Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 17, 2011, 8:35 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default Walk Around the Woods (7-14)

I under use this lens, and I'm not very good with it. Went out with the dogs with only the 7-14 with me. Dogs had a blast!!!

The dog's noses get real long in the corner at 7mm



If you just stop, sooner or later the dogs will come back to see what's up.



Nice clear running stream....



Another....



Ummm, not so clear here. Rum...



The aftermath with Dox (this is at 14mm) I cropped the thing to get rid of the flare, but made a boo-boo. There was a blue spot that I cloned out too.



And the old guy, Rev. (also 14mm, square crpped and cloned the flare spot)

__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 17, 2011, 8:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Hi Greg,

Looks like you and the dogs enjoyed a perfectly lovely Spring day.
I never realized how much distortion the 7-14mm can produce. And, the last image has a fair amount of flare in the lower right. Otherwise, tack sharp.

Good to see you posting again.

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2011, 9:16 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Hi Greg,

Looks like you and the dogs enjoyed a perfectly lovely Spring day.
I never realized how much distortion the 7-14mm can produce. And, the last image has a fair amount of flare in the lower right. Otherwise, tack sharp.

Good to see you posting again.

Zig
Straight line remain straight, but there is alot of perspective distortions. The straight lines can be moved my tilting the camera up and down from level, and focus also moves the lines. Its a quirky lens, but it can be fun.

As to the flare, yep. If I would have shielded the lens with my hand, it wouldn't have been an issue. The clear water stream pics were being shielded from the sun.

Here's the uncropped pic that shows all the flare.

__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2011, 9:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,908
Default

Ditto, as Zig said, it is good to see you posting again. That lens is the perfect one for shots #3 & 4.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2011, 10:41 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

Yeah, at severe angles up close you'll definitely get the ultra-wide stretched look, and the sun will absolutely create flare spots at certain angles. It is a very hard lens to take out and be determined to use it as a main lens. The scenes where it works well it is an excellent lens to have.

I've gone back & forth about whether I'd want to own it again. With the 9-18 and 8mm FE I feel covered for now, but I don't think I'm any better off bulk or weight-wise. The 8mm FE is one heavy optic and the two lenses definitely take up more room in a bag than one 7-14.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2011, 7:06 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Ditto for me also on you posting again.

The 7-14 is one of my favorite lenses, but I probably wouldn't use it for action photos. It's true that you get a lot of distortion with any UWA lens, so there's a must-have accessory for the 7-14: a copy of the DxO Optics software, which clears that up very well and very quickly. Because that distortion correction turns the rectangular image into a keystone that you then crop back to a rectangle, you lose some of the photo. Knowing this, you learn to shoot a wider image than you plan to use for the finished photo. This isn't very complicated. A lot of folks doing UWA use DxO and we're awaiting their adding the E-5 RAW to the set of RAWs that DxO recognizes - this is due in June. (Meanwhile we're using it on the JPEGS.)

Here's an example:

Before DxO



After DxO



I knew I didn't want the trees on the far left in the original shot. The finished photo also has the NIK Polarizing Filter added, which is great for scenics. It really does work a lot like a physical polarizing filter - the intensity of the colors of the leaves were very much what my eyes saw.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2011, 10:08 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

Ted, I'm looking at this on my office machine, which is the worst possible monitor for judging either colors or brightness, but it is too bad you had to lose both the tops of the trees on the right, so much of the open area in the forground and some of the dramatic-looking clouds in your correction. It really whacked the super-wide coverage of the lens down. I probably would have liked the original image with the dark trees on the left cropped out and the NIK filter effect applied better, but if the final goal is a scene shifted for a better geometrical reproduction, your final image definitely is that.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2011, 3:26 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Ted, I'm looking at this on my office machine, which is the worst possible monitor for judging either colors or brightness, but it is too bad you had to lose both the tops of the trees on the right, so much of the open area in the forground and some of the dramatic-looking clouds in your correction. It really whacked the super-wide coverage of the lens down. I probably would have liked the original image with the dark trees on the left cropped out and the NIK filter effect applied better, but if the final goal is a scene shifted for a better geometrical reproduction, your final image definitely is that.
Greg, I hear you - I hated to lose so much. But for landscapes I'm just not a fan of distortion - I've never liked the fisheye effect. I really like trees to be growing up, not sideways. The problem here is that that entire scene really is too large to be photographed well (I can't back up because a row of tall pines are right behind me, in my neighbor's yard).

I kinda figured you'd like the original better, you are among the group of folks who don't mind distortion in a UWA lens. I'm just not in that group.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2011, 5:35 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,908
Default

Ted: have you tried to do a panorama scene back there?
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2011, 7:50 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
Ted: have you tried to do a panorama scene back there?
It would need to be a vertical one. Is that possible?
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:04 PM.