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 05 Jan 2014 (Sunday) 16:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best Landscape lens??

 
Bjoernyy
Member
55 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2013
Location: Germany
     
Jan 06, 2014 16:30 as a reply to  @ post 16582609 |  #31

Canon 24 IS is really good and Sharp.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 19:12 |  #32

I have never used a tilt shift lens and given the typical lack of straight lines in nature never really saw the need.

Of those recomending a TS what advantages are you seeing?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,352 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 462
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 06, 2014 19:32 |  #33

Somebloke wrote in post #16583597 (external link)
I have never used a tilt shift lens and given the typical lack of straight lines in nature never really saw the need.

Of those recomending a TS what advantages are you seeing?

First, one of the things that is great about these lenses is that they have an ability to cover an area much larger than a 35mm circle, since they need this to be shifted. In turn, this is kind of like the 'advantage' of using 35mm lenses on 1.6X format cameras....except it applies to 35mm cameras. You get sharp corners, low distortion and low vignette when you use the lens centered.

In fact though, because the lenses are intended to be used while shifted, the extreme corners (outside the frame of a 35mm camera when centered) are still really good.

Second.....tilting. Tilting means you can make the plane for focus tilt relative to the sensor. This means you can place close items at the bottom of the frame and far items at the top of the frame both within the DOF without having to resort to very small apertures (diffraction problems) or focus stacking.

Third....shifting. Most people think of shifting in terms of making lines not converge when shooting architecture. But shifting is also the best way ever to make large, high pixel count panoramic shots. Take the TS-E 17mm lens and shoot four shots with it shifted to all corners and you can stitch a super wide shot without having to move the camera or worry about lens nodes at all.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 19:51 |  #34

JeffreyG wrote in post #16583656 (external link)
First, one of the things that is great about these lenses is that they have an ability to cover an area much larger than a 35mm circle, since they need this to be shifted. In turn, this is kind of like the 'advantage' of using 35mm lenses on 1.6X format cameras....except it applies to 35mm cameras. You get sharp corners, low distortion and low vignette when you use the lens centered.

In fact though, because the lenses are intended to be used while shifted, the extreme corners (outside the frame of a 35mm camera when centered) are still really good.

Second.....tilting. Tilting means you can make the plane for focus tilt relative to the sensor. This means you can place close items at the bottom of the frame and far items at the top of the frame both within the DOF without having to resort to very small apertures (diffraction problems) or focus stacking.

Third....shifting. Most people think of shifting in terms of making lines not converge when shooting architecture. But shifting is also the best way ever to make large, high pixel count panoramic shots. Take the TS-E 17mm lens and shoot four shots with it shifted to all corners and you can stitch a super wide shot without having to move the camera or worry about lens nodes at all.

Thanks for the informative response. Im still struggling to see what gain I would personally get for my personal style of landscapes. For example-the pic below is at 17m but to my untrained eye I cant see any real problems with difraction, sharp corner or vignetting problems etc?


IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7359/10922822643_c9cbc29d33_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …01698371@N07/10​922822643/  (external link)
Torquay Bird Rock 5 (external link) by somebloke2013 (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,352 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 462
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:13 |  #35

Somebloke wrote in post #16583715 (external link)
Thanks for the informative response. Im still struggling to see what gain I would personally get for my personal style of landscapes. For example-the pic below is at 17m but to my untrained eye I cant see any real problems with difraction, sharp corner or vignetting problems etc?


QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …01698371@N07/10​922822643/  (external link)
Torquay Bird Rock 5 (external link) by somebloke2013 (external link), on Flickr

Beats me, but then I'm never going to see any detail in a small web sized image. You probably could have stitched that from an I-phone and it would look fine at 300x600 pixels. :D

I admit, I am not a landscape shooter, and certainly not a high end landscape shooter. I can tell you technically exactly what a 17mm TS-E can do for you over a 17-40 for a shot such as you posted. It really would be able to make the corners sharper, it would make the near foreground sharper, it would reduce vignette.

How much that matters depends on how big you print, how close you scrutinize a print and how picky you are.

Hey, I think the 5D Mark III is a great camera. But Shadowblade (here on this forum) considers it an unacceptable piece of junk. And he shoots very nice landscape photos. Maybe he is just pickier than some people.

If you want to shoot 17mm focal length or wider (for example) the 17mm TS-E is a better lens than the 17-40. If it is better enough probably depends on you.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,100 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:23 |  #36

I'd suggest you do some googling on some of the landscape comparisions out there on the web to understand what you can do with it.

Here's a link to the 100% of that photo since it wasn't provided.
http://www.flickr.com …3/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/ (external link)

I don't think you're going to get the reaction you want with that photograph when viewed at 100%.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,352 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 462
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:29 |  #37

vengence wrote in post #16583824 (external link)
I'd suggest you do some googling on some of the landscape comparisions out there on the web to understand what you can do with it.

Here's a link to the 100% of that photo since it wasn't provided.
http://www.flickr.com …3/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/ (external link)

I don't think you're going to get the reaction you want with that photograph when viewed at 100%.

Yes.....it's a nice photo but looking at 1:1 I can see the kinds of things that some people would want improved from a technical aspect. And I can also see that the 17TS would have been better if you want to look at a really large version of the image.

At some size and scrutiny this is a great photo. At some greater size and more detailed scrutiny some photographers would want a better lens.

And please.....I do not take anything away from the shot. I'm not looking at the timing, the composition, the vision etc. I just say when I look really close there is some CA on the extreme left, and the foreground rocks are sharp but not crazy sharp. The distant rocks on the left are not sharp at anything bigger than a certain size. That's basically how the 17-40 is.

Again.....it depends on how close you want to look and how hard you are on your own images.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:29 |  #38

vengence wrote in post #16583824 (external link)
I'd suggest you do some googling on some of the landscape comparisions out there on the web to understand what you can do with it.

Here's a link to the 100% of that photo since it wasn't provided.
http://www.flickr.com …3/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/ (external link)

I don't think you're going to get the reaction you want with that photograph when viewed at 100%.

Thanks, I wasnt looking for a back slapping reaction-it was a genuine question...that asside the link is to a very compressed version of the original.

I have no problem with buying new gear, I suffer GAS along with the best of them. I just need to understand the benefit...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:33 |  #39

JeffreyG wrote in post #16583837 (external link)
And please.....I do not take anything away from the shot. I'm not looking at the timing, the composition, the vision etc. I just say when I look really close there is some CA on the extreme left, and the foreground rocks are sharp but not crazy sharp. The distant rocks on the left are not sharp at anything bigger than a certain size. That's basically how the 17-40 is.

Again.....it depends on how close you want to look and how hard you are on your own images.

Thanks. Yes Ive noticed the CA on a few of my shots-so the TS would resolve this problem?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,213 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3306
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:35 |  #40

The CA should be fixable in PP, I would think. The 10-22 produced CA as well (most UWAs do) and it was fairly easy to take care of in LR.


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
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,352 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 462
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:38 |  #41

Somebloke wrote in post #16583847 (external link)
Thanks. Yes Ive noticed the CA on a few of my shots-so the TS would resolve this problem?

It would be a better lens. I don't know what the rental scene is like in Australia, but here is what I think. You seem to really know what you are doing and you know how to take a very good picture.

If it is practical, I would suggest you just pick a time when you can take shots like the one you posted, rent a 17mm TS-E for a week and then go run it head to head against your 17-40. Given the flexibility of digital, you could try 17-40 at 17mm heads up against the TS at 17mm (no shift, no tilt) and then also try doing some tilting for increased DOF and perhaps try some shifted pano's.

Here in the US you can rent a lens like this for a pretty reasonable amount of money, and if this is true in Australia too then it would probably be worthwhile for you give it a go.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:42 |  #42

JeffreyG wrote in post #16583858 (external link)
It would be a better lens. I don't know what the rental scene is like in Australia, but here is what I think. You seem to really know what you are doing and you know how to take a very good picture.

If it is practical, I would suggest you just pick a time when you can take shots like the one you posted, rent a 17mm TS-E for a week and then go run it head to head against your 17-40. Given the flexibility of digital, you could try 17-40 at 17mm heads up against the TS at 17mm (no shift, no tilt) and then also try doing some tilting for increased DOF and perhaps try some shifted pano's.

Here in the US you can rent a lens like this for a pretty reasonable amount of money, and if this is true in Australia too then it would probably be worthwhile for you give it a go.

Thnak mate, this is a great idea :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,100 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:46 |  #43

Somebloke wrote in post #16583839 (external link)
Thanks, I wasnt looking for a back slapping reaction-it was a genuine question...that asside the link is to a very compressed version of the original.

I have no problem with buying new gear, I suffer GAS along with the best of them. I just need to understand the benefit...

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​&APIComp=5 (external 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​&APIComp=5 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Somebloke
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:51 |  #44

vengence wrote in post #16583888 (external 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​&APIComp=5 (external 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​&APIComp=5 (external link)

Fantastic, thank you!:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,100 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 06, 2014 20:54 |  #45

Somebloke wrote in post #16583899 (external link)
Fantastic, thank you!:)

Just remember, I'm not responsible if you end up buying one :p




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

10,435 views & 1 like for this thread
Best Landscape lens??
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 WilliamParman
480 guests, 298 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.