What sort of lens would I need to do this...

68lbs

68lbs

Messages
5,450
Name
April 2008
Edit My Images
No
OK, looking for a lens, but not sure what I need and am hoping you guys and gals can help. What I am after is wan ultra-wide, maybe 17-20mm focal length. "But you have a 17-40", I hear you say. And yes, you are right. I do and it's my favourite lens and rarely off the camera. The problem is the minimum focusing distance. I need something that will focus much closer.

I want to take some landscapes, but rather than having rocks or lumps of wood for foreground interest, I want to go much smaller. I'm thinking flat on the floor with daisies or blades of grass.

Is there any sort of lens that would allow me to do this?
 
68lbs said:
OK, looking for a lens, but not sure what I need and am hoping you guys and gals can help. What I am after is wan ultra-wide, maybe 17-20mm focal length. "But you have a 17-40", I hear you say. And yes, you are right. I do and it's my favourite lens and rarely off the camera. The problem is the minimum focusing distance. I need something that will focus much closer.

I want to take some landscapes, but rather than having rocks or lumps of wood for foreground interest, I want to go much smaller. I'm thinking flat on the floor with daisies or blades of grass.

Is there any sort of lens that would allow me to do this?
Click to expand...

What about using extension tubes on your existing 17-40mm :shrug:? They allow you to focus much closer, although you'll lose 1 or more stops off the max aperture setting, depending on how long the tubes are. For landscapes though, you're probably not going to be going for a very shallow DOF, so that won't matter a jot. That said, I'm not really sure what sort of depth of field one can achieve with these tubes, as they are usually used for macro work.

Best news is that you can get cheap ones for about 10 quid :). I've not used them myself, but perhaps you could do a search for them here, or maybe someone more knowledgeable than me will show up soon and provide some more detail :naughty: ...
 
like the idea

if you have a hill in the view etc then it wont be all sky and the focal point of a daisy etc is an idea that apeals to me ... sort of a mix of macro and landscape :)

Phil
 
68lbs said:
I like that idea. Nice n cheap too. Thanks! :)
Click to expand...

A big disclaimer comes with this suggestion :D: I don't know how DOF is affected.

Like you, I too wanted to try some non-macro, close-focused shots (outdoors) and ordered a set of Kenko extension tubes (Nikon fit) from Warehouse Express. After 6 weeks, I got sick of waiting and cancelled the order. But, the point is, most people seem to use them where a shallow DOF is desired. It may be that on a landscape shot, there would be insufficient DOF to even be able to distinguish the background - you really need to find an owner who can test this out for you :shrug:.
 
I've done a similar thing in the past with my old P&S camera. It had a macro function but with a very shallow DOF so I took two shots, one macro & one conventional.

A quick bit of blending in PS & it gave me what I was after :)
 
I get the feeling that this could be achieved with a TS-E90 mounted on a 10mm tube on a full frame body...not certain but I think it's worth a try.

Bob
 
If you only want to focus closer, then you want a very slim extension tube with your 17-40, like this Canon 10mm one. http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12866

Tubes do not change the way the lens delivers depth of field, but obviously shooting very close does. In which case a tilt-and-shift lens might be a way forward. The (new?) 24mm Canon TS is well over £2k!

I've seen landscapes done with very close foregound and distant horizon sharp, by using a split close-up lens - a bit like half reading glasses for your camera. Of course, this is an optical horror - and the pictures are a mess too - but it kind of illustrates the difficulties.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you only want to focus closer, then you want a very slim extension tube with your 17-40, like this Canon 10mm one. http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=12866

Tubes do not change the way the lens delivers depth of field, but obviously shooting very close does. In which case a tilt-and-shift lens might be a way forward. The (new?) 24mm Canon TS is well over £2k!

I've seen landscapes done with very close foregound and distant horizon sharp, by using a split close-up lens - a bit like half reading glasses for your camera. Of course, this is an optical horror - and the pictures are a mess too - but it kind of illustrates the difficulties.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks :thumbs:.
 
I would suggest a different approach. I do this with my 10-20 and it produces some brilliant results. You shouldn't forget that the DOF extends in front of your focusing point as well. So, at 10mm, when you focus at 30cm (min focusing distance for the 10-20 is 24cm), and use f/22, you get a DOF from 13cm to infinity.
Something like this?
2458032306_13f962f194_o.jpg

Even though I did mess up a bit with my aperture used, and the trees in the distance are a bit OOF, but I still like the photo!
 
stylgeo said:
So, at 10mm, when you focus at 30cm (min focusing distance for the 10-20 is 24cm), and use f/22, you get a DOF from 13cm to infinity.
Click to expand...

That's a good point actually! And I like the shot. :thumbs:

I think i'll do some maths before I pop out next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top