Drama Mama wide-angel shots

[lyrrad]

Shots taken with a Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical on a Nikon F65 with Fuji Superia400 film. Is the exaggerated perspective called barrel distortion? Somehow even with the odd perspectives I think it makes the shots more dramatic. :P Wat do u think?

Again, plagued by scanlines


The odd thing with the shot above is I was testing the use of the lens hood and a cheapo vitacon polariser. There are 2 other shots of the same scene with and without the hood and Cir Pol. But this one above is without a hood and the polariser, but my sky is more blue or cyan then the other 2.

Does this mean I dun need a lens hood?

[lyrrad]

A night one at Chinatown with the same equipment as above.

[SniperD]

not bad... so how do you find the colour reproduction on the Fuji 400?

[lyrrad]

Quote: Originally posted by SniperD not bad... so how do you find the colour reproduction on the Fuji 400?

Well I was expecting more saturated colours. But it's definitely got better grains then the Kodak Max400. I've been using the Superia400 for nearly everything I take nowadays. Maybe I should try slides. But I guess Kodak Max100 got some nice colours too.

I 4got to mention that even with hood and polariser at 17mm I didn't notice any vignetting.

[chriszzz]

Quote: Originally posted by lyrrad Shots taken with a Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical on a Nikon F65 with Fuji Superia400 film. Is the exaggerated perspective called barrel distortion? Somehow even with the odd perspectives I think it makes the shots more dramatic. :P Wat do u think?

No. Barrel distortion makes your lines near the edge curved, which is not apparent in your photo. What you are seeing is just the perspective that wide angle gives. Wide angle tends to give a more dramatic look, and it works well if the subject is big enough or near enough so that details are not lost.

Quote: The odd thing with the shot above is I was testing the use of the lens hood and a cheapo vitacon polariser. There are 2 other shots of the same scene with and without the hood and Cir Pol. But this one above is without a hood and the polariser, but my sky is more blue or cyan then the other 2. Does this mean I dun need a lens hood?

No. It depends on the conditions. The hood prevents the sun from shining directly onto the lens surface, which reduces contrast and introduces lens-flare. If the sun weren't shining on your lens, then the hood makes very little difference.

Polarizer makes your colors richer but only if used at the correct angle. The most dramatic would be at 90 degrees to the sun. Were you shooting in that direction ?

[lyrrad]

Quote: Originally posted by chriszzz Polarizer makes your colors richer but only if used at the correct angle. The most dramatic would be at 90 degrees to the sun. Were you shooting in that direction ?

Yap I was, did the thumb and index finger pointing. Now I'm wondering if the lab added colours. But I was looking out more for the vignetting if I used a non thin polariser coupled with the lens hood.

[Klipsch]

This is barrel distortion.

[Freed]

How much did u get ur lens for? The Sigma 17-35mm

Thanks

[binbeto]

Glad you like this lens.

There won't be vigneting if you use the hood as the hood is made for the len.

The hood not only prevent sunlight from "hitting" the glass. Stree light and reflected light can be potent too. In a way, filter also play a part. Multi-coated ones prevent flare better than normal ones.

Now, isn't it time to change those 2 "G" lens?

[lyrrad]

I think I paid something like $760 1st hand.

As for G lense binbeto, if I strike Toto tonight maybe man... Otherwise bo lui ah!!!!