17-40mm L close up shots (anyone with some photos to share?)

[Yan]

I am interested in taking some "wide angle close up" and I am thinking of 17-40L + 12mm extention tube.. (sorry my bad.. not 1.4 and I meant 12mm, to reduce comfustion I have edited it)
so I am just wondering if anyone can share the wide angle close up photos..

Thanks

Yan

[tombryan]

Give me about a day. Shot a wedding yesterday but won't be ready to upload any examples for a few days.

[griff2]

Haven't got the extension tubes, but here's the 17-40 f/4L at 17mm.
http://www.griff2.co.uk/pictures/jesmond_dene4.jpg

[blue_max]

Great picture Griff2. Love the water. But...

Is it me or is there a bit of a 'haze' over it – seems like if you boosted the contrast, it would really start to sing. Or was there a lot of spray in the air/not great uv filter/no processing/high jpeg compression?

It could just be my monitor, so sorry for mentioning it if it is.

Graham

[griff2]

blue_max wrote:

Is it me or is there a bit of a 'haze' over it – seems like if you boosted the contrast, it would really start to sing. Or was there a lot of spray in the air/not great uv filter/no processing/high jpeg compression?


The haze is the water in the air, when I was taking the picture I really hoped that that this would be picked up.

I used a curves adjustment layer in Photoshop to bring up the shadows, but I'll start playing around bit more to see what interesting effects I can get.

[blue_max]

I hope you will post a modified version as I would be interested to see where you take it.

The beauty of digital is the ability to play.

I am thinking of getting this lens, but can't help feeling that I would only ever bother with the 17mm end. Does anyone find the 40mm end particularly good for anything – we are virtually into 'nifty' territory here and I don't think the zoom would compete (image quality, not the other obvious attributes).

Graham

[willrz]

Here are some shot taken with a 10d and the 17-40.
They have no post processing -they are straight out of the camera.

I've taken shots with my film camera with the 17-40, and have been very happy with the results. I can't say the same with the 10d.

Just for kicks I'm posting a pic from my elph S330. I'm getting as good of prints (8x10) with the elph, as I do with my film cameras shooting with "L" glass. .http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL916/3472445/7136967/92825183.jpg
To say the least I'm questioning the whole DSLR thing.




http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL916/3472445/7136967/93464435.jpg
http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL916/3472445/7136967/93464417.jpg
http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL916/3472445/7136967/93464389.jpg

[raylks]

Produced with 300D, and 17-40mm L, the cheap combination:
:D

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/cheungshan/CRW_5315.jpg

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/cheungshan/CRW_5315.jpg

[raylks]

This one is produced with extension tube with 17-40mm L. Note that the focusing distance between the subject and the lens, was ... around 5mm (! Get the protect filter before you shoot!)

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/flora/MG_9640.jpg

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/flora/MG_9640.jpg

[O/confusion]

I am interested in taking some "wide angle close up" and I am thinking of 17-40L + 1.4 extention tube..
so I am just wondering if anyone can share the wide angle close up photos..

Thanks

Yan

Perhaps I'm just being obtuse, but the original post was asking about "close up" photos, not inviting everyone to post any old 17-40L shots they happen to have to hand--there of lots of those on the forum already. So far, nobody's offered this person anything useful for his purposes...

Wish I could help, Yan, but I haven't tried any close-ups with mine yet.

Best of luck.
Terry

[fatrat]

Haven't got the extension tubes, but here's the 17-40 f/4L at 17mm.


Nice pic, what exactly do the extenders do?

[griff2]

fatrat wrote: Nice pic, what exactly do the extenders do?
Thanks. Extenders turn your lens into a macro. I've never used one myself, although I'm tempted to investigate.

[thomasrhee]

It shortens the minimum focusing distance of the lens.

Nice pic, what exactly do the extenders do?

[O/confusion]

I am interested in taking some "wide angle close up" and I am thinking of 17-40L + 1.4 extention tube..
so I am just wondering if anyone can share the wide angle close up photos..

Thanks

Yan

There's some confusion in terminology evident in this thread--The 1.4X attachment is a teleconverter, not an extension tube. A teleconverter will effectively increase the magnification of your lens, but will not allow you to focus any closer than its stated minimum focussing distance without the attachment. As far as I'm aware, the Canon teleconverters will not work with the 17–40L. If you're looking to do "macro" type work, it's an extension tube (or tubes, plural) you'll be wanting.

Take a look at the pros and cons of these devices, and various recommendations as to their use with different lenses, by using the forum "Search" tab at the top of the window--you'll find that this is a topic that has been talked to extensively on this site, and you will likely find the information you need waiting there for you (although I don't know if the sample photos you're requesting are available--I haven't looked recently).

Hope this helps a bit.

regards,
Terry

[GyRob]

hope this helps 100% crop and full frame 17mm about 6" away from 300d camera 125/sec f6.3 .
Rob.

[GyRob]

ps. the 1.4 does Not work with the 17/40.

[quadphoto]

A close up photo taken with my new 17-40L, 1/15sec @ f16 tripod mounted, but not with an extention tube. Quadphoto

[Huckaback Photo]

Hi Yan

Just took this for you to see
used a 1D mk2
lens 17 to 40 L
F 8
800 iso
1/5th sec
and a 12mm canon extension tube

the second one is the 100% crop

[ScottE]

What the heck is a 1.4 extention tube? Do you mean a 1.4x teleconverter or a short extention tube?

Most teleconverters are designed for longer lenses and will not perform well wide angle lenses because the angle of incidence of light is beyond their design limits.

Extention tubes are hollow spacers that fit between the lens and camera to allow it to focus at closer distances. With a 12 mm extention tube the 17-40 can focus on subjects that are touching the front lens element (actually filter, who wants the subject touching the front element). I don't think I saved any photos I took using this method, but it is interesting to play with if you put your camera right down on the ground in low vegetation like moss. Use the zoom ring to focus since it is more effective than the focus ring with an extention tube attached.

Scott

[Huckaback Photo]

Scott
I've taken it that Yan mentioned extension tube and just wrote 1.4 instead of 12mm, but who knows ?
also agree with you dont use focus ring just use zoom or better still move the body back & forward.

well done guys. a lot of imput.

Yan we await your reply

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[Yan]

oops sorry.. not 1.4 .. 12mm extention tube, I should have checked before i post

[Yan]

Thanks guys... nice images..
I currently have 100mm macro and I thought I can get some interesting close up with 17-40L Since I have kit lens now I should try it with 12mm extention tube to see...

do people like 12 extention tubes??

[Huckaback Photo]

Yan
I really got the 12mm extension tube to use with the 100 to 400 L is. its a great lens but many times was just not close enough focus, when you consider what that lens costs
the 12mm increases the uses of this lens, well worth it .
Martin

[kndreyn]

Here are a few of my grand daughter with the 17 - 40. I'll be looking into the extension tube. There are times I wish I could focus a bit closer.

http://www.certainty.net/~kndreyn/LG3M6471.jpg

http://www.certainty.net/~kndreyn/LG3M7024.jpg

http://www.certainty.net/~kndreyn/LG3M7027.jpg

[Reservoir_Dog]

Produced with 300D, and 17-40mm L, the cheap combination:
:D

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/cheungshan/CRW_5315.jpg

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/cheungshan/CRW_5315.jpg

Nice pic but i see sharpening artifacts... Little too much USM?
Greetings

[neil_r]

Again I did not use a tube but these are with a 17-40

(NB In #2 that is steam coming off the meadow not a problem with the lens :D )

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/large/yos_2004_N6H2178.jpg

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/large/yos_2004_N6H2157.jpg

N

[sn4il]

I love Your shots Neil. I own 17-40 and my shots are not that sharp. Do You guys think that might be lens problem?
Here is a sample:
http://www.eskadra.com/widok.jpg

mAx

[roanjohn]

Max.......your shot could've been focused on the foreground (i.e - grasses, branches).

Ro1

[sn4il]

Oh... i forgot to upload closup shot for Yan.
http://www.eskadra.com/zaloty.jpg

Btw: this photo was taken in the same day i purchased 20d and 17-40. Its out of focus a bit due to my newbieness :)

mAx

[Wazza]

http://wazz*****scity.com/temp/bumblebee.jpg

I think the only macro I've done with this lens. In the first few days that i had the lens. Normally I use my 70-300, which can focus at 95cm at 200-300mm. And makes objects 1/2 full size. Whereas the 17-40L is 1:4?

[Yan]

Thank you guys.. for the wonderful shot.. I guess that lens is really fantastic on both landscape and macro.. I am on the trip to Newfoundland Canada now with my kit lens 50mm and 100mm and I am bit getting flustrated with the kit lens interms of taking landscape.. =(
It is really interesting to know that people uses 70-200 or 70-300 for their macro work.. well but I guess that won't be my option since I already have 100 macro.. well.. now it is time for me to put funding together for 17-40L..

[malla1962]

Produced with 300D, and 17-40mm L, the cheap combination:
:D

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/cheungshan/CRW_5315.jpg

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/cheungshan/CRW_5315.jpg
looks like a good combination.

[milou]

17-40L on a 300d:

http://milouvision.net/photos/CRW_2140-01a.jpg

Plus biggie snap: http://milouvision.net/photos/CRW_2184-01ab.jpg

[blue_max]

Again I did not use a tube but these are with a 17-40


N

Neil, that second shot is simply staggering. I am amazed.

I had imagined it was in Colorado or somewhere, but never blighty.

I am a novice when it comes to wide angle photography and consider it an art in it's own right. To help me along, can you tell me where you focussed that shot please.

I assume it was stopped down until it squealed.

Graham