Hello Jook, ... I fear, the vignetting would still be visible in critical areas like perfect blue skies. You can see in the Haus des Meeres -panorama, thatMessage 1 of 61 , Sep 1, 2008View SourceHello Jook,
> I see the vignetting pattern in the sky. Just a thought, would theI fear, the vignetting would still be visible in critical areas like
> vignetting go away on the G9 lens if you set a "tighter" vfov for
> more overlap.
perfect blue skies. You can see in the "Haus des Meeres"-panorama, that
vignetting in this image is close to non-existant in a less critical sky.
More important - i wouldn't be happy about more overlap as it would
increase the number of images considerably. On Saturday on the flak
tower, i had the problem that the clouds intermittently obscured the sun
and i hat to find a shooting window in between - or worse: stop the
robot until the clouds were gone. Every second you can spare with a
stripped-down setup will sum up to several minutes which can decide
between a successful and failed panorama...
I agree with Terry, that de-vignetting would be the best option. Still
if you have any findings about this subject, i'd be happy to hear about!
That should be obvious.. heh. Prime versus zoom. The problem, is 28 isn t really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of interior work, and compositionMessage 61 of 61 , Sep 23, 2008View SourceThat should be obvious.. heh.
Prime versus zoom.
The problem, is 28 isn't really wide enough to be really useful for a lot of
interior work, and composition without zoom and difficult to say the least,
since you often don't have placement luxury.
As an exterior lens, I'm sure it's a great lens to have.
I've always wondered how the MK2 stacks up against, the 10-22, since you
aren't using the outer parts of the lens with the 10-22.
Southern Digital Solutions LLC
From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Matthew Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Visible image degadation
Well I've tested the 28 f1.8 and 28 f2.8 against the 16-35 MKI/MK2 and
even the 28 f2.8 easily beats the 16-35 @28 for resolution and
sharpness. The 28mm f1.8 kills it.
On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:50, Sacha Griffin wrote:
> I thought the resolution displayed on the landscape was "decent".
> The shot
> was just a little fuzzy, most likely due to the obvious aberration
> all over the image.
> From what I've heard the 16-35 canon zoom, (canon, zoom, even wider)
> is a
> real hummer of a lens and a different beast altogether than this
> The portrait was a good display of the highlight priority perhaps.
> The landscape wasn't a good example of anything really.
> Sacha Griffin
> Southern Digital Solutions LLC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]