[Zig]

..at opposite ends of the same lens...

...in the beech woods near me( 16mm, f22):



...and another of St Cyr's(35mm, f13[?])

[Irma]

I like the first one. I see the idea of contrast the tidy lines in the background with the untidy ones in the foreground. I bet you have lovely detail in the foreground.

[squirl033]

a quick question, Shaun... why f/22? at that point, you're starting to lose image quality due to diffraction... might not be noticeably in a composition like this, but as a rule, i find it's better to use apertures in the f/8-f/16 range, which is the "sweet spot" for most dSLRs....

i like the second shot a lot... one minor niggle, for my personal taste i'd prefer a bit more contrast, and perhaps a darker sky - maybe a polarizer would help?

cheers,

Rocky

[Zig]

Er, because I can, really..and for maximum depth of field, obviously. As this was only Day 2 with the new kit I was playing with the extremes to ascertain in what situations I can rely on them. I don't find diffraction to be an issue at all, at least not in the setting I was taking this. Believe me, my proximity to the subject warranted f22; on my former setup, I'd have not trusted this compostion to it, to be honest. I don't plan on outputting this image at 19" on the long side, so no problemo. If I wanted optimum quality, I'd have stuck at f5.6-f11 from around 20-28mm on this lens or just f11 at 24mm on the Mk1 version.
Nope, any more contrast at this time of day and year, and I'd be losing some shadow detail; given the naturally saturated colours and contrasty conditions it didn't warrant a polariser IMO.

[squirl033]

ah, testing the limits of new gear... that makes sense.

[navis01]

Image 2 made me feel homesick.....lovely shot and very typical England, sigh.