Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone experiences with the Sigma 12-24mm Zoom

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:11:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Since I won't be giving up my film SLRs any time soon even though I took the
plunge and bought a DSLR that uses the same lenses, I find that I need a
real wide angle lens for the DSLR that's at least as wide as the 19-35mm
Zoom that I've used for over a year on the film bodies. With a 1.5x factor
on the DSLR, a 12-24 works like an 18-36 on the film bodies and is
(essentially) the same range as the 19-35 PLUS it would give me a 12-24 on
the film bodies for super wide angle shots.

Another possibility is a Sigma 14mm fixed focal length which is actually
$100 less than the zoom.

I won't buy (yet) a digital-only lens so any of those are out of the
question right now unless there's a really compelling reason to do that.

Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).

TIA
Norm
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:11:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:

>Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
>14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).

I have the Sigma 12-24mm in Nikon mount. I haven't tried
printing anything larger than 8x12" from any of my shots with it,
but I'm satisfied with the sharpness in scans.

Unfortunately, the sample variation on this lens is pretty high.
After borrowing my copy, a friend of mine purchased one, only
to exchange it twice until he was happy with his. Chromatic
aberrations and geometric distortion seem to be well controlled.

On a 35mm film camera, the 12mm field of view is pretty wild,
and requires a fair amount of thought to use. If you are
the slightest bit off true with your composition, it will
spoil the shot.

One other issue to note. The lens comes with a standard 82mm
lens cap and a "collar." On a film camera you have to remove the
collar or suffer extreme vignetting. Supposedly you can mount
82mm filters on the collar, but I'm told that even thin filters
vignette on a 1.5x dSLR.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:38:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
> 14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).
>

I love it (Sigma 12-24). No problems or shortcomings at all. Best $600 I've
spent in some time.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:38:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
>>14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).
>>
>
>
> I love it (Sigma 12-24). No problems or shortcomings at all. Best $600 I've
> spent in some time.


I'm having a great time with mine. Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
lens that wide. It is a sturdy piece of equiptment.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 22, 2005 9:59:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
> pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
> lens that wide.

It's not.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
>> pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
>> lens that wide.
>
> It's not.

It is.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:02:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:02:08 +0000, Bubbabob wrote:

>>> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
>>> pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
>>> lens that wide.
>>
>> It's not.
>
> It is.

Say no to Sigma!
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:02:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>>>>Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
>>>>pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
>>>>lens that wide.
>>>
>>>It's not.
>>
>>It is.
>
>
> Say no



Facts anyone?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:02:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:04:53 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:


>>>>It's not.
>>>
>>>It is.
>>
>>
>> Say no
>
>
>
> Facts anyone?

What facts?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:02:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

r <sales@r.com> <×?לבומיה wrote:

> On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:04:53 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>It's not.
>>>>
>>>>It is.
>>>
>>>
>>>Say no
>>
>>
>>
>>Facts anyone?
>
>
> What facts?

Facts about flare causes in general (too many uncoated elements AFAIK)
and/or performance on the Sigma vs others.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Michael Benveniste <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote:

....
>
> Unfortunately, the sample variation on this lens is pretty high.
> After borrowing my copy, a friend of mine purchased one, only
> to exchange it twice until he was happy with his. Chromatic
> aberrations and geometric distortion seem to be well controlled.

Not the first time I've heard this. Either it's not as common as they say
or I was lucky.
>
....
> One other issue to note. The lens comes with a standard 82mm
> lens cap and a "collar." On a film camera you have to remove the
> collar or suffer extreme vignetting. Supposedly you can mount
> 82mm filters on the collar, but I'm told that even thin filters
> vignette on a 1.5x dSLR.

The collar itself will vignette on a 1.5X DSLR.
May 23, 2005 3:26:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
>>> pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
>>> lens that wide.
>>
>> It's not.
>
> It is.

Hmm my 11-22 ZD doesn't do it. Matter of fact even my MC'd soviet medium
format fisheye doesn't, but then again the single coated one did this
badly.

"Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 5:08:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns965EAD6055598dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >
> >> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects pointing anywhere near the > >> sun but
I think that's just any inherent in lens that wide.
> >
> > It's not.
>
> It is.

Pentax SMC 15mm f2.8 A. I don't see any flare to speak of...

OK, not a 12mm, but as wide on 35mm as the Sigma is on a cropped sensor,
where it will still flare. So good design, a fixed Fl rather than a zoom,
and / or Pentax's very much better coating certainly mean that flare is not
_inevitable_ in a wide lens.

Not to say that I don't think the Sigma is a remarkable piece of work for
the price, however, and if I used a cropped sensor DSLR I'd probably
consider getting one.


Peter
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:11:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>
>>Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
>>pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
>>lens that wide.
>
>
> It's not.

So, what lens will not exhibit flare when light from the sun is on the
glass?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:44:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
> pointing anywhere near the sun


BTW, here's an extreme example of the flare:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718080
Notice the faint streaming lines in the lower-middle part of the
picture. That's the only time I saw that effect.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:03:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> "Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.

You can't take a photo of any subject where light from the sun (or other
high intensity source) falls on the front element (even if not in the
scene) without getting flare in the image. Coatings may reduce them or
tame their contrast, but they will be in the image.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:19:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6srcl$ssv$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Stacey wrote:
>
>> "Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
>
> You can't take a photo of any subject where light from the sun (or other
> high intensity source) falls on the front element (even if not in the
> scene) without getting flare in the image. Coatings may reduce them or
> tame their contrast, but they will be in the image.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I have a question Alan, and please pardon my ignorance, I'm only a very
green beginner. But, could you please explain to me how these pictures were
taken?
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/galleria2.htm

Like I said, I'm quite inexperienced, so maybe it's just that I can't really
identify the flare in them. However, I can certainly see flare on these:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
You'll have to scroll down to the paragraph about flare to see the pictures.

Thanks,

Juan
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:55:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Juan Aranda wrote:

> I have a question Alan, and please pardon my ignorance, I'm only a very
> green beginner. But, could you please explain to me how these pictures were
> taken?
> http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/galleria2.htm
>
> Like I said, I'm quite inexperienced, so maybe it's just that I can't really
> identify the flare in them. However, I can certainly see flare on these:
> http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
> You'll have to scroll down to the paragraph about flare to see the pictures.

The author explains his technique, so that is the best answer to 'how
they were taken'. He also states for some photos that "this was the
best of the three" so I suspect he brackets somewhat, which given his
use of slide film and these subjects, is the way to go. (See below also).

Example: http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/pic20.htm you can see
the flare immediately around the sun and in the clouds. This flare is
not dramatic, but it is flare.
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/pic18.htm also has flare around
the sun.

These are not full sunlight photos. There is a lot more atmosphere and
humidity between the sun and the lens, so the amount of light has been
reduced a lot. Flare effects will be less, and flare will be masked in
areas where there are bright areas (clouds).

I didn't mention the other obvious thing, contrast. When light falls
directly on the front element, contrast is reduced as well.
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/pic96.htm
the effect is noticeable in the tree.

I believe these images were significantly processed in PS or similar,
which would also reduce or elimintate the flare artifacts. The author
doesn't state so, but the blocking up in some color areas suggests it.

They are all wonderful images of course and makes me wish I had as rich
a subject area for this kind of thing...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:04:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Dunno about you, but this made me laugh:

In article <pan.2005.05.23.01.59.39.956247@r.com>, r <sales@r.com> writes:
>
> Say no to Sigma!
>

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:04:53 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>
> Facts anyone?
>

In article <pan.2005.05.23.02.10.57.311801@r.com>, r <sales@r.com> writes:
>
> What facts?
>


I too am interested in the Sigma 12-24. I wish it was a tad faster.
I would cheerfully buy this lens from Tamron as I've had good experience
with them.

============================================================
Gardner Buchanan <gbuchana@rogers.com>
Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fd0reF76q86U5@individual.net...
> Bubbabob wrote:
>
> > Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Furman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
> >>> pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
> >>> lens that wide.
> >>
> >> It's not.
> >
> > It is.
>
> Hmm my 11-22 ZD doesn't do it. Matter of fact even my MC'd soviet medium
> format fisheye doesn't, but then again the single coated one did this
> badly.
>
> "Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
> --
>

Hey Guys & Girls
From simple geometric considerations, you'll get "general", overall
flare if the sun is more or less straight on to the lens, i.e. parallel to
the horizontal (longitudinal) axis of the lens while you'll get that plus
multiple images when the sun is off-axis. Extreme off-axis also contributes
to overall spreading of the light across the focal plane too. The better
the coating, the fewer -- and less obvious -- the flare images and overall
"fogging".
A lot depends on the actual material used in each element of the lens
because each one (usually) has a different refractive index and therefore
different critical angles where incident light switches from refracted
(focused or diffused fogging) to reflected (multiple images). Also,
different distortion modes contribute to streaking, etc. In some extreme
examples with very old (i.e. my age)_ lenses, you can get multiple "images"
of the diaphragm -- usually as a silhouette -- in the image, usually
identifiable as a polygonal shape in earlier and cheap lenses but more round
in newer or more expensive ones with a larger number of blades.

The Old Perfesser (Norm)
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:05:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
news:f1pke.816175$w62.495967@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3fd0reF76q86U5@individual.net...
>> Bubbabob wrote:
>>
>> > Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Paul Furman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
>> >>> pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in
>> >>> any
>> >>> lens that wide.
>> >>
>> >> It's not.
>> >
>> > It is.
>>
>> Hmm my 11-22 ZD doesn't do it. Matter of fact even my MC'd soviet medium
>> format fisheye doesn't, but then again the single coated one did this
>> badly.
>>
>> "Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
>> --
>>
>
> Hey Guys & Girls
> From simple geometric considerations, you'll get "general", overall
> flare if the sun is more or less straight on to the lens, i.e. parallel to
> the horizontal (longitudinal) axis of the lens while you'll get that plus
> multiple images when the sun is off-axis. Extreme off-axis also
> contributes
> to overall spreading of the light across the focal plane too. The better
> the coating, the fewer -- and less obvious -- the flare images and overall
> "fogging".
> A lot depends on the actual material used in each element of the lens
> because each one (usually) has a different refractive index and therefore
> different critical angles where incident light switches from refracted
> (focused or diffused fogging) to reflected (multiple images). Also,
> different distortion modes contribute to streaking, etc. In some extreme
> examples with very old (i.e. my age)_ lenses, you can get multiple
> "images"
> of the diaphragm -- usually as a silhouette -- in the image, usually
> identifiable as a polygonal shape in earlier and cheap lenses but more
> round
> in newer or more expensive ones with a larger number of blades.
>
> The Old Perfesser (Norm)
>
>
One seldom considered advantage of a tripod, is that it gives you an extra
hand to hold your hat between the sun and the front of your camera lens.
This is how I usually eliminate flare.......Of course, this means that I
have to have a "squishy hat" and a tripod, so I look rather old
fashioned........:^)
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:32:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Juan Aranda" <juanaranda@securenet.net> wrote in message
news:D 6st5n$297s$1@news.securenet.net...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 6srcl$ssv$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Stacey wrote:
>>
>>> "Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
>>
>> You can't take a photo of any subject where light from the sun (or other
>> high intensity source) falls on the front element (even if not in the
>> scene) without getting flare in the image. Coatings may reduce them or
>> tame their contrast, but they will be in the image.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>
> I have a question Alan, and please pardon my ignorance, I'm only a very
> green beginner. But, could you please explain to me how these pictures
> were taken?
> http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/galleria2.htm
>
> Like I said, I'm quite inexperienced, so maybe it's just that I can't
> really identify the flare in them. However, I can certainly see flare on
> these: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
> You'll have to scroll down to the paragraph about flare to see the
> pictures.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Juan
>
There is flare in several of the images, and there does seem to be a little
Photoshop work going on, too. Whether that's to cover flare or something
else, I don't know. But, there is flare in Manakai at Waikiki, right behind
the boat's mainsail, and in Makakilo Afterglow, above the lower line of
clouds.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 3:33:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:16idndiLDf9cFg_fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
[SNIP]
> >
> One seldom considered advantage of a tripod, is that it
> gives you an extra hand to hold your hat between the sun
> and the front of your camera lens. This is how I usually
> eliminate flare.......Of course, this means that I have to have > a
"squishy hat" and a tripod, so I look rather old
> fashioned........:^)
>

There was a thread here a year or two back about photographers' favourite
headgear - it was interesting how many of us find a hat useful for more than
just keeping the sun off our heads or our ears warm. I'm a fedora man,
myself...



Peter
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 6:35:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bandicoot wrote:

> There was a thread here a year or two back about photographers' favourite
> headgear - it was interesting how many of us find a hat useful for more than
> just keeping the sun off our heads or our ears warm. I'm a fedora man,
> myself...

Time to start a "photographer's shooting vest" thread...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:57:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <f2nke.25077$3R6.1112731@weber.videotron.net>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> The author explains his technique, so that is the best answer to 'how
> they were taken'. He also states for some photos that "this was the
> best of the three" so I suspect he brackets somewhat, which given his
> use of slide film and these subjects, is the way to go. (See below also).

Maybe I am all wet here (I am not a very experienced photographer), but in
my limited experience the flare image usually is in a line from the
intense light source (i.e., the sun) towards and past the center of the
image. In other words, if the sun is in the upper right corner of the
image (or just out of the image), the "flare" will show up in the lower
left corner of the image. When shooting directly into the sun (as with
the sunset photos), the sun is near the center of the image so any flare
effect will be concentric with the bright sun and probably not be apparent
as a separate image. Also, of course, the sunset photos are taken with a
small aperture, so that probably has some effect on the amount of flare.

Merritt
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:57:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Merritt Mullen wrote:

> In article <f2nke.25077$3R6.1112731@weber.videotron.net>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>The author explains his technique, so that is the best answer to 'how
>>they were taken'. He also states for some photos that "this was the
>>best of the three" so I suspect he brackets somewhat, which given his
>>use of slide film and these subjects, is the way to go. (See below also).
>
>
> Maybe I am all wet here (I am not a very experienced photographer), but in
> my limited experience the flare image usually is in a line from the
> intense light source (i.e., the sun) towards and past the center of the
> image. In other words, if the sun is in the upper right corner of the
> image (or just out of the image), the "flare" will show up in the lower
> left corner of the image. When shooting directly into the sun (as with
> the sunset photos), the sun is near the center of the image so any flare
> effect will be concentric with the bright sun and probably not be apparent
> as a separate image. Also, of course, the sunset photos are taken with a
> small aperture, so that probably has some effect on the amount of flare.


This lens has a quirky bulbous front element that captures light from
way outside the field of view. The same bulbous thing is the same reason
it doesn't take filters on front... and probably explains it's pretty
darned good performance (with those caveats). An unusual design as I
understand (I havven't seen other comparable lenses though).


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Merritt Mullen wrote:

> In article <f2nke.25077$3R6.1112731@weber.videotron.net>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>The author explains his technique, so that is the best answer to 'how
>>they were taken'. He also states for some photos that "this was the
>>best of the three" so I suspect he brackets somewhat, which given his
>>use of slide film and these subjects, is the way to go. (See below also).
>
>
> Maybe I am all wet here (I am not a very experienced photographer), but in
> my limited experience the flare image usually is in a line from the
> intense light source (i.e., the sun) towards and past the center of the
> image. In other words, if the sun is in the upper right corner of the
> image (or just out of the image), the "flare" will show up in the lower
> left corner of the image. When shooting directly into the sun (as with
> the sunset photos), the sun is near the center of the image so any flare
> effect will be concentric with the bright sun and probably not be apparent
> as a separate image. Also, of course, the sunset photos are taken with a
> small aperture, so that probably has some effect on the amount of flare.

I've lost the link, but I'd like to go back and look at the
concentricity issue you bring up. You are quite right and I did neglect
the point in my reply. Usually there are also other reflections in the
lens assembly that create other flare spots. Some lenses are much
better than others in this repsect.

At sunrise/sunset, sunlight is less intense than midday, and the flare
effects are not as strong.

As aperture gets smaller, flare 'echoes' become smaller and more
distinct (concentrated) in the image. There is little evidence of this
in the shots for the proceeding reason and possibly some touch ups in
photoshop.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!