Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 05 Jan 2014 (Sunday) 16:20
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Best Landscape lens??

 
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,214 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Jan 06, 2014 21:00 |  #46

vengence wrote in post #16583888external link
I wasn't going to be that guy and critique the photo if you didn't want it. It could be sharper for sure and the CA is really bad on the left. The TS-E 24 II is going to be much better at the CA, and could shoot that shot at a wider aperture so you don't get the diffraction softness.

Here's how much you're picking up by shooting that at f/16 instead of say f/8 with the 17-40.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=5external link

And here's a link you shouldn't look at it if you've got GAS, a comparison of the TS-E to the 17-40.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=5external link

Rather than just looking at the comparison, I suggest reading the review of the 17 TS-E at the same website.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ilumo
Goldmember
1,707 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2009
Jan 06, 2014 22:52 |  #47

JeffreyG wrote in post #16583925external link
Rather than just looking at the comparison, I suggest reading the review of the 17 TS-E at the same website.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=3external link

Is it me, or does the 17-40 look BETTER than the TSE 17 at f8?


Body: 5D Mark IV
Glass: 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/1.4L USM | 17-40 f/4.0L USM | 24-70 f/2.8L II USM | 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM | 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM | 85mm f/1.2L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS USM
Accessories: 430 EX II, 600 EX, tripods, umbrellas, and other goodies.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
Jan 06, 2014 23:51 |  #48

Really? I read it exactly the opposite. The TSE is far sharper than the 17-40 at F8.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Jan 07, 2014 00:18 |  #49

ilumo wrote in post #16584227external link
http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=3external link

Is it me, or does the 17-40 look BETTER than the TSE 17 at f8?

Yea, I have both lenses and have tested them and the 24-105 extensively comparing with the 17 TS-E with 1.4 and 2x extenders.

The 17-40 and 24-105 are in fact quite sharp in the center. So maybe just a tad better than the 17 TS-E - definitely possible.

But as soon as you move away from the center the TS-E kills the others, even with TCs. And at the extreme corners, it's not even funny (not sure how they define 'corner'). So that 'mid-frame' comparison is not my experience, even with TCs on the TS-E.

Of course I'm not shooting test charts and the TS-E definitely has field curvature, so that may make it look soft when trying to photograph a flat subject.

But whatever...... The 17-40 is still a lens I use (and for the above seascape I'd be happy to take the shot with the 17-40).


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Somebloke's Avatar
633 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 07, 2014 00:45 |  #50

vengence wrote in post #16583914external link
Just remember, I'm not responsible if you end up buying one :p

Been reading reviews and comparisons on it all day lol...:oops:

One of my fears is one day having that 'perfect' photo opportunity where everything just falls into line....only to be looking at it down the track regretting that I didn't capture it to it's maximum potential due to inferior gear...




LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Jan 07, 2014 01:35 |  #51

Somebloke wrote in post #16584454external link
Been reading reviews and comparisons on it all day lol...:oops:

One of my fears is one day having that 'perfect' photo opportunity where everything just falls into line....only to be looking at it down the track regretting that I didn't capture it to it's maximum potential due to inferior gear...

Just remember, if you do that, and as a result you cannot pay your electric bill to view it on a digital screen, and you didn't print it at a large scale to even be able to appreciate it truly, then was it really all that great?

Do you print any of your work?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Somebloke's Avatar
633 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 07, 2014 01:53 |  #52

MalVeauX wrote in post #16584515external link
Just remember, if you do that, and as a result you cannot pay your electric bill to view it on a digital screen, and you didn't print it at a large scale to even be able to appreciate it truly, then was it really all that great?

Do you print any of your work?

Very best,

lol mate Im not exactly living in a trailer park, or buying a Hasslebad ;) Besides I used to race dirt and road bikes, compared to those hobbies photography is cheap as chips bw!

As for printing....not yet, I have a couple that I have almost come close to printing but Im still learning and can appreciate I still have some way to go before IMHO I have a pic print worthy.




LOG IN TO REPLY
eddie3dfx
Senior Member
486 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Jan 07, 2014 01:55 as a reply to MalVeauX's post |  #53

I guess this really depends on what kind of landscapes you shoot and what focal lengths you mostly use.
You could sell your 24-105 and buy a 24-70ii.. this way you cover the 24, 35, 50, and 70 .. at f5.6+ i'm sure it's very sharp.

21mm zeiss is a wonderful lens.. another cheaper, but also very sharp alternative is the canon 24mm 2.8 is


Canon 6D, Canon L 24-105, Zeiss Distagon 28mm 2.8, Planar 50mm 1.4, Planar 85mm 1.4, Sonnar 135mm 2.8 & Zeiss Mutar 2x, Canon 50mm 1.8
http://www.edwinraffph​otography.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Somebloke's Avatar
633 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 07, 2014 02:34 |  #54

ilumo wrote in post #16584227external link
http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...omp=0&FLIComp=0&API​Comp=3external link

Is it me, or does the 17-40 look BETTER than the TSE 17 at f8?

At f8 the 17mm def looks better. Interestingly though at f16 around where I normally shoot there is no discernible difference?




LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Somebloke's Avatar
633 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 08, 2014 20:02 |  #55

Checked and I can hire the 24 ts-e for $39 a day! Bargain! Will let you know what I think




LOG IN TO REPLY
Ruggo
Member
106 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Sydney, Australia
Jan 09, 2014 05:16 |  #56

Somebloke, I was going to say if you are in Sydney, I've got a 17 ts-e you could try out. Under my supervision with me carrying a bloody big stick :)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Somebloke's Avatar
633 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Jan 09, 2014 05:24 |  #57

Ruggo wrote in post #16590434external link
Somebloke, I was going to say if you are in Sydney, I've got a 17 ts-e you could try out. Under my supervision with me carrying a bloody big stick :)

Awww thanks mate that's extremely generous of you but I'm a Melbourne boy :) And lol at bloody big stick!! How about you break it you own it ;)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Lenny_D
Member
63 posts
Joined Jun 2003
Netherlands
Jan 09, 2014 07:47 |  #58

I'm a little surprised that knowbody mentions the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 from Canon.
The lens is more expensive than the 17-40mm but has a better contrast and color and is sharper in the corners.

From a general point of view I believe that ultrawide angles shots are most attractive for landscape photography. They offer a lot of creative possibilities and you can create very dramatic and appealing images.

I know -I know - Why bother and buy af/2.8 lens? Most people stop down to f/8 or f/11 when shooting landscapes but a f/2.8 has its advantages:
- for dramatic shots with objects close to the lense you can create nice blurred backgrounds
- for evening shots you can do still hand held photography with your 5D3 at f/2.8
- You can limit shutter times at night for much nicer shots of skies with stars

IMO the 17mm TS-E lens is primarily targeted to clean photography of architecture. But are you making real estate folders or do you want to get creative? It is not neccessary to have corrections for perspective distortions in landscapes, also remember that the TS-E lens is way more expensive than the 16-35mm.

Good luck with your search!

Lenny




LOG IN TO REPLY
Keith_D
Senior Member
306 posts
Joined Dec 2011
New Jersey
Jan 09, 2014 07:51 |  #59

Nikon 14-24 plus adapter. Or buy a D800E and a 14-24 ;)




LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,098 posts
Joined Mar 2013
Jan 09, 2014 09:10 |  #60

Lenny_D wrote in post #16590663external link
I'm a little surprised that knowbody mentions the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 from Canon.
The lens is more expensive than the 17-40mm but has a better contrast and color and is sharper in the corners.

From a general point of view I believe that ultrawide angles shots are most attractive for landscape photography. They offer a lot of creative possibilities and you can create very dramatic and appealing images.

I know -I know - Why bother and buy af/2.8 lens? Most people stop down to f/8 or f/11 when shooting landscapes but a f/2.8 has its advantages:
- for dramatic shots with objects close to the lense you can create nice blurred backgrounds
- for evening shots you can do still hand held photography with your 5D3 at f/2.8
- You can limit shutter times at night for much nicer shots of skies with stars

IMO the 17mm TS-E lens is primarily targeted to clean photography of architecture. But are you making real estate folders or do you want to get creative? It is not neccessary to have corrections for perspective distortions in landscapes, also remember that the TS-E lens is way more expensive than the 16-35mm.

Good luck with your search!

Lenny

The 16-35 is clearly a better lens than the 17-40, I don't think any one would argue that. However the TS-E lens are far more creative. While they can be used to create sterile, high dof and parrellel lines, they can also creatively distort or creat thin depth of field along planes that are not parallel to the sensor.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

10,083 views & 1 like for this thread
Best Landscape lens??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00329 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is jqualmann
870 guests, 466 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017