Looking for an EOS lens recommendation for panoramas

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

In article <dgdef4$pgv$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, Eugene
<nospamthanks@nospam.com> wrote:

> I'm considering offering panoramas as a regular service for my clients
> and I'm looking for some recommendations on lenses for my 20D.

When I do panoramas, I use my 20-35 set at 35mm. If you use a
wide-angle lens, you can get some goofy perspectives after stitching
them together. Also, I shoot the segments vertically so that I don't
end up with a thin strip.

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

On 15/09/2005 11:34 PM, Eugene wrote:

> I'm considering offering panoramas as a regular service for my clients
> and I'm looking for some recommendations on lenses for my 20D.

Does Canon offer a wide-angle tilt-shift lens? It's another way to do
panos. (I'm a Nikon guy, unfamiliar with Canon).

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

C Wright wrote:
> On 9/15/05 10:34 PM, in article dgdef4$pgv$1@otis.netspace.net.au,
> "Eugene" <nospamthanks@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm considering offering panoramas as a regular service for my
>> clients and I'm looking for some recommendations on lenses for my
>> 20D.
>>
>> Currently I have a 24-85 USM, and I'm finding the FOV to be
>> frustratingly narrow. On my film camera 24mm if plenty wide enough,
>> but on the 20D it's certainly nothing special, equivalent to about
>> 38mm.
>>
>> A couple of lenses that I've considered are the 15mm f2.8 fisheye,
>> or
>> the EF-S 10-22. Has anyone tried using either of these for
>> panoramas?
>>
>> They're both around the same price, so it'd really just come down
>> to
>> which does a better job. I'm a bit hesitant to get an EF-S lens, as
>> it could then only be used on my 20D (not my EOS 30), but if it's
>> clearly a better lens for the job though, I would get it.
>>
>> The zoom thing is not really an issue, since for panoramas I'd
>> pretty
>> well always be using it at the 10mm end.
>>
>> How would the FOV compare for the 2 lenses? Logic would tell me
>> that
>> 10mm should be wider than 15mm. Does this hold true though when one
>> is a fisheye?
>>
>> The software I generally use is autopano-SIFT (for the control
>> point
>> matching) and then Hugin + panorama tools for the optimization and
>> actual stitching. Does anyone know if these tools would handle a
>> fisheye lens correctly? I heard somewhere that for ultra wide,
>> fisheye is sometimes better because it has less chromatic
>> aberration, and the software can (apparently) correct the
>> distortion
>> relatively easily.
>>
>> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eugene
>
> If your are really talking about true panoramas (where several shots
> are stitched together) rather than simply extreme wide-angle shots
> you are leaning the wrong way in lens selection. If you use
> wide-angle lenses to shoot panoramas the perspective (distortion) of
> each shot, edge to edge, will make it very difficult to match the
> images. It is better to take more images with medium to long
> lenses.
> Chuck

As an example, this rough one was made with a 20D Canon, 24-70 2.8L
lens, 24mm, 1/250 @ f/7.1 or thereabouts, ISO 100, four frames from
end to end, something like 15% overlap, handheld
twist-at-the-waist-platform, selecteded into the PSCS2 make-a-pano
facility, processed and cropped top and bottom:
http://www.fototime.com/36449B870CF212E/orig.jpg

--
Frank ess

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

I would not use a wide angle Lens.

Almost any lens will work, as long as it is commensurate to the subject
shot, i.e., you could/would use a different lens for a panorama inside a
room vs a panorama on a mountain top vs a late evening back yard shot.

The critical factor, IMHO, is the tripod. Assuming you stabalize the camera
settings so that the overall picture set shares a common exposure and
balance level, The tripod makes a critical difference. Tall vertical shots,
the more the better. I like to shoot 24 to 36 pictures per Pano.

I made a pano holder for my Rebel, took about $40 and a saturday, and a
drilled hole in my hand. It isn't critically accurate, but it works plenty
well enough for the pano software to work with. Much better than hand held
pano shots.

http://hoofr.com/gallery-e6.htm this was shot with a Tamron 18-75 by
hand (no tripod), JPG compressed for the web. touched up with Adobe CS a
bit.

If you got the bucks, consider the 360 one shot. Seems like thats the
premium way to go, and you can do full 360x360 pano's too.

David A.

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

Hi Frank,

Very nicely done, particularly using PSCS2. I've tried the PhotoShop
pano feature and was less than impressed with the results I got. The
reason I use Panorama Tools is because it can correct the perspective
distortion of the lens, so in theory it should work properly even when
using fisheye lenses. I haven't tried this though.

Have you tried using Canon's PhotoStitch? I've actually found that as
long as you're reasonably careful taking the photos it does a really
good job, much better in my opinion than PhotoShop and it's all
automatic. It corrects the distortion of the lens and automatically
chooses and matches control points. Panorama Tools is much better still,
but not exactly easy to use. The panoramas I'm going to be making are
full 360 degree panos, which I'll then convert to QTVR.

I really need much wider than 24mm though, because I'll be doing a lot
of interior panos in holiday park cabins and things. I've found I get an
extremely narrow view when using 24mm in landscape orientation. I can't
use portrait orientation yet, because I need to make myself some kind of
bracket to flip the camera and still have it panning around the nodal
point. This is very important for interior views, they just wont stitch
unless it's done properly.

Eugene

>>
>>
>> If your are really talking about true panoramas (where several shots
>> are stitched together) rather than simply extreme wide-angle shots
>> you are leaning the wrong way in lens selection. If you use
>> wide-angle lenses to shoot panoramas the perspective (distortion) of
>> each shot, edge to edge, will make it very difficult to match the
>> images. It is better to take more images with medium to long lenses.
>> Chuck
>
>
> As an example, this rough one was made with a 20D Canon, 24-70 2.8L
> lens, 24mm, 1/250 @ f/7.1 or thereabouts, ISO 100, four frames from end
> to end, something like 15% overlap, handheld
> twist-at-the-waist-platform, selecteded into the PSCS2 make-a-pano
> facility, processed and cropped top and bottom:
> http://www.fototime.com/36449B870CF212E/orig.jpg
>

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

Where you using software to correct the distortion and stitch the
images? Or stitching manually? Panorama Tools seems to have no trouble
at all correcting the distortion from my 24-85, but that would be quite
different to correcting a 10mm.

>
>
> I've experimented with my 10-22, and as noted elsewhere found the
> extreme perspective at the low end made stitching a nightmare.
> Aesthetically the results were disappointing too. As a landscape lens
> I love the 10-22, especially in the mountains where the extreme
> wide-angles can really emphasise the sense of space and scale. For
> shooting multiple image panoramas it's not ideal, though.
>
> Al

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

Hi Frank,

I just had a look at the full-size version. You've done an excellent job
on that. Did it take long to stitch? There's just one area along the top
of the range where the seam shows, but otherwise it's pretty much perfect.

Hey are those eucalypt trees near the road? If not they sure look
similar. I thought for a second it must have been somewhere in
Australia, until I saw the California number plates ;-)

Eugene


> Frank ess wrote:
>
>>
>> As an example, this rough one was made with a 20D Canon, 24-70 2.8L
>> lens, 24mm, 1/250 @ f/7.1 or thereabouts, ISO 100, four frames from
>> end to end, something like 15% overlap, handheld
>> twist-at-the-waist-platform, selecteded into the PSCS2 make-a-pano
>> facility, processed and cropped top and bottom:
>> http://www.fototime.com/36449B870CF212E/orig.jpg
>
>
> For "fun", here it is upsampled to 300ppi per the publisher's request;
> 9MB file:
> http://www.fototime.com/6F3E705331B4817/orig.jpg
>

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

"Eugene" <nospamthanks@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsgftiv$20e8$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for the advice. By one shot do you mean those things that attach to
> the lens and create a donut type image from the full 360 view? I've looked
> at some stuff about those on the web and they do look interesting,
> although most of the examples I've seen look a little fuzzy. I don't know
> if that's inherrent in the technique or not. It would make things much
> quicker and easier though.
>
> There's also the PanoScan cameras. From what I've seen they do a fantastic
> job and make full spherical panoramas, but they're way way out of my price
> range.
>
> I'm actually planning to try making a vertical pano holder by my 20D this
> weekend. I've found that for horizontal shooting I can just use my old
> metz bracket to mount the camera in the correct place, but obviously
> things get more complicated if the camera also has to be flipped. I'm also
> going to add some spirit levels to my tripod to help with the levelling.
>
> Eugene
>
>
>> I would not use a wide angle Lens.
>>
>> Almost any lens will work, as long as it is commensurate to the subject
>> shot, i.e., you could/would use a different lens for a panorama inside a
>> room vs a panorama on a mountain top vs a late evening back yard shot.
>>
>> The critical factor, IMHO, is the tripod. Assuming you stabalize the
>> camera settings so that the overall picture set shares a common exposure
>> and balance level, The tripod makes a critical difference. Tall vertical
>> shots, the more the better. I like to shoot 24 to 36 pictures per Pano.
>>
>> I made a pano holder for my Rebel, took about $40 and a saturday, and a
>> drilled hole in my hand. It isn't critically accurate, but it works
>> plenty well enough for the pano software to work with. Much better than
>> hand held pano shots.
>>
>> http://hoofr.com/gallery-e6.htm this was shot with a Tamron 18-75 by
>> hand (no tripod), JPG compressed for the web. touched up with Adobe CS a
>> bit.
>>
>> If you got the bucks, consider the 360 one shot. Seems like thats the
>> premium way to go, and you can do full 360x360 pano's too.
>>
>> David A.

By one shot, I do mean those donut like lens's. Is it possible that the fuzz
you see is the compressed-for-web-JPG factor? I would think that the optics
in these one shot lens can't possibly compete with top of the line *normal*
lens. I think that if you want top of the line quality, you have to do it
the hard way, prime lens and top notch stitch software, or go with the high
end video stuff.

Spirit levels are your friends for sure, and a decent tripod and bracket
assembly are important.

Your primary question - which lens. Match the lens to the shot, like you
would any shot. The better the lens, the better the shot, the better the
pano. Focus on the tripod and mount and set it up to shoot with the camera
vertical and it make it adjustable so you can use any lens you want.
Shooting vertical puts the wide angle lens edges on top and bottom, which is
where you tend to crop anyway, so go for it, use wide angle lens too if you
have one.

http://www.vrseattle.com/ have you seen this site? They shot a site for
my fathers business and used a video camera set up.

My site has several hand shot pano's. I use 3DVista software.

David A.

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:56:33 +1000, Eugene <nospamthanks@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Where you using software to correct the distortion and stitch the
>images? Or stitching manually?

I used the PTLens filter to correct the lens in Photoshop Elements,
and used Element's Panostitch feature to join the images (with lots of
manual intervention). To be honest it wasn't really a serious attempt,
more a case of "oooh, look at that view - let's try a pano!". The
individual images are great, but to get a decent panorama from them
probably requires more time and skill than I have at the moment. :-)

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]

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

Many of the panos I'll be doing will be inside, so I'll need something
wide. At the moment I only have a 24-85 lens, which isn't wide enough
when shooting horizontal, although it might be OK shooting vertical. I
just have to make myself a suitable bracket. I've just added some spirit
levels to my tripod, which should help a lot.

Just had a look at that site, pretty impressive stuff. I've read about
the PanoScan system before, and it does sound like pretty much the
ultimate way to do panos. It's very expensive though
http://www.panoscan.com/Pricing.html, certainly way out of my price
range. For the whole system $US33,900.

>
>
> By one shot, I do mean those donut like lens's. Is it possible that the fuzz
> you see is the compressed-for-web-JPG factor? I would think that the optics
> in these one shot lens can't possibly compete with top of the line *normal*
> lens. I think that if you want top of the line quality, you have to do it
> the hard way, prime lens and top notch stitch software, or go with the high
> end video stuff.
>
> Spirit levels are your friends for sure, and a decent tripod and bracket
> assembly are important.
>
> Your primary question - which lens. Match the lens to the shot, like you
> would any shot. The better the lens, the better the shot, the better the
> pano. Focus on the tripod and mount and set it up to shoot with the camera
> vertical and it make it adjustable so you can use any lens you want.
> Shooting vertical puts the wide angle lens edges on top and bottom, which is
> where you tend to crop anyway, so go for it, use wide angle lens too if you
> have one.
>
> http://www.vrseattle.com/ have you seen this site? They shot a site for
> my fathers business and used a video camera set up.
>
> My site has several hand shot pano's. I use 3DVista software.
>
> David A.
>
>

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

"Eugene" <nospamthanks@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsglc1j$v8m$2@otis.netspace.net.au...
> That's cool. I had heard that there were red gums in California. I
> didn't realise they were common though.
>

There are over 100 species of Eucalyptus in California, they've become
nativized and pose a threat to some native species of trees and shrubs.
What Frank said about the reasons they got here is true, and then somebody
decided to enlarge the groves to provide oil for soap, another industry that
died quickly. San Diego has some huge stands of Eucs, the oily wood fueled
the disastrous fires of a couple of years ago. I had a Horticulture
instructor many years ago who said the only good use for Eucalyptus was fire
wood, the wood splits too easily for construction (including railroad ties)
and limbs split off to easily for effective and safe use as windbreaks and
as ornamentals.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Q_2Ye.17009$Yu2.5964@trnddc02...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xEIXe.11540$GQ4.2688@fed1read05...

>> >
>>
>> There are over 100 species of Eucalyptus in California, they've become
>> nativized and pose a threat to some native species of trees and shrubs.
>> What Frank said about the reasons they got here is true, and then
> somebody
>> decided to enlarge the groves to provide oil for soap, another industry
> that
>> died quickly. San Diego has some huge stands of Eucs, the oily wood
> fueled
>> the disastrous fires of a couple of years ago. I had a Horticulture
>> instructor many years ago who said the only good use for Eucalyptus was
> fire
>> wood, the wood splits too easily for construction (including railroad
> ties)
>> and limbs split off to easily for effective and safe use as windbreaks
> and
>> as ornamentals.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
> In your list of the Eucalyptus tree's faults and benefits, you forgot a
> couple of things:
>
> Faults:
> Almost every sub-species is a totally automated mess-generator, and in
> places such as Golf Courses, requires *continual* (as in daily) cleanup of
> fallen leaves, seeds and branches.
>
> Advantages:
> Monarch Butterflies.
> The Monarch Butterfly *requires* the Eucalyptus tree as apart of their
> life
> cycle. Check out the Eucalyptus groves in Elwood Beach or Pismo Beach
> (both
> in Central California) during the period from roughly November through
> February for some potentially stunning butterfly images.
>
>
>

I'll agree with the first assessment, but the second? Monarch butterflies
were around long before Eucs were...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:-cSdne-No_YBf6zeRVn-tA@giganews.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:Q_2Ye.17009$Yu2.5964@trnddc02...
>>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:xEIXe.11540$GQ4.2688@fed1read05...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are over 100 species of Eucalyptus in California, they've
>>>> become nativized and pose a threat to some native species of trees
>>>> and shrubs. What Frank said about the reasons they got here is
>>>> true, and then somebody decided to enlarge the groves to provide
>>>> oil for soap, another industry that died quickly. San Diego has
>>>> some huge stands of Eucs, the oily wood fueled the disastrous fires
>>>> of a couple of years ago. I had a Horticulture instructor many
>>>> years ago who said the only good use for Eucalyptus was fire wood,
>>>> the wood splits too easily for construction (including railroad
>>>> ties) and limbs split off to easily for effective and safe use as
>>>> windbreaks and as ornamentals. --
>>>> Skip Middleton
>>>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In your list of the Eucalyptus tree's faults and benefits, you
>>> forgot a couple of things:
>>>
>>> Faults:
>>> Almost every sub-species is a totally automated mess-generator, and
>>> in places such as Golf Courses, requires *continual* (as in daily)
>>> cleanup of fallen leaves, seeds and branches.
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>> Monarch Butterflies.
>>> The Monarch Butterfly *requires* the Eucalyptus tree as apart of
>>> their life
>>> cycle. Check out the Eucalyptus groves in Elwood Beach or Pismo Beach
>>> (both
>>> in Central California) during the period from roughly November
>>> through February for some potentially stunning butterfly images.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'll agree with the first assessment, but the second? Monarch
>> butterflies were around long before Eucs were...
>
> WRT the "mess-generator", no doubt about it. Many of the neighbors have
> opted to get a license from the City (who own it) and have their parkway
> euks removed. Once a year I send a reminder letter to the City, suggesting
> they may want to give it a preemptive trim so it won't drop a branch and
> kill someone, as happened at the Zoo, to a two-year-old, a while back. In
> due time I get a letter back, reminding _me_ the licenses are free.
>
> I always say, "It's a very nice tree, for the three or four days a year it
> isn't dropping something". It has also put an end to a life-long
> barefoot-in-the-yard habit.
>
> --
> Frank ess
Yeah, those seed pods are nasty, aren't they?
My next door neighbor settled out of court with our homeowners assn. when a
branch fell off of a Eucalyptus citriadora (Lemon Scented Gum) and crushed
his Toyota pickup. Got a new Tundra in the deal (his wife's uncle runs the
Toyota dealership in Temecula.) That crisis doesn't hold a candle to losing
one's life, but does demonstrate it's not an isolated incident.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com