Help with panorama stuff.

Not sure where this would go.

I'm working on getting readings to setup my lenses on the nodal point or whatever it's called. I was reading on RRS how the settings are different at different focal lengths. Well on my 16-35II they don't seem to be. I don't see any difference at 16mm vs. 35mm.

Do you have a near and far reference point? I had that lens and one of the RRS single row pano kit and there is def a nodel point at every focal point if youve set up your test properly. I assume you read through this: LINK, also download their latest version of the catalog as there is a little write up and tutorial in there as well. Also, what pano gear are you using?

I have near and far yes. I am using a 192FAS package with a CP-1 on a BH-55 and the L-plate. Read through their tutorial and can't see any difference.

How close is your near and far object to the lens?

ben_r_ wrote in post #13681762
How close is your near and far object to the lens?

That's what I changed. I moved the "close" one to about a foot or so in front of the lens. The far one is about 6 feet away now. I am now seeing some differences. They are very slight though.

Yea that lens is VERY wide, so the parallax is going to be less noticeable. Not to mention, if youre USING the nodal plate on the pano base, thats def helping eliminate the parallax as its designed to do. Try the test without the nodal plate.

Yeah. Going to test it out this weekend. Got the settings written down for that one as well as the 24-105 in case I decided that 35 is still too wide for a pano.

You know I had the 16-35II and sold be because I realize that I was always using it at smaller apertures than f/4, then I sold it and bought the 17-40L because I want to keep an UWA lens around and I hardly ever use it now-a-days as I find my 24-70 is wide enough. lol go figure.

My 16-35 also does duty for weddings though

And yea see there again, that was why I wanted the f/2.8 for the UWA and why I bought the 16-35 II in the beginning. Not that I do weddings all that often, but I have found that with two bodies and my 24-70L and 70-200 2.8 IS II I never use any other lenses. But, we all shoot differently and if I shot weddings more I probably would have kept the 16-35 II.

Numenorean wrote in post #13681771
That's what I changed. I moved the "close" one to about a foot or so in front of the lens. The far one is about 6 feet away now. I am now seeing some differences. They are very slight though.

I use as a close point the edge of a central window/screen frame and a far point some trees a hundred feet away. Finding a nodal point is very quick. I can quickly find the nodal point of every zoom at the labeled ~4 zoom settings and every prime I own. I check both landscape and portrait orientations, as some L brackets have different offsets for the different orientations. I carry a printed table with me for in field reference.
However, I agree that your intent to stitch 16mm shots may involve some significant warping of the images to deal with perspective changes in anything approaching near field (like foreground). Something closer to 35-50mm usually will work better.

ben_r_ wrote in post #13681814
You know I had the 16-35II and sold be because I realize that I was always using it at smaller apertures than f/4, then I sold it and bought the 17-40L because I want to keep an UWA lens around and I hardly ever use it now-a-days as I find my 24-70 is wide enough. lol go figure.

The 17-40/4 is the only zoom lens I have tested that doesn't change its nodal point with zoom (focal length) position.