Better lens than 17-40

Started Dec 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP peter doncaster Regular Member • Posts: 214
Re: TS is the only way to go if you want a real improvement

Muresan Bogdan wrote:

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.

Thanks for that. I think for landscapes I am not getting any feed back that there is a much better zoom. Whether I try a prime is the decision. A good one that is. Peter

 peter doncaster's gear list:peter doncaster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow