Ultra Wide Angle Shots

[dje]

Took my new Sigma 10-20mm lens out for a test drive this afternoon. I'm trying to get the feel of it and experimenting to get the best out of the ultra wide angle. The first two were taken with a focal length of 10mm and the third 15mm. From what I've read, UWA's can be effective when there is something close in to the foreground. Hence shots 1 and 2.

I'd be interested in your comments please. Best viewed full size. All shots were taken with f/11 and ISO 100.

Dave

[Stagecoach]

Dave,

Perhaps not the best of compositions to test this lens but with the subject content are you happy with the image quality ?

I found getting down low with an interesting foreground gets interesting and also UWA closeups.

Grahame

[dje]

Dave,

Perhaps not the best of compositions to test this lens but with the subject content are you happy with the image quality ?

I found getting down low with an interesting foreground gets interesting and also UWA closeups.

Grahame

Thanks for your comments Grahame. Yes I am happy with the image quality from what I've seen so far. More experimentation needed with composition to bring out the best of the UWA.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Dave - I think you have already figured out the main "trick" in using these lenses successfully. i.e. you need to concentrate to get something of interest in the foreground and then also ensure that the background orks too. I think that this duo of compositional requirements is what makes these lenses to challanging to get a great image.

[Ken Curtis]

Hi Dave. Not sure where you set the focus point and why you chose f11. I wondered if you either set the focus point a bit further into the image or used a higher f-number if you could achieve better detail on the objects which are beyond the immediate foreground. The objects in the immediate foreground are sharp, but I think you wanted to use the foreground for interest or to show scale or show from where the image was shot instead of being the main object. My two cents. I could be wrong.

[ggt]

Dave.

Can I go? I wanna go there. In #1 and #2, the setting is very serene and inviting.

Thanks for posting.

Gretchen

[dje]

Manfred thanks for the re-assurance.

Ken thanks for commenting. In #1 and #2, focus distance was set to about 1.5m. With aperture at f/11, this should give a dof of 0.35m to inf. I think the far objects are low in detail because of the "low magnification" at 10mm. The third shot was focussed on the wires supporting the bridge.

Thanks Gretchen. It is indeed a lovely peaceful place.

Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dave,

Thinking of getting something like this myself, so handy to see the Sigma - the CA is better controlled than I was expecting, did you apply CS6 to deal with Chromatic Aberration (CA), or is this SOOC in that respect?

Focus and distant detail look OK to me viewed at 100% (click on image then hit "F" key) in Lytebox, but if viewed in thread, it does look soft, on #1 especially. Looks like you pushed the sharpening as far as you can.

As Manfred says, you seem to know the tricks of using an UWA.

As a processing 'thing', rather than a lens 'thing', I'd have boosted lowlight details a bit more in all three for my taste.

Enjoy,

[dje]

Hi Dave,

Thinking of getting something like this myself, so handy to see the Sigma - the CA is better controlled than I was expecting, did you apply CS6 to deal with Chromatic Aberration (CA), or is this SOOC in that respect?

Focus and distant detail look OK to me viewed at 100% (click on image then hit "F" key) in Lytebox, but if viewed in thread, it does look soft, on #1 especially. Looks like you pushed the sharpening as far as you can.

As Manfred says, you seem to know the tricks of using an UWA.

As a processing 'thing', rather than a lens 'thing', I'd have boosted lowlight details a bit more in all three for my taste.

Enjoy,

Hi Dave

To be honest, I didn't really think about CA on these images. I just checked now and found that the Remove CA box in ACR (CS6) lens correction was not checked. I turned it on but couldn't really see any difference.

The sharpening applied to these images was as follows

ACR 150 @ 0.5 pixels, detail 15, masking 20.
PhotoShop Unsharp mask 100%, pixel radius 2, Threshold 10
After re-sizing for web, Smart Sharpen 30% radius 0.3 pixel.

As a matter of interest, I replaced the originally posted versions of #1 and #2 about 10 hours ago. The original posted images were blended from three exposures (EV 0, -1, +1) using HDR techniques (but without heavy tone mapping). However when I looked closely, the EV 0 images with some shadow enhancement had better tonal qualities and sharpness than the HDR versions. I also cropped a little on the latest images (eg #1 is now 1796x1080 rather than 1500x1000).

You're quite welcome to any of the raw files if you want to have a proper look at the image quality.

Dave

[AB26]

Hi Dave,

A hypothetical question. I was under the impression UWA lenses create plenty of distortion. I do not see any of that in one of these images.

What would the point be of using an UWA lens if you are going to remove all distortion in PP. Would it not be better to rather shoot a pano instead of spending the bucks on an UWA lens?

[dje]

Hi Dave,

A hypothetical question. I was under the impression UWA lenses create plenty of distortion. I do not see any of that in one of these images.

What would the point be of using an UWA lens if you are going to remove all distortion in PP. Would it not be better to rather shoot a pano instead of spending the bucks on an UWA lens?

Hi Andre
That's a good question and one that I've agonised over myself for a while now. I don't have an expert answer but here are a couple of thoughts

Convenience and simplicity

A stitched pano may not always work well. eg in the first image, I was only about 1m back from the fence post and I'm not sure how well stitching software would deal with considerably varying perspective across the individual shots

Stitched panos can have problems if there is movement of parts of the image between shots

Intuitively I think the uwa can be used more creatively

So, have I justified my extravagance ?

Dave

PS I did apply some minor perspective distortion to the building in shot 2 and the bridge pylons in 3.

[AB26]

So, have I justified my extravagance !

As long as you are going to post some of those creative UWA shots!

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Dave,
Did you apply any correction for the lens distortion that are common in UWA lenses? I liked very much the pictures #1 and #2, specially #1.
Enjoy your new lens to take beautiful photos like these!
If possible, take a panoramic photo and a UWA photo of the same subject for comparison.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Smudger]

Hi. I have the Sigma 10-20mm also and I am very pleased with it.
I have had some very nice shots taken with it and the comments about gettind down quite low with an interesting FG works well.

You can get quite close to the FG object and when set the focal point to the FG object, it can produce some very nice results.

Most of my work I put in the mini comps are taken with this lene, unless they are of my dog wearing hats and glasses

You will come to love this lens, I am sure. It is very nice also for sky work and star work.

Overall, that little Sigma len is a fantastic piece of kit to have in your bag.

[Shadowman]

A couple of structures that really allow you to test the UWA are overhead bridges, gas station overhangs, rooms with high ceilings and pillars or even standing about three feet away from any structure.

[dje]

As long as you are going to post some of those creative UWA shots!

Don't hold your breath Andre

Antonio I applied some perspective correction to shots 2 and 3.

Nigel good to hear you enjoy the lens

John thanks for the tips

Dave