Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM collage.jpg

File:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM collage.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 14:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM collage.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM collage.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
•  Info all by me – Lucas 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing special Charles (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This time --Llez (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support good work! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 22:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support By the way my objection was not quite the same as Poco's - I don't really care how many FPs it "counts" as. 11 angles is too many regardless of how it is presented, and this current one is fine either as a collage or as separate images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Thanks for the additional info, I'll keep that in mind when I create the 180 mm lens collage. – Lucas 15:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing exciting here. Would rather fit as VI. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Technically excellent photos, but there has to be a more aesthetical way to present these collages. For me, this looks more like a photo from a catalogue. --cart-Talk 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, although cart's point should be taken. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Question What is the encyclopaedic value of this image? A lens is just a lens... How does this image (or type of image) advance knowledge? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Commons is not just a repository of images for Wikipedia. Encyclopedic value is appreciated here but not necessary. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thennicke is absolutely right. Besides: The image has a lot of encyclopedic value, e.g. here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Thennicke: @Tomascastelazo: @Martin Falbisoner: I have a "problem" that the single images of my lenses are not really suitable for FP because there are so many and they are repetitive, but they can be better used in articles. The collages tend to become a bit too boring for FP, but provide more value per image (though I can't get VI on them because they want them to be in use, a point that is currently in discussion in the VI candidates talk page). I have no hard feelings if they all stay QI and only some FPs, but I try nevertheless ;) I like this style of product images of lenses. – Lucas ^T 17:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Lucasbosch: I like this style of image too, which is why I keep supporting your nominations - and I know how much work goes into them. If you're interested there is a relevant discussion here about what we promote at FPC, which you might be interested in reading/contributing to. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 22:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects