Reading mode: Light Dark

Silent Moments

Go to last post
O

octane2

Leading Member
Messages
670
Reaction score
7
Location
Canberra, AU
From my ongoing series of images from New Zealand.

Those who dislike seeing images, please ignore this thread. :D

Silent Moments
Mount Cook in post sunset glow approximately 30 km to the North.

I waited to capture this scene for 2 days and while the light lived up to my expectations, the clouds, however, had other ideas. You win some, you lose some, I guess.

Typically, in my captures, I blur the movement of water with longer exposures, but, to try and compensate for the lack of brilliant colour in the clouds, I thought I would freeze the movement in the water with a relatively short exposure and try for some dynamism.

Moments after capturing this image, the orange blaze disappeared and the bank of cloud from the west rolled in to blanket the scene and dropped a fresh dusting of snow.

I made this image while standing in the Tasman River on a freezing cold evening. When I started driving back to camp, the thermometer in the car read -7 degrees.

The 5D Mark II is still a formidable imaging machine. I look forward to going back this winter (only a couple of months away) with the 5D Mark III and my RZ67.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Singh-Ray 3-stop soft step GND filter
1/4s f/5.0 at 50.0mm iso200



Thanks for looking.

Regards,
Humayun
 
Nice shot.

I looks a tad underexposed (could be my cold monitor. I just switch it on)

Dan
 
Very nice images. I can't imagine anyone disliking it or others in the series.

By the way, is this range the one also recognized as "The Misty Mountains"? ;)
octane2 said:
From my ongoing series of images from New Zealand.

Those who dislike seeing images, please ignore this thread. :D

Silent Moments
Mount Cook in post sunset glow approximately 30 km to the North.

I waited to capture this scene for 2 days and while the light lived up to my expectations, the clouds, however, had other ideas. You win some, you lose some, I guess.

Typically, in my captures, I blur the movement of water with longer exposures, but, to try and compensate for the lack of brilliant colour in the clouds, I thought I would freeze the movement in the water with a relatively short exposure and try for some dynamism.

Moments after capturing this image, the orange blaze disappeared and the bank of cloud from the west rolled in to blanket the scene and dropped a fresh dusting of snow.

I made this image while standing in the Tasman River on a freezing cold evening. When I started driving back to camp, the thermometer in the car read -7 degrees.

The 5D Mark II is still a formidable imaging machine. I look forward to going back this winter (only a couple of months away) with the 5D Mark III and my RZ67.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Singh-Ray 3-stop soft step GND filter
1/4s f/5.0 at 50.0mm iso200



Thanks for looking.

Regards,
Humayun
Click to expand...
 
FANTASTIC!!!! "I feel like I'm there"....

--

Bob (formerly bobmax)
 
Hi,

You've made my day with this. I have been to New Zealand a few times, always wondering how I'd capture the beauty of this country. I am mainly into documentary and portraits, even travel type images.

"Leave the landscapes alone,' I'd say. "you could never do it justice".

Well, you have.

Ben

http://www.benizisantamaria.com
 
Hi Michael,

Thank you, again. :)

And, yes, you are correct -- the Southern Alps were used as the Misty Mountains in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. :)

Regards,
H
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Very nice images. I can't imagine anyone disliking it or others in the series.

By the way, is this range the one also recognized as "The Misty Mountains"? ;)
Click to expand...
 
Bob,

One of the things I get told often is that my images take the viewer there. They don't even need to know where the image was made. It is such a compliment.

Thank you. :)

Regards,
H
olynik969 said:
FANTASTIC!!!! "I feel like I'm there"....

--

Bob (formerly bobmax)
Click to expand...
 
Ben,

You are far too kind. Thank you. :)

Regards,
H
Pimpleportrait said:
Hi,

You've made my day with this. I have been to New Zealand a few times, always wondering how I'd capture the beauty of this country. I am mainly into documentary and portraits, even travel type images.

"Leave the landscapes alone,' I'd say. "you could never do it justice".

Well, you have.

Ben

http://www.benizisantamaria.com
Click to expand...
 
Great shot and all well done, except it could have been dramatically better if you used a better lens. 24-105 severely lacks microcontrast rendering your image flat. This lens has ruined years of my time and countless shots I could have enjoyed more. I am sure lovers of this lens will immediately respond blaming me insane. I don't care to argue. I just wanted you to think about it. If you have an opportunity to photograph such beautiful scenes, why not invest in a real lens? There are so many of them out there. Any manual focus Zeiss or new Canon 17mm TS or 24/1.4 II (some even adopt Nikkor 14-24, but I'd prefer a prime). Even more choice in the longer range, even the cheapo 50/1.8 is light years better and 50/1.4 is even a better still inexpensive option. Canon 100/2.8 macro non L non IS and 200/4 non IS are stunning, so is 135/2 and many others.

New Zeland you say? Can I retire there?
 
PC,

You'll likely disagree with what I have to say, but, the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is one of the sharpest tools in my lens bag. I normally shoot my landscapes with my 17-40mm f/4L USM, which is another lens that people bag, but, has been nothing but stellar for me. What I dislike about it is its diffraction spikes -- they are a dog's breakfast in comparison to the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM. You may, if you like, check my posting history to see other images that I've posted with these cheap alternatives. They have all made spectacular prints for me on my Epson 78xx printers.

I care not to put any other lenses other than Canon ones on my camera. Why? Because I use DPP exclusively. DPP does not support non-Canon lenses when it comes to distortion correction. And, now, with DLO, it has made a marked difference in the clarity of the lenses I use, with CA and other distortion correction. I am a massive proponent for DPP and am unwilling to move to another RAW converter. I use what works for me .

I don't doubt for a second that Zeiss lenses are fantastic, and the 17mm TS is a remarkable lens. The 24mm f/1.4L II USM is on my to-get list. As is the 35mm version (for environmental wedding portraits).

I absolutely love the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I don't understand why it gets such a bad wrap. I bought one of the ones that were effected by the significant flaring issues. Canon replaced the fifth element (funny, that!) and gave it a clean while it was up at Canon headquarters in Sydney. They couriered it back to me (to Canberra) at no charge.

Here's some images (again, straight out of DPP) from the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM:

This one could have done with a bit more depth-of-field:

Canon EOS-5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/125s f/6.3 at 105.0mm iso100



Canon EOS-5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/125s f/6.3 at 105.0mm iso100



Canon EOS-5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/125s f/6.3 at 58.0mm iso100



Canon EOS-5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/60s f/5.6 at 65.0mm iso640



Canon EOS-5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
1/20s f/16.0 at 67.0mm iso100



I've presented some examples which I personally feel are counter to your claim that this lens is balls. I'm very happy with it. Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
H
Press Correspondent said:
Great shot and all well done, except it could have been dramatically better if you used a better lens. 24-105 severely lacks microcontrast rendering your image flat. This lens has ruined years of my time and countless shots I could have enjoyed more. I am sure lovers of this lens will immediately respond blaming me insane. I don't care to argue. I just wanted you to think about it. If you have an opportunity to photograph such beautiful scenes, why not invest in a real lens? There are so many of them out there. Any manual focus Zeiss or new Canon 17mm TS or 24/1.4 II (some even adopt Nikkor 14-24, but I'd prefer a prime). Even more choice in the longer range, even the cheapo 50/1.8 is light years better and 50/1.4 is even a better still inexpensive option. Canon 100/2.8 macro non L non IS and 200/4 non IS are stunning, so is 135/2 and many others.

New Zeland you say? Can I retire there?
Click to expand...
 
Please understand that I am only trying to help and the only way his can be done is by pointing out what can be improved. You have a dozen posts here stating how great your image is. They may be pleasant to read, but useless to improve your technique. So no, it is not that my mileage may vary, the issue is that you are missing an opportunity to make some of your images better, because you overlook the lack of contrast in the 24-105.

Let me give you two versions, short and long. The short version is, if the 24/1.4 II is on your list already, then move it up to the highest priority, get it before your next trip, and use it instead of the 24-105. That's it. The paradise deserves it and you would be rewarded.

Now the longer version. The term of "sharp lens" is so common to this forum overlooking the lens contrast being more important than sharpness. For example, Canon 50mm is actually sharper than Zeiss 50mm (per DXOmark), but they are still not even in the same league. You are correct, the 24-105 is sharp. I never said it was not, but it has a horrible contrast.

The pictures you have posted are very helpful to explain this point. The most important thing to understand is that the microcontrast of the image is a combination (convolution) of the microcontrast of the subject and microcontrast of the lens . Therefore you have 3 possible scenarios all covered by your samples.

1. The microcontrast of the subject is high. Most commonly it is due to direct sunlight or other direct light source (especially on an angle unlike for direct flash from the camera that gives a uniform light). Your last sunset image is a spectacular example. The portraits of a guy also are in this category. In this case the low contrast of the lens is not apparent, because the high contrast of the subject translates into high enough microcontrast of the image.

2. The microcontrast of the subject is inherently low. In this case the lens has an easy job and the contrast of the lens again is not apparent in the image. Example: your bride shot. With smooth skin colors, white dress, and diffused light there is not a lot of contrast to capture. A trained eye would still see lack of contrast on the edges, but it is not important for this image. However, it is an important point, because Sports Illustrated uses the 24-105 for some beach portraits, except they shoot against the sun to improve the contrast of the edges along the hair.

The above twe cases are the reason most people are unaware of the 24-105 contrast problem. This lens is actually good for portraits fully upen at the long range.

3. The microcontrast of the image is neither high nor low. This is where this lens fail. Examples include your OP shot and the first portrait of the kid.

I am telling you this, because I would be glad if someone told me that before I have wasted much time and shots I now could have enjoyed much more if I used a better lens. The 24-105 is deceiving, because a half of it's shots are good making you suspect your technique in the other half. For this reason I call it the evil lens and have stopped using it at all. Although it could be used successfully by someone with a good understanding how to avoid its limitations, I just don't want to bother or take a risk anymore. I am waiting for the 24-70 II this summer as a replacement. It is a small price to pay for long term enjoyment, if this lens is as good as its MTF charts imply.

I also have the 17-40 since the day it was released. It is not stellar, but noticeably better than the 24-105, enough to enjoy the shots taken with it. To put it in the emotional perspective, when I look at the shots from the 24-105 (even in your OP), I think, "What the heck is wrong with it?" But when I look at the shots from the 17-40, I think, "Oh, I see, it sure could have been better, but it still is good". And when I look at my Zeiss 50 Macro, I think, "Where did this color and contrast came from? Canon's processing clearly was not designed to expectat this".

The 16-35 II does not impress me. The 17-40 still has a better contrast with more pop in the images for less money and with less weight. CA are easily corrected in PS and the distortions actually look fine, if not better, but are also easily corrected if there are straight lines. One stop in aperture is irrelevant with today's high ISO sensors and extended DR. I would not invest in the 16-35 II unless I had a very specific need for it, like a shallow DOF at wide angle for fast action, but I don't. I rather save on a good prime like 17 TS or 24/1.4 II. I also would avoid the 35/1.4. It is a 15 y/o lens with a low contrast. I would rather wait for the Mark II.

I hope this helps :)
 
What are they? Could you please clarify? Thanks!
 
The 24-105 is one of the best in my bag and I have 11 others to choose from. Perhaps Press Photographer has a bad example.
--
Photography at the speed of sound.

 
I've heard and read about the micro-contrast differences between lenses for years and IMO some of it has merit and some is smoke. My question is do you feel you can see this in a good quality 20x 30 inch ink jet print at 300 dpi? if so have you actually compared two prints from the same camera of the same scene captured at the same time but with two different lenses? If not then might you not be looking at other variables possibly not understood?

Bob
Press Correspondent said:
Please understand that I am only trying to help and the only way his can be done is by pointing out what can be improved. You have a dozen posts here stating how great your image is. They may be pleasant to read, but useless to improve your technique. So no, it is not that my mileage may vary, the issue is that you are missing an opportunity to make some of your images better, because you overlook the lack of contrast in the 24-105.

Let me give you two versions, short and long. The short version is, if the 24/1.4 II is on your list already, then move it up to the highest priority, get it before your next trip, and use it instead of the 24-105. That's it. The paradise deserves it and you would be rewarded.

Now the longer version. The term of "sharp lens" is so common to this forum overlooking the lens contrast being more important than sharpness. For example, Canon 50mm is actually sharper than Zeiss 50mm (per DXOmark), but they are still not even in the same league. You are correct, the 24-105 is sharp. I never said it was not, but it has a horrible contrast.

The pictures you have posted are very helpful to explain this point. The most important thing to understand is that the microcontrast of the image is a combination (convolution) of the microcontrast of the subject and microcontrast of the lens . Therefore you have 3 possible scenarios all covered by your samples.

1. The microcontrast of the subject is high. Most commonly it is due to direct sunlight or other direct light source (especially on an angle unlike for direct flash from the camera that gives a uniform light). Your last sunset image is a spectacular example. The portraits of a guy also are in this category. In this case the low contrast of the lens is not apparent, because the high contrast of the subject translates into high enough microcontrast of the image.

2. The microcontrast of the subject is inherently low. In this case the lens has an easy job and the contrast of the lens again is not apparent in the image. Example: your bride shot. With smooth skin colors, white dress, and diffused light there is not a lot of contrast to capture. A trained eye would still see lack of contrast on the edges, but it is not important for this image. However, it is an important point, because Sports Illustrated uses the 24-105 for some beach portraits, except they shoot against the sun to improve the contrast of the edges along the hair.

The above twe cases are the reason most people are unaware of the 24-105 contrast problem. This lens is actually good for portraits fully upen at the long range.

3. The microcontrast of the image is neither high nor low. This is where this lens fail. Examples include your OP shot and the first portrait of the kid.

I am telling you this, because I would be glad if someone told me that before I have wasted much time and shots I now could have enjoyed much more if I used a better lens. The 24-105 is deceiving, because a half of it's shots are good making you suspect your technique in the other half. For this reason I call it the evil lens and have stopped using it at all. Although it could be used successfully by someone with a good understanding how to avoid its limitations, I just don't want to bother or take a risk anymore. I am waiting for the 24-70 II this summer as a replacement. It is a small price to pay for long term enjoyment, if this lens is as good as its MTF charts imply.

I also have the 17-40 since the day it was released. It is not stellar, but noticeably better than the 24-105, enough to enjoy the shots taken with it. To put it in the emotional perspective, when I look at the shots from the 24-105 (even in your OP), I think, "What the heck is wrong with it?" But when I look at the shots from the 17-40, I think, "Oh, I see, it sure could have been better, but it still is good". And when I look at my Zeiss 50 Macro, I think, "Where did this color and contrast came from? Canon's processing clearly was not designed to expectat this".

The 16-35 II does not impress me. The 17-40 still has a better contrast with more pop in the images for less money and with less weight. CA are easily corrected in PS and the distortions actually look fine, if not better, but are also easily corrected if there are straight lines. One stop in aperture is irrelevant with today's high ISO sensors and extended DR. I would not invest in the 16-35 II unless I had a very specific need for it, like a shallow DOF at wide angle for fast action, but I don't. I rather save on a good prime like 17 TS or 24/1.4 II. I also would avoid the 35/1.4. It is a 15 y/o lens with a low contrast. I would rather wait for the Mark II.

I hope this helps :)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
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