Ultra-wide Zooms
Two years ago I tried, loved, and subsequently bought a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM lens. This is one of their digital lenses able to fill a DX sensor but which would vignette to some extent at the wide end on FX.
With a large insect such as this adult female preying mantis, the subject does not get lost at the 20mm end of the Sigma 10-20mm zoom - check out the mantis images in part 1 for comparison.
This objective has a closest focus of 24 cm from the sensor – which means 11cm from the front element with a maximum magnification of 1/6.7 (0.15 x). For subjects such as alpine plants in the landscape it is fantastic – extremely sharp and I can never believe how much detail there is at 200% (unfair test). It is not the only ultra-wide zoom on the market but that balance of price and quality gets me every time.
I also have a Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens for general travel work but here the closest focus at 16mm is just 0.38m from the sensor (25cm from lens front). This serves well for larger plants or those smaller subjects if I zoom in…but then I thus lose the wide view. In practice, the best close-focus performance belongs to those lenses with the shortest zoom range eg. 10-20mm, 12-24mm, 17-35mm. These are all effectively 2x zooms because it is asking for near-miracles to have a dramatic close-focus performance in wider range zooms.
I would love to be able to use an extension tube with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 but, as with so many DX lenses, there is no manual diaphragm. No doubt, one could do something with a bit of blu-tac™ or tape on the diaphragm pin but…its a case of “kids, do not try this one at home!” However, a few experiments in the studio have revealed that, at 10mm for the Sigma 10-20mm zoom, the closest focus is behind the front lens element – so, not a lot of use there.
Wider and Wider
So, how far can one realistically go at the ultra-wide end? Well, a couple of years ago I was having one of my occasional ‘nerd’ days, scanning catalogues and spec sheets on-line and I started looking at diagonal (or rectilinear) fish-eyes. Over the years I have noted their occasional use for close-ups from the give-away curvature of the horizon. Long ago, when filming, I played with things like circular fish-eye lenses, endoscopes and borescopes but could never quite escape the feeling of gimmickry, though the legendary Lennart Nilson (http://www.lennartnilsson.com) produced staggering results but with the sorts of equipment you cannot really afford at home…pity.
It has taken me a little while but I have grown to love the edge distortion a 10mm rectilinear wide-angle offers
Well, Sigma UK have kindly lent me a pair of their diagonal fisheye lenses to evaluate. Let me point out that I have long had a good working relationship with the company being one of those people who will only ever recommend things he uses himself and who will say openly where deficiencies lie. Some people claim on-line to have had ‘issues’ with Sigma quality -in 15 years I have not (in fact, I have had more with Nikon…including a ‘soft’ macro lens and a D300 body that failed after three days… )..I think it’s more to do with the fact they feel the need to justify spending a fortune on marque lens.
The Sigma 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fish-eye used on DX format produces barely noticeable edge distortion since the central portion of the image is used.
Which is how I come to have been using a 15mm/f/2.8 EX DG- an FX diagonal fisheye and a 10mm /f/2.8 EX DG for DX. I cannot afford both (in fact, barely afford one, this winter…) and will choose to purchase one of them. If I was primarily a landscape photographer I would go for the 10mm – since I am beginning to love the edge distortion in woodlands for example. However, my current needs for a very close-focusing ultra-wide would be better served by the 15mm f/2.8 lens.
It is surprising how quickly you get to like the edge distortion with a 10mm diagonal fisheye
So now you know the conclusion you need read no further…but there are pluses and minuses for both that may help (or complicate) your choice if you ever consider one of these lenses)
Let me say that quality of both these lenses is superb – they are incredibly sharp (optimum achieved at f/8-f/11) and images even at 200% look astonishing with much hidden detail. The front element of such lenses protrudes and a knock would be a disaster so Sigma provide slide on, tube-like lens hoods.
They both have excellent close focus: the 15mm goes to 15cm (from the sensor) and has a reproduction ratio of 1:3.9 while the 10mm achieves a reproduction ratio of 1:3.3 at 13.5cm. With the 10mm I can get down on the ground and create a bug’s eye view of leaves and such like (damn, I am almost convincing myself that this is the one). Edges are dramatically curved – the central portion not. On a DX camera the 15mm barely distorts since one is using the central image portion and is equivalent to a 22.5mm wide-angle (crop factor 1.6) whilst the 10mm is equivalent to a 16mm lens…
My dilemma comes when using them for close-ups: the 10mm actually gives a slightly greater degree of enlargement at closest focus but the subject is just 18 millimetres from the front lens element. In comparison, the 15mm can focus on a subject at about 7cm, still very close, but that bit more room with which to work.
Lighting the close-up
Lighting is a problem because there is so much of a background visible that you easily get ‘hotspots’ with skies that are anything other than blue…these are lenses demand patience to conquer the drawbacks. The shadow of the lens and camera is sometimes difficult to eliminate if, in traditional fashion, you have the sun ‘over the shoulder’. Easiest are close-ups photographed from slightly below – eg. insects above on flowers, blue skies behind offer the ideal conditions. Again, shadows creep into corners where you don’t notice until you have got it wrong a few times.
This Egyptian grasshopper was the only insect around on a november day and not too active. I photographed it with the lighting unit detailed below and the 15mm f/2.8 lens
I like problems and get ‘bored’ if things are too easy so I have built a lighting unit: it is in its prototype state and since it works will probably stay there for a while. Others might think of improvements and you can equally well use it for close-ups with ‘normal’ wide and ultra-wide angles.
As mentioned previously, with lighting wide-angled compositions (10mm diagonal fisheye) at close quarters you have to balance background and flash on the subject…compromise, compromise.
Neither lens offers a true horizontal 180º panorama – this is the measure along the diagonal (hence the name). And, if you fancy a bit of 3D trigonometry you can find that, horizontally the angle of view is less. Thus, with care (watching the frame edges so nothing peeps around) you can use a macroflash (or even ring flash) but I found ‘hot spots’ from specular reflections were a bugbear…so I used a white translucent Perspex (acrylic) off-cut (Niall has not completely bought out world supplies) through which the lens front pokes and then light this from behind. The circular hole was cut using a router as a ‘compass’.
the lens front pokes through the perspex sheet which sits effectively behind the lens and out of the field of view of both fisheyes (and any other wide angle lens.)
I have a lot of useful junk at home – bits of tubes, clamps, aluminium angle and channel and an old rail from a Metz hammerhead gun. This unit’s design evolved to employ what was available. Its how I work – I can only design if I have restrictions. Your local DIY supermarket may well have metal rods and channels for your own version. In the photograph you will see how the camera plus lighting set up (not fixed to the lens so no strain put on it) fits the old Metz rail and, in turn, with a Manfroto hexagonal mount can sit on the omnipresent Novoflex minipod
The pics are self-explanatory and you could use any flash guns – I just wanted something I could carry and this fits in the laptop pocket of my Tamrac 8X photo rucksack (I can only just carry it…)
In this post I have detailed techniques and approaches – by all means draw inspiration but rather than ‘copy’ get out there, find the subjects and reveal their world and any sense of wonder you feel through your imagination.
These are early day and things are planned…some things must stay under wraps for a little while: there may be predators out there awatchin.
with a reflective subject such as this fungus the lighting unit has proved its effectiveness so far with the 10mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye (used here) as well as the 15mm f/2.8...a cheap and cheerful solution. I like those.
Some specifications:
10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Diagonal Fisheye
|
Lens Construction |
|
12 Elements in 7 Groups |
|
Angle of View |
|
180 degrees (Nikon fit) |
|
Number of Diaphragm Blades |
|
7 Blades |
|
Minimum Aperture |
|
F22 |
|
Minimum Focusing Distance |
|
13.5cm |
|
Maximum Magnification |
|
1:3.3 |
|
Filter Size |
|
Rear (Gelatin Filter) |
|
Dimensions |
|
Diameter 75.8mm x Length 83mm |
|
Weight |
|
475g |
Fittings available Nikon D, Canon, Sigma
15mm f/2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye
|
Lens Construction |
|
7 Elements in 6 Groups |
|
Angle of View |
|
180 degrees |
|
Number of Diaphragm Blades |
|
7 Blades |
|
Minimum Aperture |
|
F22 |
|
Minimum Focusing Distance |
|
15cm |
|
Maximum Magnification |
|
1:3.8 |
|
Filter Size |
|
Rear (Gelatin Filter) |
|
Dimensions |
|
Diameter 73.5mm X Length 65mm |
|
Weight |
|
370g |
Fittings available Nikon D, Canon, Sigma, Sony, Pentax
© Paul Harcourt Davies 2009
Pingback: Niall Benvie. Paul Harcourt Davies. Andrew Parkinson. » Blog Archive » Take a walk on the wide-side (wide-angle macro 2)
Hi Paul,
Thanks for a really interesting article and excellent photos to demonstrate the effects. Just one point-In your article you mention about not being able to use extension tubes due to the Sigma lens having no manual diaphragm. Have you checked wether the Kenko set will work as these are Auto extension tubes so will retain all metering functions etc. It really is about time Nikon brought out a set of Auto tubes after all these years!!! They don’t appear to be listening to there customers-rant over.
Hello Neil,
Thank you for your comment and glad you liked the article(s). As far as I know the Kenko tubes are completely coupled for TTL exposure control and for autofocus. Kenko engineering is also of extremely high quality. Thus, they should certainly work with the Sigma lens and any other DX lenses that lack a manual focus ring. One reason I really like the 15mm Sigma is that it has an ‘old fashioned’ aperture ring. There seems to be an erroneous assumption that FX users need an aperture ring DX users not…the shortest of these tubes is 12mm (just that bit more than the Nikon PK11A) so with a 24mm you’d begin at magnification 0.5 x with lens on infinity, 20mm at 0.6x and the 15mm at 0.8x getting closer and closer…No, Nikon do not listen…they feel they do not need to Iisten to mere mortals I suspect. If I am wrong then how about a Nikon answer to the Canon 65 MP-E mm macro (why the pointless 85mm F/3.5G ED VR macro ?) ) AND those auto-tubes. I am not 100% certain but did hear that you can get the Kenko 12mm tube separately and not part of a set…maybe someone out there knows? I suspect that if Nikon did bring out auto tubes they could not engineer everything into an 8mm tube length…
Hi Paul,
I have been looking forward to part 2 of your article and it was certainly worth the wait. I have been using a set of ‘Tri-Plus’ extension tubes which are compatible with G type lenses without the aperture ring, the smallest tube in the set is 12mm. I like your lighting unit, it looks like a nifty design and quite practical for field use……….. Regards Aubrey
Hello Aubrey,
Thanks for your appreciative comments. I had not come across the Triplus extension tubes. From what I have now read they seem to offer full TTL contact but not AF (no great loss). No-one but Nikon seems able to offer less than a 12mm tube…pity a firm like Novoflex doesn’t offer tubes since their quality is exceptional. The lighting unit works which is what matters: it is simple and easy to replicate – even a sheet of translucent perspex with a hole will do.
Hi Paul, my Triplus extension tubes enable all lens functions, TTL, full autofocus and also VR. I have used the Triplus on a few occasions with my 24-120mm AF VR zoom. I mostly use them with my AFD 70-300mm f5.6 zoom to get good working distance for skittish subjects though for close up I use manual focus most of the time. I searched for quite a while to get a well known brand like Novoflex or Kenko but all the stores here in Melbourne had were Triplus or other lesser known makes but I have not regretted the purchase of the Triplus which I have for about three years now. The lens release button on them seems a little flimsy but has never let me down or caused any problems. Regards ….. Aubrey
Hi Aubrey,
Thanks very much for that information – very helpful it seems that there is much more choice than I thought.
kind regards -Paul
Hello Paul,
i can recommend the following website. There a german naturephotographer made some extesiontubes hisself. It´s just a bit tricky because you need to take hand on your lenselecronics. But i think it´s managable and you get much more freedom in usage.
http://www.naturfotografie.biz/tipps/sigma12_24.htm
regards, marcus
Hello Marcus,
Thanks you very much for the link there is always more out there….I had wondered about doing this with thin rings. The electrics are not too much of a problem because the connections are on a flexible lead and I note that he has used very thin rings – like the spacer rings that you get inside many lenses. I have taken the back off quite a few lenses (and dismantled and rebuilt others)…and lost things like the ballbearing that controls a diaphragm click stop on the floor of a hotel room…it has to be done with care and is not something for those who just like to fiddle.
I don’t have a 12-24 Sigma, which is probably quite different from the 10-20mm since it (the 12-24mm) has a diaphragm ring. I have the 10-20mm in front of me and from the way its diaphragm pin sits I am not sure this would work…it’s something to try on an older lens maybe. Even the tiny increase he uses of 1.5mm makes a huge difference to the distance of closest focus…its impressive
best wishes
Paul
Hi! Been searching a while for info about wide-angle macro and have not found your great blog until now! A lot of good info, not just about Wide angle macro.
I have a question: I have a D700 (FX) camera with 16-35 f4 vr II lens, and 24-70mm f2.8.Both new with non manual f-stop ring. I would really try to getting close-ups to my subjects (insects, flowers…) with Tubes, and I would really want meetering, and AF (not that important). You write in the upper part of the article that you should Manual be able to set the f-stop. It’s not possible om newer lenses (sadly). Does that mean I cant use tubes on my 16-35mm and 24-70mm, because it will focus behind the lens element? Would be great to be able to use my current lenses instead of buying primes. Ideas?
And yet again, thanks again for a very inspirational site, that is now in my RSS-feed!
Hello Johan,
First thanks for your comments on the Blog – much appreciated.
I think that, for the lenses mentioned and the level of control needed, the best option is the thinnest (12mm) of the set of tubes made by Kenko. It may be obtainable separately (someone mentioned that to me a while ago..but I do not have a source). certainly with the 24-70mm zoom it will function well and give around half life-size at the 24mm end with the lens on infinity and much more as you focus closer. You might get away too with the 16-35mm but at the short focal length end it could possibly vignette on the D700. Anyway at the 16mm end I suspect subject and front lens element would be very close at best, if indeed it did focus. It is something to try. The tubes are very well made and also support autofocus…if you do not have a source then http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk have them.
best wishes
Paul
Hi Paul,
A very informative blog and a good read too, so many thanks for that. As a keen macro photographer I have been interested in wide angle macro for some time and I wish I’d found your articles sooner.
The lens I have been using for wideangle macro is the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, not the sharpest lens in the world but not the worst either and it does benefit from being (relatively) inexpensive. It claims to have a reproduction ratio of 1: 2.56 so approx 0.4x but I have always struggled to get insects sufficiently large in the frame, even when they are practically touching the lens, unless they are particularly large insects. I have therefore often wondered how, for instance, Solvin Zankl creates such frame filling wide angle shots of relatively small insects. Similarly, I am slightly puzzled by the size of the Egyptian Grasshopper in your image above. You state that the Sigma 15mm fisheye has a reproduction rate of only 1:3.9 (so approx 0.25x) yet the grasshopper is very large in the frame – is this a particularly large grasshopper or am I missing something when I compare reproduction ratios in this way? I’m unable to get British sized grasshoppers (rarely more then 4cm long) this large in the frame using my Tokina lens even though this lens claims to provide greater magnification than the Sigma 15mm.
Also, I’m curious to know how a 12mm Kenko tube would affect the Sigma 15mm – would the closest focus point move behind the front lens element, or would there be some practical benefit?
Anyway, thanks again for the information. Your blog is now bookmarked and will be returned to regularly.
best wishes,
Matt
Hello Matt,
Many thanks for your kind comments -especially since you take exceptionally good macro shots yourself as anyone who follows the link from this blog will see!.
To try and address the points you have made:
a. In practice the Sigma 15mm goes a bit closer than advertised and, ergo with DX sensors you get that cropping effect that makes the insect occupy a larger portion of the viewfinder frame – effectively with my Nikon D300 it becomes 1.5 x 0.25 = 0.374 or close to 0.4x when compared with FX framing (and of course that lens is no longer 15mm but a 22.5mm equivalent). I am not unhappy with that for I don’t like the distortion you get with living creatures and wider rectangular fish-eyes…aside from the fact that they are nearly touching the front element.
b. Regarding the Egyptian grasshopper – I have found fully mature females of around 7.5 cm length so at the reproduction rations you quote it would be 3cm and frame-filling.
c. Solvin Zankl has a mastery of creating impressions – his choice of viewpoint and the insect in relation to other things in the frame gives the impression of something large in the foreground with background visible. The scale of these things is not always large even though you think it is. He also has shots of some of the larger insects…things like mantids, stag beetles and so on are great for this technique. What I would like to get is the effect you achieve with an endsocope and smaller subjects…
d. Amongst the earlier responses on this subject there is a link (no longer functioning) to a site where someone has been experimenting with introducing separating rings on a 12-24mm lens by de-mounting the electrical contacts and so on. I have in fact been working on this but have not dared post my incomplete findings in case someone enthusiastically follows and then blames me!
e. I have been experimenting with an 8 mm Nikon tube on the Sigma 15mm but it does not couple well at all…there seems to be some slight misalignment of the stop down pin on the tube relative to the lens. Sometimes I can get it to function and then other times not…seems like a blu-tac job I have not got around to yet! From back of the envelop calculations there should still be space (minimal) between the front element of the 15mm and subject…I’ll be ordering a set of tubes soon (the 12mm no longer seems to be available as a separate item) and will then post!
To be honest, I still like the effect I get with a short extension tube and a 24mm wide angle- distances are still workable and subjects can be illuminated without worrying about shadow from the lens front. Images are clearly wide but with minimal subject distortion…now if I could get a 4mm for the Sigma 15mm, who knows.
Again, thanks for your comments and I hope this helps – it is a question of pushing boundaries and getting images that look realistic with impact!
best regards
Paul
Many thanks for the informative reply Paul and thanks also for the kind comments about my own photography.
I think you’ve confirmed my own conclusions that the ideal wide angle macro lens would be a 15mm fisheye with a 4 or 6mm extension tube, if such tubes existed. As a Canon user, the thinnest extension tube available to me is 12mm which I suspect is just too much on a 15mm lens for practical use. I’ll await your experiments with interest though. Perhaps the next best alternative would be the Sigma 24mm with a 12mm extension tube. This seems to provide about the right balance of ‘wideangle’ and ‘macro’.
thanks again, plenty of food for thought!
best wishes,
Matt
The Sigma wide angles all have much better close-focus than manufacturer’s fixed focus offerings and optically they are excellent. With the in-built extension of the 24mm plus a 12mm tube you would get a more or less continuous focus range (as the table in the article shows).
I still have my first ‘pro’ camera a canon F1 with a few lenses and the 28mm f/2.8 wide angle plus a 4.0mm FD tube…it came with a small plastic cap that fitted over the stop-down lever.
Paul
Hi Paul,
I’m probably a little late joining in here but I just found that the thread was actually still running.
I think that i have discussed with you before that my sister owns a little camera shop and that buying lenses is a fairly easy process and I’m allowed to pay them off over a period of time.
I have just found out that a local (approx 30mins drive) National Park has a plentiful supply of native orchids and boasts over100 different native species or variations! Now I’m really keen to get myself down and dirty and photograph as many of these as I can and do it with minimal disruption, in situ, and include as much surrounds as possible. I’m thinking that this article offers up the best advice for my new project, but I would love to have a clear recommendation from you as to which you consider to be the ‘best’ of the lenses to cover this close focus wide angle approach? Your picture above of the fungi on the tree brach is an excellent example of what I’m trying to achieve. I’m limited to a Nikon D90 DX. I say limited because I am unable to manually input lens info to the camera for metering purposes, etc…
Thanks for your assistance my friend,
Kindest regards,
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
That is quite a selection of orchids – years ago I bought David L. Jones ‘Native Orchids of Australia’ and drooled…I have seen a number of your native species in collections but there is nothing like the real thing!
Currently I am inseparable from my 15mm f/2.8 Sigma rectangular fisheye which, on DX format gives barely noticeable distortion of the sort normally characteristic of fisheyes since one is using the central part of the lens. I can get pretty close with it (much better than any conventional wide-angle I know of) Even with the smallest of orchids you can get close enough to fill the frame with a whole plant and in the case of larger flowered species you can comfortably get groups of flowers. I hope to get some new gallery pages on my website in the next week or so and have a selection there.
I still go back to a 24mm f/2.8 Nikon AF wide-angle plus the Nikon PK11A 8′mm extension tube. It is obviously not as wide but still has a very good ‘feel’. I love the Sigma 10mm for ‘arty farty’ shots of poppy fields but there is just that bit too much distortion and one is too close to the subject with flower portaits- at least for my tastes.
Having that sort of orchid resource near is going to be the basis of a lovely project for you. Good luck!
best for now
Paul