Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Some pictures anyone?

Go to last post
M

Mark Jamison

Well-known member
Messages
208
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I read Fred's review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com , but does anyone have a good number of pictures, perhaps even a lot of picture to look at with this lens?

I'm considering getting this bad boy, but feel I need to see a bit more than just the few pictures I've seen.

By the way Fred, I really did appreciate the review.
 
Mark,

Here's a few taken with the 16-35. They were taken in raw, converted using Pekka's conversion action 2.1 and sharpened moderately using USM in the lightness channel. One was cropped. Otherwise no post processing.

Lens sharpness is very good for a wide angle zoom.

http://www.pbase.com/jak/1635_28l_bits__pieces&browse=Y

cheers,

James
Mark Jamison said:
I read Fred's review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com , but does
anyone have a good number of pictures, perhaps even a lot of
picture to look at with this lens?

I'm considering getting this bad boy, but feel I need to see a bit
more than just the few pictures I've seen.

By the way Fred, I really did appreciate the review.
Click to expand...
--James
 
Hi Mark,

Today, I received an email from my co-worker asking when I was going to show him my photos taken with my new D30 similar to the photos attached on his email. The photos attached were from a pro art photographer. I got challenge, so I walked around my office during lunch hour and took some shots with the 16-35mm. This one was taken RAW then converted to JPEG as shot using BreezeBrowser. I know the rocks are out of focus and I think the 24mm TS lens would have made that possible. I hope Fred Miranda reads this so he can advise on how to correct the out of focus situation.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1023441/large

-Alex
Mark Jamison said:
I read Fred's review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com , but does
anyone have a good number of pictures, perhaps even a lot of
picture to look at with this lens?

I'm considering getting this bad boy, but feel I need to see a bit
more than just the few pictures I've seen.

By the way Fred, I really did appreciate the review.
Click to expand...
 
Fred Miranda said:
Are you sure? They work here.
Can anyone see it?
Click to expand...
Fred, I tried the links and neither worked for me. Said url not found on this site, or something like that. Also, have been trying to get to your site forum and still getting "down for a few hours" for the last 24 hours. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.--Chris
 
wolfwatcher said:
Fred Miranda said:
Are you sure? They work here.
Can anyone see it?
Click to expand...
Fred, I tried the links and neither worked for me. Said url not
found on this site, or something like that. Also, have been trying
to get to your site forum and still getting "down for a few hours"
for the last 24 hours. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Chris,

Depending on your location, the Digital Info-talk forum was down for more than 24hs due to DNS transfer. I moved the forum to a faster server.
The transfer is now completed and all users should be able to access it.

It is very odd that some users cannot open the link for the 16-35L images. If I click on it, it opens the correct page.
Which browser are you using? Try again and let me know.

Best,
Fred

--Fred Mirandawww.fredmiranda.com
 
Looks like mostly a depth of field difference as I ran into a similar situation shooting with that lens in my living room. My couch on the right was at a different angle and distance from the center and left side of the room with another couch. The right side seems less sharp, but than I was shooting a 16mm F2.8 so I couldn't feel too bad about it.
AlexM said:
Today, I received an email from my co-worker asking when I was
going to show him my photos taken with my new D30 similar to the
photos attached on his email. The photos attached were from a pro
art photographer. I got challenge, so I walked around my office
during lunch hour and took some shots with the 16-35mm. This one
was taken RAW then converted to JPEG as shot using BreezeBrowser.
I know the rocks are out of focus and I think the 24mm TS lens
would have made that possible. I hope Fred Miranda reads this so
he can advise on how to correct the out of focus situation.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1023441/large

-Alex
Mark Jamison said:
I read Fred's review on http://www.luminous-landscape.com , but does
anyone have a good number of pictures, perhaps even a lot of
picture to look at with this lens?

I'm considering getting this bad boy, but feel I need to see a bit
more than just the few pictures I've seen.

By the way Fred, I really did appreciate the review.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Lee Rothman said:
Looks like mostly a depth of field difference as I ran into a
similar situation shooting with that lens in my living room. My
couch on the right was at a different angle and distance from the
center and left side of the room with another couch. The right side
seems less sharp, but than I was shooting a 16mm F2.8 so I couldn't
feel too bad about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, stopping down would have helped. A tilt lens would probably have worked too, though the trees to the left would have been totally out of focus.
 
Fred Miranda said:
Depending on your location, the Digital Info-talk forum was down
for more than 24hs due to DNS transfer. I moved the forum to a
faster server.
The transfer is now completed and all users should be able to
access it.
It is very odd that some users cannot open the link for the 16-35L
images. If I click on it, it opens the correct page.
Which browser are you using? Try again and let me know.
Click to expand...
Fred, family duty called, but back now:

1. Retried above links, got file not found, requested url not found on this server.
2. Using link in my "favorites" to your forum site, got transitioning message.
3. Typed in your url, got your home site with transitioning message.
4. I am using Windows ME and I.E. 6.0
5. I live out in the sticks in Sweeny, Texas.
--Chris
 
Thanks Adrew/Lee.

Fred suggested the same... now I have to go back there and repeat the shot.

-Alex
Andrew Grant said:
Lee Rothman said:
Looks like mostly a depth of field difference as I ran into a
similar situation shooting with that lens in my living room. My
couch on the right was at a different angle and distance from the
center and left side of the room with another couch. The right side
seems less sharp, but than I was shooting a 16mm F2.8 so I couldn't
feel too bad about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, stopping down would have helped. A tilt lens would probably
have worked too, though the trees to the left would have been
totally out of focus.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top