17-55 does golden gate (large files)

[carlk]

A few I took with 17-55 EF-S and 20D on July 4th.

 

[jgb]

Very nice, and I really like the larger file sizes too. It gives you a much better feel for the compositions than the small 800x533 you usually see here.

SF area is terrific as a photo destination.

Regards,

jgb
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

 

[Hopn]

looks great! I wish I had a bridge in Houston to take pictures of.

 

[alborz]

Hi

Great pictures!.
The composition of the last picture is very nice.

How much PP have you done? If any? I mean have you sharpen your pictures? Did you get them in RAW or JPEG?

Thanks
alborz

 

[carlk]

Thanks a lot. Yes especially for landscape image like this It's have to get the feelling of the vastness with smaller size.

SF area is terrific as a photo destination.

Regards,

jgb
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b

 

[carlk]

Thanks, They were shot in raw and coverted to jpeg. Added some contrast and the usuall small amount of USM in photoshop. Contrast is mainly to bring out the dull background. USM actually added very little effect with this kind of images.

Hi

Great pictures!.
The composition of the last picture is very nice.
How much PP have you done? If any? I mean have you sharpen your
pictures? Did you get them in RAW or JPEG?

Thanks
alborz

 

[carlk]

Thanks, Actually I lived in Houston for many years but that's quite a while ago. Now you mentioned it I don't remember any good brigdges there. There are a lot nice water though especially around Galvaston area.

looks great! I wish I had a bridge in Houston to take pictures of.

 

[JudyC]

My husband and I are visiting San Francisco in September and I was just thinking about which lenses I would want to bring. Did you find the 17-55 wide enough, or do you think the 10-22 would be better for landscapes and other shots around the city (including the bridge)?

Judy

 

[carlk]

I think 17mm is wide enough. I did not even go to the wide end for many of those shots. Kind of surprised me too. Certainly you will be able to make real wide shots with 10-22 which will also be nice. If you want to bring only one lens I think 17-55 is a better choice.

My husband and I are visiting San Francisco in September and I was
just thinking about which lenses I would want to bring. Did you
find the 17-55 wide enough, or do you think the 10-22 would be
better for landscapes and other shots around the city (including
the bridge)?

Judy

 

[Rick Knepper]

I spent several foggy (my head) weeks in Golden Gate Park & the Haight back in 1968.

 

[carlk]

Yes the first one was shoot from south end (city side). The last one was actually shot from the north (Marin) side.

Must be fun time in 1968. Hope you have recovered by now.

I spent several foggy (my head) weeks in Golden Gate Park & the
Haight back in 1968.

 

[Kim Hyungkook]

The splendid pictures prompt me to purchase the 17-55. Many thanks.
--
tigerkim39

 

[ed rader]

i need to spend more time in the city with my camera!

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 

[carlk]

Thanks Ed, I've been to the city with my 20D so many times but this is the first time I took any picture of the bridge. Sure it's a great place to take pictures, and eat.

i need to spend more time in the city with my camera!

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could
identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 

[3dwag]

I've been considering to replace my Tamron 18-200mm with the Canon 17-55.

Oddly, I have some similar views as the ones you posted with the Tamron, and I can so clearly see the advantage of the new Canon, I've made up my mind to get the Canon and sell the Tamron - and probably get something like the 70-300 IS to cover the longer end.
Thank you for posting the large files of some beautiful photos.
--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas (formerly San Jose, California)

 

[carlk]

Thank you for your kind words. You won't be disappointed with this lens. Even more amazing is when you find out how capable this lens is when shooting close up wide open.

I've been considering to replace my Tamron 18-200mm with the Canon
17-55.
Oddly, I have some similar views as the ones you posted with the
Tamron, and I can so clearly see the advantage of the new Canon,
I've made up my mind to get the Canon and sell the Tamron - and
probably get something like the 70-300 IS to cover the longer end.
Thank you for posting the large files of some beautiful photos.
--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas (formerly San Jose, California)

 

[carlk]

Thanks, I saw your posting a few days ago. Glad you have made the decision. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

The splendid pictures prompt me to purchase the 17-55. Many thanks.
--
tigerkim39

 

[photophool]

No surpise it's better than the sigma!

--
Appreciating the gifts you have been given is the blessing.

 

[3dwag]

Of course I have checked the price (and by the way I am talking about my TAMRON, not Sigma).

And, I acknowledge that, considering the price/zoom range, my "old" Tamron is a decent lens.

Now, 18 months later, I'm ready to "move up" to a different set of lenses, excuse me.

No surpise it's better than the sigma!

--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas (formerly San Jose, California)