Better lens than 17-40

Started Dec 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Muresan Bogdan
Regular MemberPosts: 277
TS is the only way to go if you want a real improvement
In reply to peter doncaster, Dec 10, 2013

The 16-35 is a bit sharper at large apertures than the 17-40 but for lanscapes it will not give you a real advantage because you will shoot most of them at f9-11 maybe where both of the lens are equally sharp ( and for both of them this is not their sharpest aperture actually !).

To get sharper photos, less distortion and sharp corners you need a prime. The Canon 24mm f1.4 is a good example, the Zeiss are also good lens. All a bit pricy. Then you have the new Canon 24mm IS and 28mm IS which are sharp and not as expensive.

You must know that a lens reaches it's sharpest aperture usually about 2-3 stops down from the maximum aperture. For most of the primes that would be f3.2-5.6. You will not want to shoot landscapes at that aperture. So you stop down the lens. And the sharpness of the lens decreases ( not by much but still decreases) until f9-11. Then you also enter the diffraction zone of the sensor you use ( starting at f9 and being more noticeable at about f13-16).

To avoid this you must use a TS lens. You are able to shoot at f4-5.6 and have everything you want in focus !

Canon has great TS-E lenses but expensive. Samyang just released a new 24mm TS and it gets great reviews. And the price tag is about half the Canon. Maybe as others suggest rent a TS lens ( although there is a learning curve and you might not get the best results from the first days) and see how you like it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow