Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 25 Sep 2012 (Tuesday) 21:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

UWA for Full Frame: which would you chose?

 
gembobs
Member
215 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2008
Location: UK
     
Sep 26, 2012 11:24 |  #16

For you trip to Torres Del Paine I would be inclined to go with something less wide but with excellent IQ, and stitch the shots together, so maybe something like a 24L.

From what I have seen and read about the area, I would rather have a high quality and detailed panoramic shot printed large, than a single UWA shot printed large (and I would be printing them large too when I returned!)

(very envious you are heading there - been wanting to visit Patagonia in general and there specifically since I was about 7yrs old)


Gear List
My Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 552
Joined Mar 2011
     
Sep 26, 2012 11:24 |  #17

ZachOly wrote in post #15045302 (external link)
24L and stitch.

The distortion on the 16-35 and 17-40 is brutal.

but... distortion is so FUN! how many boring panoramas can you look at?


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grimes
Goldmember
1,323 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2006
     
Sep 26, 2012 11:48 |  #18

yeah, distortion can work for or against you, depending on the subject. I suggest picking up a 17-40 used, and try it...if you don't like it, you can always sell it later. I love that lens.


Alex
5DMKII | 85 f/1.8 | 17-40L f/4 | 24-105 f/4 IS | 40 f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 26, 2012 12:01 |  #19

TS-E 17, TS-E 24 (shift and stitch) and Nikon 14-24 with adaptor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JustinPoe
Senior Member
707 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2008
     
Sep 26, 2012 12:12 |  #20

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15042892 (external link)
Now that I'm a member of the full frame club, I need to fulfill the UWA gap as I love shooting interiors of churches when I travel.
Also, I planned a trip to Torres del Paine and I know there is a lot of UWA potential there.
I'm thorn among:
Canon 16-35L: good IQ overall, fast aperture, weather sealed, FTM
Tokina 16-28: OK IQ, fast aperture, cheaper
Sigma 12-24: Wiiiiiiide, so so IQ, 1 1/3 stop slower

Among those which one would you buy and why? I'm thinking long therm here so price is no problem. I just want wide and sharp as I can get.

Thank you!

mike_311 wrote in post #15045295 (external link)
have you excluded the 17-40L for a reason?

^^^
This

You said you want as wide and as sharp as you can get, so...
I would actually suggest two lenses you didn't even mention. The 17-40L and 14L.

I just started a thread a few days ago about the 17-40L and 16-35L and I was in the same boat... price wasn't an issue. However, why spend more money JUST to spend more money?? This is what I really feel like getting the 16-35 is doing. It's not any sharper than the 17-40....at all. Actually, my 17-40 was visibly sharper than my now returned 16-35. The 1mm difference was much less than I thought it would be, the 17 feels very wide, the 16-35 doesn't really feel any wider (if that makes sense) There wasn't a single scene where I thought "glad I had that extra 1mm" I wanted to like the 16-35 so badly, I just didn't.

I also suggest the 14L just because it would be so much fun to shoot with and from what I've read, it's sharper than both the 17-40 and 16-35. Test shots seem to prove this as well.


500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frizzle
Senior Member
428 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2009
     
Sep 26, 2012 18:17 |  #21

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15044510 (external link)
Thank you all for the input guys!
I'd love to get the 17 TSE but as wonderful as it is, it's MF only and that's a big concern to me: kinda hard to snap photos with MF under churches. I tried before and it's just not my thing.

Unfortunately I can't wait for the 16-35 III as I'm going to Torres del Paine in 1 month. Renting is not an option here in Brazil unfortunately.
Perhaps I end up just buying the L for this trip and selling it when I come back, so I can wait for the version III.
The Tokina has its appeal, specially being very spoiled with a super-sharp copy of the 11-16 when I had the 7D.

Oh, boy. Every time I need a new lens I go trough this! :D

I think the 17 TSEII has AF confirm. I don't have the lens so don't know for sure. I have just ordered the 24mm TSEII.


Canon EOS 1D Mark III * Sony Alpha A7R * Canon 70-200mm F2.8L * 400mm F5.6L * Samyang 14mm F2.8 * Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di * Canon TS-E 24L II
MY Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noisejammer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,053 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto ON
     
Sep 26, 2012 19:11 |  #22

Since cost is not an option, my choice would be none of these. Instead, I'd choose either the 17 or 24 TS-E. Both are extremely sharp and you can stitch images to get a significantly wider field than a simple lens can provide.

My preference is for the 17 because adding a 1.4x tc gives me access to both focal lengths. My tests at f/8 convinced me that the 17/1.4x combination was sharper than the 24 TS-E. In practice, this depends on how well the subject suits the resulting field curvature.

Apart from the cost, the principle issue with the 17 is that you need to make an adapter to suit the Lee holder if you want to attach 4x6 filters.


Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frizzle
Senior Member
428 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2009
     
Sep 26, 2012 19:47 |  #23

noisejammer wrote in post #15047262 (external link)
Since cost is not an option, my choice would be none of these. Instead, I'd choose either the 17 or 24 TS-E. Both are extremely sharp and you can stitch images to get a significantly wider field than a simple lens can provide.

My preference is for the 17 because adding a 1.4x tc gives me access to both focal lengths. My tests at f/8 convinced me that the 17/1.4x combination was sharper than the 24 TS-E. In practice, this depends on how well the subject suits the resulting field curvature.

Apart from the cost, the principle issue with the 17 is that you need to make an adapter to suit the Lee holder if you want to attach 4x6 filters.

The filter issue was the sole reason I went with the 24mm.
Is it true they have AF confirm?


Canon EOS 1D Mark III * Sony Alpha A7R * Canon 70-200mm F2.8L * 400mm F5.6L * Samyang 14mm F2.8 * Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di * Canon TS-E 24L II
MY Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,625 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 123
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Sep 26, 2012 19:49 |  #24

Yes, all Canon TSEs have AFconfirm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frizzle
Senior Member
428 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2009
     
Sep 26, 2012 20:57 |  #25

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15047421 (external link)
Yes, all Canon TSEs have AFconfirm.

Thanks Todd. Mine is on it's way.


Canon EOS 1D Mark III * Sony Alpha A7R * Canon 70-200mm F2.8L * 400mm F5.6L * Samyang 14mm F2.8 * Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di * Canon TS-E 24L II
MY Flickr (external link)

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

2,831 views & 0 likes for this thread
UWA for Full Frame: which would you chose?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Wahama90
1068 guests, 213 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.