (and cam) and if possible the parameters (aperture, speed, etc.)

Monday, 15th to Sunday, 21st of October!

P.S.: Film and digital are "allowed", as well as MF and AF lenses. We do not want to be restrictive, right? This idea is about photography, not dogmas. Wink


Quote:
As far as the Superwide goes - I could use a 0.6 WA converter on a 28mm to give me a 16mm equivalent Laughing Unluckily, the only 28 that's a direct fit for the converter is a crappy Sirius with a bit of fungus, but whatever, it's the shot that counts, right?


Well, I'm glad you're ok about AF lenses, because I've just taken some test shots with the WA converter on the Sirius 28mm and they're absolutely awful. I've never seen such CA and terrible out-of-focus problems. One would have to be desperate - hey, I've just realised, why spend money on a Lens Baby? I've got one just as bad right here. Smile

I'll fall back on the Canon 18-55 plastic lump and use it manually at the wide end. Compared to the kludge of WA+28mm it's crystal clear.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Steve! Both are excellent what a great colors on second one!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow!!! Great shots!

Thanks God this is no contest. Nobody would post now... Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the Sigma 10-20 - I use it on my 400D as it's the only way to get wide on a crop camera.
It's a handy lens but it's lacking definition (read= soft) and has significant geometric distortion. I would never attempt to shoot architecture with it, but for landscapes is ok.
How could you use a polarizer on it an not have it to cause sky gradient? I tried so many times, impossible to make the whole sky polarized at such wide apertures.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deeter's Ice Cream Shop in Winghaven, Mo. Ok, so I PS it a " little " Laughing Laughing Peleng on 20D



Last edited by Bob on Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:57 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok one more. Flower girl who needed a quiet spot during the wedding reception. Peling 20D.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like the first one, Bob.
The second one seems to have a painting effect. Don't like such a post-production, to be honest. But, of course, it's your photo and you surely had something in mind when you did this pp.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice shots! Funny, impressive, well done!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

niblue wrote:

I use a polariser (a screw in 77mm one) more often than not and have never had any particular problems with it.


It is physically impossible for a polarizer (whose work is precisely to selectively block light rays at the selected angle) to polarize evenly a sky that covers more than 90 of angular field.

I mean, it's just impossible, the very nature of the polarizer makes this impossible. From degree 91 onwards, the polarization starts decreasing.
The Sigma 10-20 has an angular field of 130 23' at the widest and 94 30' at the narrowest.
Therefore not even at 20mm you can polarize a sky evenly. Let alone, of course, at 10mm, where you would get a full one/third of sky exposed at a different polarization level than at the selected angle.

The only explanation I can find to this is that your polarizer is not really polarizing.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

niblue wrote:

Perhaps what you're missing about using a polariser is that it's not just about the sky


I'm not missing anything about the use of polarizers, I use them it's 20 years thank you. If you have found a way to get past the physical limitations of polarizers, well, good for you. My polarizers still make the sky yucky past 90 of angular field.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sony A100 + Zenitar 16mm

Difficult to see the size, but look at people in the right side.



PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent usage of the Zenitar fisheye effect!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EOS 5D + one of those grossly over-rated and overpriced crappy AF EF17-40L poseur zooms @ 17mm... Laughing



And EOS 5D + one of those prehistoric manual focus Flektogon 20 superwides...



Last edited by bob955i on Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice landscape!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crappy 18-55 kit lens but manually operated at 18mm. The pic was felched around a bit through HDR Shop, and fiddled with to regain some contrast and colour after it came out the other end looking like it had been through a washing machine at high heat. The contrast and lightness is as good as I can get it without bleaching out detail.
Times like these I miss dodging and burning Smile but bugger that for a game of soldiers.
My first go at HDR Shop, in an attempt to retain at least some sky colouring and restore some range to the output. The slope on the left side of the tower isn't all due to the lens, it's actually quite like that.



For a first attempt it actually works - I'm quite surprised, although you can see the shortcomings and limitation of it. Does anyone know of a free PS plugin to get rid of CA?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

niblue wrote:
bob955i wrote:
Yup


And does the 955i mean you're a Triumph fan?


Yup... Wink

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=2871&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good gallery. Cool