Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1533 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
I do some shooting with a 14mm and a 20mm.
But not on aircraft.
You have to get pretty close to get a full frame shot with a lens that "short"
Most shots you see here done with "short" lenses are about 50mm, and almost all are still profile shots.
Dstc47 From Ireland, joined Sep 1999, 1358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
re Sigma zoom
Little use for aviation photos, as the earlier respondent says a Cessna 172 will fill the frame standing at the wingtip, but distortion can be pronounced at the edge.
I use it for architectural photography.
You may like to know that the Sigma zoom is also sold under several other brand names, often at somewhat lower prices.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1473 times:
What, the 15-30 DG zoom (specifically) is sold under several other brand names? This lens has only been released by Sigma during the last few months - if you know of a rebadged version perhaps you would like to provide details!
And I'd disagree that it's of little use. If you want to photograph large aircraft at close quarters (e.g. shots inside a hangar) or take cabin/cockpit shots, this sort of lens is invaluable. I have been considering buying one myself for this very purpose.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1454 times:
I agree with Gary - ultra wides DO have a place in A.net photography - I use my 17-35 a fair bit, quite often it will give you that "creative edge". I believe, however, that Sigma didn't really intend the 15-30mm as an ultra wide, but rather a "normal" wide for digital cameras (the CCD effectively increases the focal length of any lens) - so on a digi cam, this would be something like a 20-40mm lens. Of course it can still be used as an ultra wide on real cameras
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
No reason why edge sharpness should suck - this, I think is a win-win situation for all photographers. Lens cost is largerly based on the number of units expected to be sold. Up to now, a quality ultra wide was a bit of a luxury item, and hence very expensive - now that these poor deluded digi-cam users have realised that they're suffering at the wide end of things, Sigma has addressed this new market niche - us "real" photographers also benefit by getting an affordable ultra wide.
Jan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
One can always hope, but if it is indeed aimed at the digi market, why bother with the edges? It wont show on digi anyway. Edge sharpness must be tough to produce since it lacks in most not so expensive lenses.
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition