•  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4(current)
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Close-ups with wide angle lenses
#31
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1317805317' post='12100']

1D Mk II + Sigma 28mm f/1.8 wide open - not very close so I hope this is ok...



Canon 30D + Sigma 28mm f/1.8 wide open - this is a miniature bottle of JD, not full sized!



[/quote]



Nice stuff. The Sigma 28mm f/1.8's consistently produce compelling images, despite the lacklustre test results.
#32
This one from a Ricoh GX-8 at either the widest angle of 6mm f/2.5 (equiv. 28mm), or maybe with the 0.8x wide-angle converter (equiv. 22.5mm). It would close focus until the front element touched the subject, got some dramatic close-ups with it.



Too bad about the circa 2005 1/1.8" sensor....



But seriously, the minimum-focus of the current "serious" compact wide angle lenses such as the E16mm and u4/3 12mm and 14mm lens are all "far from close". I think they are all around 1:10. Not sure what to replace the GX-8 with now (it went for an unintentional swim on river hike earlier this year and could not be resuscitated).



[Image: Diana%252520Diana.jpg]
#33
[Image: swanclose-s.jpg]

Quick one from today. I like seeing how close I can get to the swans before I get pecked. But they know I don't often have any food for them so they don't get so close now. HX9V at equiv. to 28.6mm. No cropping.



That reminds me...



[Image: eatme-s.jpg]

Samyang 8mm fisheye on 450D, cropped a bit. I wish I had a bit more of the beak in focus, but I never expected to get this close!
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#34
So tell us Markus... when is the review of Sigma 20/1.8 due? And the pictures are lovely, just what the wide angles are for. Pity that I don't have much to show, even though I liked the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 in part for its 18cm MFD which could produce weird shots (as opposed to 42cm (!) MFD of the 17-35mm L which I had at the time).
#35
oh no! not another flower shot - ok, i'll call it 'a stranger passing by' ... but, the red and white thing in the foreground is about 1ft away from the lens - so, close up in wide shot then on a very grey spring day (red + grey = good) - a900, 1635za @16 & f14 - photographed just the other day for here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

[Image: i-7F9mKkS-O.jpg]
#36
[quote name='anyscreenamewilldo' timestamp='1318653505' post='12338']

oh no! not another flower shot - ok, i'll call it 'a stranger passing by' ... but, the red and white thing in the foreground is about 1ft away from the lens - so, close up in wide shot then on a very grey spring day (red + grey = good) - a900, 1635za @16 & f14 - photographed just the other day for here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

[Image: i-7F9mKkS-O.jpg]

[/quote]

I like it, ASNWD. Indeed, the grey weather makes for interesting contrast with the flowers.
#37
I found this image in my pile:

[Image: z_c960a3cf.jpg]

created with a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (rather obvious due to flare)
#38
Bump for this thread.



1. Any news on the Sigma 20/1.8 test on FX?



2. Regarding this post: http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/top...__p__17964



"I very much like the 24/1.4 on my Nikons, but on the M9 I way too often ran into the MFD limitations of the system with the Summilux lens (very often I would have preferred to get closer than 0.7m to the main subject to get a more dramatic wide angle perspective)."



Glad you are keeping the flame lit for the wide-angle close-up people. It seems to be a real problem with all the otherwise interesting wide-angle mirrorless lenses. Voigtlander's M-12mm, 15mm, NEX 16mm, Panasonic 14mm and Olympus 12mm all have poor MFD. (Not to mention the unobtanium Summilux) 1:10, 1:12 !?! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />



It would be nice to see a "Close-Up" test added to the PZ reports, to show a standardized subject at MFD of each lens. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />
#39
A few more random shot (Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on Canon 1D Mark II N). Tenerife (Spain).

[Image: z_47729494.jpg]

f/6.3

[Image: z_ea9490e2.jpg]

f/5.6

I love this wacky Sigma even though I probably have no real use for it. MFD of 18cm is really nice.
#40
[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1336838393' post='18148']

A few more random shot (Sigma 14mm f/2.8 on Canon 1D Mark II N). Tenerife (Spain).



I love this wacky Sigma even though I probably have no real use for it. MFD of 18cm is really nice.

[/quote]

Not liking the background bokeh much though... looks all pulled apart.
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4(current)
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)