Several nice images there but the lead-in image, #1141, is my favorite
of the bunch. Do you know the species of what I assume is some form of
usnea hanging from the branches?
Since going digital my desire for really wide lenses is much diminished
by the ability to make panoramas in many instances.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> IMO superwide in this range is too wide for landscape, normally it is used
>> for interior, closer distance objects and special close up effects so should
>> be diagonal or even vertical.
>>
> How awkward. Here I've just agreed with Andrew, who goes to some trouble
> to appear disagreeable. And now I must disagree with you, who are a most
> agreeable person. :-)
>
> First, I must admit I've never had anything wider than the AOV of 17mm
> on full frame. So my observations are limited to that experience.
>
> Landscape
> ------------
> I agree with you about conventional landscape. Even 17mm is wide enough
> that it reduces distant landscape features too much.
>
> However, there are other forms of landscape, miniature/intimate
> landscapes and very close natural subjects.
>
> The small scale of some natural landscape features can mean they can't
> be shot from a distance, yet encompass a very wide field of view
> close-up. This image and nos. 6 & 7 are shot from within the canopies of
> dwarf oak trees. My feeling at the time I took them was that wider would
> be better
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/ElfinForest/slides/_MG_1141ptl.html>.
>
> Number 9 was taken from a boardwalk that protects the delicate habitat.
> Backed up as far as I could go without falling off, I could only capture
> part of what I thought was a very beautiful tree with 17mm. Again, I
> think wider would be better. 12mm? I don't know, but wider than 17mm.
>
> Interior
> --------
> I don't usually do a lot of interiors. But when I have, I don't recall
> wanting greater coverage in the short dimension. Certainly not at the
> expense of loss of any of the long dimension coverage angle.
>
> Almost all the images in this gallery, even exteriors, were shot at
> 17mm. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
>
> Looking at them again, I only see a couple where it appears to me that
> greater short dimension coverage might be of use. On the other hand,
> there are many where more long dimension coverage would have been
> useful. I certainly remember feeling constricted by 17mm, and wanting
> something wider. I don't think the short dimension coverage was ever a
> conscious issue for me.
>
> The Roman pool simply screamed for a wider lens. Vertical coverage of
> the 17mm caught lots of ceiling detail, but it couldn't capture the
> sweep of the room. Had I not been on a tour, and had a tripod, I think a
> panorama would have been wonderful. However, neither of those things are
> possible there. I think I may have the shots for a panorama of the
> Neptune pool.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1549 - Release Date: 7/12/2008
> 4:31 PM
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|