Going to the Namaqualand I did what every photographer does packed my bag with everything, in the end I could have left it all behind and just took my 16-35mm as I took 90% 0f my photographs with it.
I found the the close focusing distance and shortness of the lens was handy, additionally small flowers are well defined. It’s not a macro by far but it works. I had a 100mm macro along and used it far less then I expected, just the length of the lens was a problem, seriously try to get under a 200mm bush with a camera that is 200mm, does not work well, take it from me. My wife however found it hilarious…
So how does one capture this splendour? I opted to try something very different, I call it the “ant view”, how would an ant see the flower? From under obviously, not all my shots are like that but very few are from the “human” view as well, in fact I tried my hardest not to do the “human” thing, it’s so snapshot don’t you think? I also found a low aperture (f/2.8-4) advantageous, since flowers are in scattered bushes it give an illusion of depth, who said that photographers can’t be magicians? For some reason, I also found that shooting at 1/3 to a stop lower gave a far better contrast and definition to the final product, it may have to do with the blue sky.
I also shot a few panoramic composites, all prepared for HDR, only one worked as an HDR, the drama in the sky tell it all.