October 01, 2014, 02:35:38 AM

Author Topic: What will be your next lens - and can you post a photo to explain why?  (Read 7824 times)

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1252
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Most likely it will be the Sigma 35 1.4, just waiting to sell my 85 1.8 and then I'll use the money towards the siggy. I need something for low light situations. Sorry no pics.
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

canon rumors FORUM


Mr Bean

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.
Actually, ask me this question in 12 months and this will be my answer ;)
5D mk3 with grip, 300 f4 L, 100 IS Macro L, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.8, 40 f2.8 pancake, 35 f2, 1.4x TC III, Zeiss 15mm f2.8, 24 f1.4 L
580EX II, MT-24EX Macro Flash
EF 12mm and 25mm II Extension tubes

Deva

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Quote
Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

Having looked at your website, I can only say that I aspire to be able to take pictures as beautiful as yours. If you hadn't said, I would have assumed almost all of the building pictures were taken with a TS lens, so I'm intrigued that you don't. What do you use to correct the perspective?

Am I right in thinking that most make use of (carefully managed) HDR as well?


Many thanks, Deva and Mr Bean. We use photoshop CS6 most of the time to correct perspective. You are absolutely right; all our images are just as you describe, carefully managed bracketed exposures hand blended in photoshop. We do not use an HDR program.

I have always read that software correction of perspective does not produce a good a result as a TS lens - which makes intuit sense, as by definition any stretching will have to involve interpolation. This, indeed, is why my lens shopping list has a TS at the top - which could start to look like a shaky choice if you haven't found the need (I recognise that TS lenses also bring benefits in terms of DOF which, at least in terms of an increase, software cannot (as far as I know) compensate for).

Does this mean that in your experience, modern software perspective correction produces results as good using a TS lens? Is that the only reason why you don't use them anymore?

JonAustin

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
  • Telecom / IT consultant and occasional pro photog
    • View Profile
    • Austin & Austin Professional Services
Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.
Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually like the curved horizon.
Photographic equipment

Deva

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.
Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually like the curved horizon.

I think sometimes it works better than others - I agree with you that in this case, I quite like it myself, possibly because it picks up on the curves of the flowers, and is slightly masked by the curve of the bay (so the far distant horizon isn't smiling/frowning). The fisheye demands careful composition to get it to work well - but when it does, it gives a very different perspective which I very much enjoy using.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 10:38:26 AM by Deva »

AmbientLight

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.
Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually like the curved horizon.

I think sometimes it works better than others - I agree with you that in this case, I quite like it myself, possibly because it picks up on the curves of the flowers, and is slightly masked by the curve of the bay (so the far distant horizon isn't smiling/frowning). The fisheye demands careful composition to get it to work well - but when it does, it gives a very different perspective which I very much enjoy using.

Actually I don't think it is a negative feature that you have to frame carefully with a fish-eye lens, as I do like to spend some time thinking about framing before I shoot anyway.

Thanks for all the positive comments regarding Deva's fish-eye sample picture and of course thanks to Deva, because these comments actually support my view that this lens provides some very nice creative options.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 03:48:42 AM by AmbientLight »

canon rumors FORUM