Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM DSLR lens/2

Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM DSLR lens—renomination

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 19:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• 
  Front view
• 
  with tripod ring
• 
  angled view
• 
  with tripod ring
• 
  with lens hood
• 
  backside
• 
  with tripod ring
• 
  AF switches
• 
  with tripod ring
• 
  front element
• 
  rear element

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
•  Info This is a renomination. I wasn't completely happy with the images, so I also did a reshoot with better defined lighting, less room stray light and placed reflections on the object better.
  all by me – Lucas 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Each photo has very good quality. However, each picture is devoid of emotion. This like a very accurate technical drawing. For me not enough emotion of the Author of these paintings. It turns out boring, although done a large job :( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Chernilevsky: I can understand your feelings, but if you look at Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Optical_devices, there are a lot of such emotionless images of objects, each have in common that they have great lighting and reveal a lot of detail. There even is a set of my studio photos, of the Canon 100 mm lens, in that category present. There are other examples, like the shells by Llez – Lucas 20:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support lNeverCry 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. I felt bad closing your previous nomination because it was so good, but this is even better! -- Thennicke (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral I admit, an impressive work. But I have two points. 1) In my opinion it would have been better to show all elements in the same scale (compare "front view", "with lens hood", and "front element") and 2) the unsharp part in the front element (all others are sharp; would have been easy to solve by focus stacking). --Llez (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Llez: Thanks for your input. 1. You mean I should have left bigger margins on some pictures to match the scale of the bigger ones? I didn't want to do that, because such margins would be annoying if someone would want to embed the images in an article. 2. I agree that blurred part is unusual. There were some issues with the tripod ring being covered by large areas of blur from the front parts, and I didn't have time to reconstruct all of that, so I left it like it is. Post processing of these images already took many hours. – Lucas 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• •  Comment Yes i know, it lasts severals hours for each picture, it is the same in the shells. What I would say is, you can publish each picture alone (for those, who want to embed single pictures in an article), and in addition to combine them within a single picture to give an overview (with adjusted scale). The same, as I did in Theba geminata, where I had the same problem. --Llez (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Good, but too many of them. Concentrate on 2-3. --Mile (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  weak support I don't like some part,but work --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Mile. Each of these pictures is very good, but as a set this overwhelms the viewer with redundancy. As we are judging whether we should feature this as a set, I must oppose here. I would do no more than 5-6 total. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per KoH, specially if we consider that this image is weighted 11 x FPs (as we are considering all images belonging to a set to be FP by themselves). I agree with our set expert (Llez) that the images should be scaled and the criterias to chose these 11 are too randomed to me (e.g. only one shot with hood but 4 with ring). Poco² 09:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the thoughts and ideas. I don't want this to be weighted 11× FP, so I will create a collage of the most interesting angles with correct scaling following Llez’ example and renominate. – Lucas 11:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)