I need to get wide...

[pakodominguez]

Hi,

I have a new client who does moldings. So I'm taking interiors (decoration, architecture, etc) using mostly the KM 17-35 f2.8-4 on the A850. Of course, my client some times want more: 3 walls AND ceiling or stuff like that. And 17mm isn't always wide enough.

So... I'm apparently shopping for a new lens.
- First thing coming to my mind was "finally I can justify a FishEye (but I'll have to de-fisheye on post-processing) Or
- I'll have to go to a 12-24 Sigma, that I don't like (This lens suffer badly of sampling and the sample I used on Nikon was soft -too soft)

Any thoughts?

Regards

[harvey]

Any thoughts?

There are some one-shot panorama adaptors. I know nothing about them but see this UK page for example.

Harvey

[pakodominguez]

Any thoughts?

There are some one-shot panorama adaptors. I know nothing about them but see this UK page for example.

Harvey

Hi Harvey,

I have one of this heads that I use mostly for landscapes. I'm not really looking for a 'multiple shots' solution...

Thanks for the tip anyways

[01af]

And 17mm isn't always wide enough. So ... I'm apparently shopping for a new lens.
- First thing coming to my mind was "finally I can justify a fish-eye (but I'll have to de-fisheye on post-processing) ...

Full-frame fish-eye lenses for 35-mm format are 15 or 16 mm. When de-fishing those then you'll end up with what you'd get from a regular 15 or 16 mm super-wide-angle lens ... hardly better than 17 mm and definitely not worth the effort.

So basically your options are:

• Use a fish-eye lens and do not de-fish the shots – will work for some subjects but not for all.
• Just get that Sigma AF 12-24 mm EX DG – it's far from excellent but still can yield professional results at 12 - 17 mm when stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Just do not use it at 24 mm; it's terrible at the long end (or at least mine is).
• Use your 17-35 in portrait orientation to shoot indoor panoramas – will work for purely static subjects only and does, at short distances, require a no-parallax panorama tripod head (often falsely called 'nodal-point adapter').

-- Olaf

[pakodominguez]

And 17mm isn't always wide enough. So ... I'm apparently shopping for a new lens.
- First thing coming to my mind was "finally I can justify a fish-eye (but I'll have to de-fisheye on post-processing) ...

Full-frame fish-eye lenses for 35-mm format are 15 or 16 mm. When de-fishing those then you'll end up with what you'd get from a regular 15 or 16 mm super-wide-angle lens ... hardly better than 17 mm and definitely not worth the effort.

It is what I was afraid of... I went to Adorama and tried a Sigma 15mm Fisheye, then de-fished the pick... not what I'm looking for.

So basically your options are:

• Use a fish-eye lens and do not de-fish the shots – will work for some subjects but not for all.
• Just get that Sigma AF 12-24 mm EX DG – it's far from excellent but still can yield professional results at 12 - 17 mm when stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Just do not use it at 24 mm; it's terrible at the long end (or at least mine is).

There are two main reasons that keep me off this lens; first one is the sampling quality issues (I tried briefly this lens again, at Adorama, and the result were not that bad, but corners are soft (and weird, spacey front bokeh) at f 8. But this is, until now, the only one-shot solution I (we) have...

• Use your 17-35 in portrait orientation to shoot indoor panoramas – will work for purely static subjects only and does, at short distances, require a no-parallax panorama tripod head (often falsely called 'nodal-point adapter').

I'm trying to avoid stitching because

• a) extra work shooting and post processing
  b) controlling perspective and other issues at close distance is specially annoying.

Thanks Olaf for your help

Pako

[Javelin]

Might be a job for DSLR video?

[pakodominguez]

Might be a job for DSLR video?

any sample backing your statement?
in other hand, output will be prints. Video doesn't help (yet? a HarryPotter-like book could be nice...)

[Javelin]

HA! I was thinking Harry Potter newspapers when I wrote it. It was mostly tongue in cheek. But It would make a nice presentation instead of wide shots use panning shots in video for this sort of thing. But the media will have to get caught up I suppose. Bet Xerox has a dusty patent on this already.

[01af]

But [the Sigma 12-24] is, until now, the only one-shot solution I (we) have ...

Umm ... when thinking about it, there's another solution, albeit a weird one: the 11-18 mm lens for APS-C format. From 14 mm or 15 mm on and longer, it can fill the full 35-mm format. The Tamron incarnation in particular wouldn't force the A900/A850 into APS-C mode so it's the best choice, but with tricks and tongue-in-cheek you can also force the Konica-Minolta and Sony versions into full-frame results (however you wouldn't want your client see how you're working ).

And then there are those older 14 mm prime lenses made by Tamron and Sigma ...

-- Olaf