17 Wide And Bright-eyed

And now, for shots from the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX full-frame Minolta/Sony A-mount lens, shot with the Minolta Dynax 7 film SLR on Fujifilm Superia ASA 400 film!

I shot almost entirely in Aperture Priority, as I believe it’s the most practical mode. No point shooting Manual Exposure if you’re just going to set the lightmeter to 0. This was at F14.

Instead of the much-heard of Sigma yellow (where Sigma lenses have a yellow cast) I got a magenta tint instead.

Also, there is very little light falloff! The lens on the Sony A700 has loads at 17mm F2.8; this is because the lens was made for film and was not optimized to send light towards the edges at right angles to hit the CMOS on its head.

Upping the green levels help; this is 17mm F2.8 at the minimum focusing distance of 50cm.

Bokeh is nice, but sometimes shows some brightline. Definitely not creamy either. Shot at F2.8.

Shot at F2.8, surprisingly sharp. Compared to the Sony 11-18mm F4.5-5.6 DT, which has a 16.5mm equivalent field of view, it is technically 0.5mm less wide. However, it is 1.33 stops brighter, so its depth of field is smaller. However, the Sony 11-18mm goes as close as 25cm, which makes up for it.

This was shot at F6.3.

Flare was well-controlled at F11, and a bit of Photoshop made my office building pop.

F2.8, focused on the elianto sign, and yet it was in focus all over.

Another macro shot at 17mm F2.8.

Go green! Go Fujifilm Superia go! Also 17mm F2.8.

He looks like he’s hauling a stash.

While at it, here’s something from the Peleng 8mm F3.5 circular fisheye instead. Shot at F8 in Sunway Pyramid.

And now, back to the Sigma, with the Dynax 7’s Smooth Transition Focus mode, which does a multiple exposure of 7 frames with different apertures.

This was at 17mm F4.5 1/8th of a second. A funky side effect of the 7 frames is this stroboscopic effect!

7 thoughts on “17 Wide And Bright-eyed

  1. xj Post author

    if i’m not wrong the colour from the scan depends quite a bit on the scanner and the person scanning.. An accurate reproduction of colour from negative scans is difficult to achieve without reference or adjustments if i’m not wrong again. I would think to see the true colour it would be better to optically print the negatives and compare them to the scans to check the colour. Cost-wise that is of course very ineffective but guessing the colour and adjusting in Photoshop may be alright as well…

  2. Albert Ng Post author

    ShaolinTiger: Thanks! Yeah it’s a departure from the oversaturated bit… which I got from XJ, heh.

    XJ: That said, I guess I should shoot a reference shot with the same lens in every roll of film to determine if the scanner/operator has changed it. Going through previous shots also from Jeff’s they’re all slightly magenta-ish. The Olympus lenses seem a minor pinch green-cyanish though.

    I guess I could also copy my negative by placing it on my flash while shooting it, then inverting it and using a fixed color shift based on the outer part of the film.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *