David Zimmerman
Leading Member
I went shootin' yesterday as well. The pictures were, well, just pictures. Until I started cropping, and I came up with this:
http://imageevent.com/arp1/blackandwhite ;jsessionid=gpyshutsq1.rabbit_s
David L. Zimmerman
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
http://imageevent.com/arp1/blackandwhite ;jsessionid=gpyshutsq1.rabbit_s
David L. Zimmerman
I did not wade through the entire thread, but Saturday I was faced with the decision between the 16-35 and the 17-40. I decided on the 17-40 for many reasons (not the least of all was price) many of which are summed up here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
My apologies if the above link was previously posted.
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
My apologies if the above link was previously posted.
--
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?
Thomas Gardner
Veteran Member
Okay, okay. You win. Here's one of yesterday's shots. Cropped, just as you suggested
This was captured with the 16-35.http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1723532&size=lg
--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me
David Zimmerman
Leading Member
Funny you picked this one.
I have been shooting grafitti on boxcars on TRI-X recently. Tough to get decent stuff.
David L. Zimmerman
I have been shooting grafitti on boxcars on TRI-X recently. Tough to get decent stuff.
David L. Zimmerman
David Zimmerman
Leading Member
Had I read that, I probably would have bought the 17-40L as well.
But than I would always wonder if I shoulda got the 16-35. Oh well.
David L. Zimmerman
Group Idiot
Senior Member
There are a lot of hyper-sharpening artifacts in that JPEG, BTW.
However, the 16-35 is a fully adequate lens -- satisfactory all the way -- but it's not that great by any means and is easily and clearly bested by its cheaper 17-40 sybling at all comparable apertures at the wide end. At the longer end, it's more of a dead heat.
Having personally compared the two on my 10D and the 1D I rented it was clear that neither was all that great, so in the end I wound up buying the Canon 15/2.8 Fisheye which is MUCH wider than either of the zooms and is SO** much sharper than either of them for less money that it wasn't remotely close.
Again, Canon fails in the ultra-wide angle zoom lens category. That stigma isn't without merit.
Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
Thomas Gardner
Veteran Member
Never been a grafitti shooter. I was trying to get the gnarley nature of the railway car.
Here's a shot of a landing jet, as I was in the flight path to San Jose's airport. The jet was at about three, maybe four hundred feet, about a mile and a third off the main runway (according to the Thomas Bros Guide).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1723590&size=lg
Please try to ignore the web induced artifact halo around the image edges.
--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me
David Zimmerman
Leading Member
Certain graffitti/street stuff works for me. This was in Prague last month.Never been a grafitti shooter. I was trying to get the gnarley
nature of the railway car.
Here's a shot of a landing jet, as I was in the flight path to San
Jose's airport. The jet was at about three, maybe four hundred
feet, about a mile and a third off the main runway (according to
the Thomas Bros Guide).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1723590&size=lg
Please try to ignore the web induced artifact halo around the image
edges.
--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me
http://www.pbase.com/image/19567174/medium
--You got me thinking.......I'm 15 mins from Ft. Lauderdale International and long exposure night shots. Thanks!
David L. Zimmerman
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
I think it's Adam-T (or maybe Thomas Garnder?) who strongly prefers the Sigma 15-30. I think he's gone round and round with Canon service on a few of the 16-35's and has never received a good copy.
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise
'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise
'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
If you need f/2.8, the 17-40/4 won't do you any good. LOL.
If you don't need f/2.8, then I think a wise man would opt for the 17-40/4.
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise
'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
If you don't need f/2.8, then I think a wise man would opt for the 17-40/4.
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise
'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
A few might argue that bumping up the ISO on the 17-40/4 would help offset the 2.8. I've never "needed" the 2.8 so I'm not in a position to battle the intricacies of that statement.
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?
--
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
That's not a distorted view. The 16-35 is an excellent lens. It's just that the 17-40 is even better . What's your problem with that?Well. There-in lies the problem. If they used a cr@p sensor body,
none of this would be a problem
one of the new, upper quality levels sensor bodies that are
due/expected to come out in the near, next six/seven months and run
some light through my lenses
That the 16-35 is an excellent lens and I haven't a complaint inYour distorted view being...?Until then, I'm just going to have to continue with my distorted
view
the world about the copy that I'm blessed to have
[snip]
There's one right there on MR's page -- the one you quoted at me!!! Figures 4 and 6. Sheesh!
In addition, people like Ashley Cheng have posted comparison shots here.
Look, I don't own either of the lenses, so all I have to go upon are the comparisons I've seen. I've seen several, maybe half-dozen all in all, of various degrees of expertise and thoroughness, and not a one has the 17-40 beat the 16-35 in corner sharpness, flare, and lack of CA.
Man, this is getting pointless.
[snip]
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Thomas Gardner
Veteran Member
I was teasing. That's the purpose of the smile at the end to let you know that I'm kidding and not being serious.That's not a distorted view. The 16-35 is an excellent lens.That the 16-35 is an excellent lens and I haven't a complaint in
the world about the copy that I'm blessed to have
It's just that the 17-40 is even better . What's your problem with
that?
Doh! You got me on that one. I missed the f/4.0 part. Now I'll have to go out and shoot a transmission tower and see if I can get similar results. But again, the shot will be on a D30 and not a 1Ds.
And I feel so slighted as you've not commented once about all the brick shots that I posted for your benefit. Sniff, sniff
As I've tried to point out, I don't have the 17-40 but I do have major experience with many different WA lenses, both prime and zoom by different manufactures. So, my experience is just as valid as others, including Mr Cheng's, even if it doesn't agree with yours. There are other's here that are in agreement with my comments.
The important, most salient comment from the LL article, was that it was a toss up, on the overall evaluation.
As to the pointlessness of the posts. I agree
--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me
DavidP #28649
Forum Pro
Yes, but there are times when you just can't bump any more! And might even wish you had a faster prime!
And then there are those times when you might actually want the shallower DOF that f/2.8 gives you.
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise
'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
And then there are those times when you might actually want the shallower DOF that f/2.8 gives you.
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise
'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
No doubt you're quite correct David (as usual). I guess my issue with the 16-35/2.8 vs 17-40/4 comes down the major cost differential. Seems like the jagged edge of benefit for the 16-35 crosses the point of diminishing returns.
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?
--
See profile for equipment list.
Have you walked your boxer today?
Guillaume in Paris
Senior Member
for half the price of the 16-35 here in France!
Yes, I wish it was faster but then I take out the fisheye...
Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com
Sports & general event photography
Yes, I wish it was faster but then I take out the fisheye...
Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com
Sports & general event photography
J
Joe
Guest
OK...Here is a link to this image. It is not exactly an original (the original is a RAW...but here is what has been done to it:
1) Converted from RAW to 8 bit TIFF with Breeze browser...Sat, Sharp, Contrast all set to "Normal", no other tweaks.
2) A slight level adjust in Photoshop
3) Saved as a JPEG QF=8 for posting
4) Loaded to pbase
Here is a link to the image:
http://www.pbase.com/image/20911367
Here is a quick view of it:
Please note that my original post (as stated) was processed using Pekka's D60 sharpening action (which I had just started using at the time of the original post).
If the 17-40 was out when I bought the 16-35 , I would've agonized over it for daze... that said, I have long since stopped worrying about the quality of my 16-35 and have been "just using it and loving it"...
No matter what, I still think that these girls are cute, with or without USM...
1) Converted from RAW to 8 bit TIFF with Breeze browser...Sat, Sharp, Contrast all set to "Normal", no other tweaks.
2) A slight level adjust in Photoshop
3) Saved as a JPEG QF=8 for posting
4) Loaded to pbase
Here is a link to the image:
http://www.pbase.com/image/20911367
Here is a quick view of it:
Please note that my original post (as stated) was processed using Pekka's D60 sharpening action (which I had just started using at the time of the original post).
If the 17-40 was out when I bought the 16-35 , I would've agonized over it for daze... that said, I have long since stopped worrying about the quality of my 16-35 and have been "just using it and loving it"...
No matter what, I still think that these girls are cute, with or without USM...
J
Joe
Guest
OK...Here is a link to this image. It is not exactly an original
(the original is a RAW...but here is what has been done to it:
1) Converted from RAW to 8 bit TIFF with Breeze browser...Sat,
Sharp, Contrast all set to "Normal", no other tweaks.
2) A slight level adjust in Photoshop
3) Saved as a JPEG QF=8 for posting
4) Loaded to pbase
Here is a link to the image:
http://www.pbase.com/image/20911367
Here is a quick view of it:
Please note that my original post (as stated) was processed using
Pekka's D60 sharpening action (which I had just started using at
the time of the original post).
If the 17-40 was out when I bought the 16-35 , I would've agonized
over it for daze... that said, I have long since stopped worrying
about the quality of my 16-35 and have been "just using it and
loving it"...
No matter what, I still think that these girls are cute, with or
without USM...
Group Idiot
Senior Member
...but it definitely benefits from a good hit of USM or other sharpening technique.
It's not a bad lens, but I find there are better alternatives for much less money. I haven't seen anything "tack sharp" out of the 16-35, but it would certainly serve most users well.
Brendan
==========
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!
gaf1958149406
Member
I own both, and have no issues with either. My problem with a blanket statement like that is that for for film use the 16-35 is a better lens (for me) as I have an extra stop to play with as I'm not a fan of mid roll film changes. Yes I know this is a DSLR forum....
For 10D - the 17-40 is usually preferable because of the extra 5mm. I can bump up the ISO "mid roll" (so to speak), so the extra stop is usually not an issue. Usually...
I'd sum it up by saying that either one can be better depending on what you want it for. That extra stop costs, both in money and I guess in ultimate sharpness (although I've been hard pressed to see it). That's always been the case with larger aperture lenses. They exist because the user needs the extra stop (or more with some lenses).
I'll agree - they're both better than the older 17-35 f2.8L...
Cheers
Gary
For 10D - the 17-40 is usually preferable because of the extra 5mm. I can bump up the ISO "mid roll" (so to speak), so the extra stop is usually not an issue. Usually...
I'd sum it up by saying that either one can be better depending on what you want it for. That extra stop costs, both in money and I guess in ultimate sharpness (although I've been hard pressed to see it). That's always been the case with larger aperture lenses. They exist because the user needs the extra stop (or more with some lenses).
I'll agree - they're both better than the older 17-35 f2.8L...
Cheers
Gary
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum