It seems for 6+2 shots you need no larger than 14mm rectilinear lens or no larger than 17 mm fisheye lens. An 8mm (sigma?) is also an option for few shots (3Message 1 of 34 , Apr 19, 2012View SourceIt seems for 6+2 shots you need no larger than 14mm rectilinear lens or no larger than 17 mm fisheye lens.
An 8mm (sigma?) is also an option for few shots (3 or 4), and might get you a good resolution panorama with the D800.
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, awirealvr@... wrote:
> Read this on rectilinear wide angle lenses and stitching
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "cvoneinem" <einem@> wrote:
> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, awirealvr@ wrote:
> > >
> > > bat a big advantage for the nikon could be: At 16 mm or less it
> > > will stitch at 6 images at 0 degrees +nadir and zenith.
> > >
> > > Andre
> > Did someone already have the chance to test the new Zeiss Distagon f2.8 15 mm rectilinear lens?
> > <http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/slr/distagont2815.html>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuBybxN8XCc>
> > dpreview only shows the older version with Leica M mount.
They DO have quality check problems. The better the lens, the more complicated it is, the worst for QC... See the 12-24 fullframe, reported to be one of theMessage 34 of 34 , Apr 28, 2012View SourceThey DO have quality check problems. The better the lens, the more complicated it is, the worst for QC... See the 12-24 fullframe, reported to be one of the most incredibly good ultrawides ever. One over 3 is not perfect. They are not lens to be bought 2nd hand.;-)2012/4/27 Roger D Williams <roger@...>
From the experience of users in Japan, Sigma has an excellent record in admitting poor product performance and prompt replacement within the warranty period. If I was disappointed with the performance of a lens that others had found "outstanding" I would be back at the ship demanding a quality check and either adjustment or replacement. This might be harder for purchasers overseas... How would you pay for the to-ing and fro-ing of products that proved to be within spec?That said, they do appear to have a quality control problem. My own 8mm f/3.5 Sigma is on a par with the excellent 10.5mm Nikon fisheye.Roger W.
Sent from my iPadMy 15mm 2.8 is SO good it can be second only to 16mm Zeiss Contax. Many others here had quite different experiences...Il giorno 24 aprile 2012 07:32, Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...> ha scritto:
At f22 the images would be too soft, especially with lenses like Sigma 8 mm. But Sigma is a lottery anyway... I had two 8 mm Sigmas and one was with excellent sharpness when the other was a bit too soft.Bostjan
From: Erik Krause <erik.krause@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:39 PM
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: D800 + Sigma8
Am 23.04.2012 19:35, schrieb macbenutzer:
> Hi Aldo, yes, right. Taking the image at n22 will help, too:)
Probably not. At f/22 diffraction will be large enough to prevent moiré...
<*> Wiki: http://wiki.panotools.org
<*> User Guidelines: http://wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
<*> Nabble (Web) http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/
<*> NG Member Map http://www.panomaps.com/ng
<*> Moderators/List Admins: PanoToolsNGfirstname.lastname@example.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: