Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ultra-Wides, Landscapes, and Distortion ...  (Read 19451 times)
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #60 on: November 02, 2010, 07:37:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, exactly. A great manual focus lens will not make any difference here.

Yes, exactly. The lean comes from having the camera pointed slightly upward. A perfect lens will not make any difference here.


Just to clarify: the leaning tower is a result of the camera back/sensor not being vertical.  With the camera back vertical, the shift lens allows you to move the horizon up and down at will and the verticals in the image will stay vertical.  (The tilt function is another thread!)
Logged
Luis Argerich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


Astrolandscaper


WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 02, 2010, 08:21:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.




Well, I have only been thinking about them for about a week now. When I started checking, there was no "TS-E 24 II" review yet at Photozone (though they did have the 17) and neither is reviewed at SLRLensreview.com.

In looking at the TS-E 17mm, the reviews at B&H, what was said at Photozone, and what has been said here ... it seems like a better overall bargain than the Zeiss (equal quality, wider, more versatile). However, I am more than a little concerned that it (like the Nikkor 14-40) has no way to protect the front element, not even a hood.

Jack

.

I don't have the 17 TSE, I do have the Nikon 14-24, the bulbous front element is not a problem but the lens is heavy and can't use filters so I use it mostly for night landscapes (it's F2.Cool and I use the 17-40L at daytime.

On a crop body I'm not sure if the 17TSE is a good investment if you compare the IQ with the Tokina 11-16.
Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1465


WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 02, 2010, 08:26:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Even when the focus dogs "beep" to signify perfect focus? This doesn't sound possible. What good would they be then?

The "focus beep" comes from the autofocus system. If you are going to accept the judgement of the AF system (which has all kinds of its own problems, btw), why not just use autofocus -- in other words, why manually focus and wait for the "beep" to tell you that focus is achieved?
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2010, 08:30:47 PM »
ReplyReply

The "focus beep" comes from the autofocus system. If you are going to accept the judgement of the AF system (which has all kinds of its own problems, btw), why not just use autofocus -- in other words, why manually focus and wait for the "beep" to tell you that focus is achieved?


Because I tend only to use one "dot" ... usually with macro (not landscape) ... and place it on the eye of the subject (wherever it may be, compositionally). With AF on, it may or may not beep ... but if I slowly MF it will "beep" when it's there.


.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #64 on: November 02, 2010, 08:33:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't have the 17 TSE, I do have the Nikon 14-24, the bulbous front element is not a problem but the lens is heavy and can't use filters so I use it mostly for night landscapes (it's F2.Cool and I use the 17-40L at daytime.
On a crop body I'm not sure if the 17TSE is a good investment if you compare the IQ with the Tokina 11-16.

Where is a comparison of the two?

But it's also about lack of distortion plus image quality, color rendition, etc. ...

Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #65 on: November 03, 2010, 12:24:45 AM »
ReplyReply


Because I tend only to use one "dot" ... usually with macro (not landscape) ... and place it on the eye of the subject (wherever it may be, compositionally). With AF on, it may or may not beep ... but if I slowly MF it will "beep" when it's there.

I don't think that (waiting for the beep as you MF) will achieve any better focus than using AF will - it will beep when the same conditions are met, and the beep will come from the same AF sensor if that's the one you have set.  Live View at 5x or 10x will be better than AF in situations where you have time (and support) to use it, because you are seeing the image and not relying on any AF system and its limitations.
Logged
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #66 on: November 03, 2010, 12:36:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for your comments.

Out of curiosity, what made you choose the 24 II over the 17?

I didn't choose one over the other, I have them both.  While they are both fantastic lenses, the 24 II is, well, more fantastic for me as it's the focal length that suits me better.

Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #67 on: November 03, 2010, 08:37:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I didn't choose one over the other, I have them both.

I realize that.

However, you had previously said, "If I had to give up all my lenses and only keep one, the 24mm TS-E II would be the one," and so I asked you why you chose the 24 over the 17 as "the only one."

I was wondering if there were a performance difference between the two.




While they are both fantastic lenses, the 24 II is, well, more fantastic for me as it's the focal length that suits me better.

I see. Yet, for me, the focal length of the 17 is going to pan-out to be ~27mm.

Thanks again for your input,

Jack




.
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #68 on: November 03, 2010, 08:44:30 AM »
ReplyReply

thedigitalpicture.com has a review of 11-16 with 50D and 17TS with 1DS3.  doubt that anyone has taken the trouble to test a 17TS on crop frame.  from my experience with the 11-16 (and no experience with the 17TS) i'd expect significantly better performance from the 17TS at larger apertures and noticeably better performance even with the 11-16 at f8 combined with a lack of distortion.  but i agree that it's not a great investment in terms of image quality on a crop-frame camera (although the lens on it's own should be a fine investment) when you can get better overall resolution from a 5D2 with 17-40 stopped down to f8.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #69 on: November 03, 2010, 09:18:21 AM »
ReplyReply

thedigitalpicture.com has a review of 11-16 with 50D and 17TS with 1DS3.  doubt that anyone has taken the trouble to test a 17TS on crop frame.  from my experience with the 11-16 (and no experience with the 17TS) i'd expect significantly better performance from the 17TS at larger apertures and noticeably better performance even with the 11-16 at f8 combined with a lack of distortion.  but i agree that it's not a great investment in terms of image quality on a crop-frame camera (although the lens on it's own should be a fine investment) when you can get better overall resolution from a 5D2 with 17-40 stopped down to f8.


Interesting. But actually, on TheDigitalPicture.com link you provided, it directly says,

"While there are many good uses for the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens, landscape and architecture, especially interior architecture, are the most popular uses for this lens. These uses take full advantage of the tilt/shift/rotate movements and typically require the low distortion, low flare and high sharpness this lens delivers.
Obviously, APS-C (1.6x FOVCF) bodies frame tighter than their full-frame counterparts. This fact perhaps makes the wide focal length of this lens even more useful for these primary purposes.
The Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens is also more suited to people photography on an APS-C body. The 27.2mm full-frame-angle-of-view-equivalent focal length is still wide for portraits, but it works well for full body and environmental (subject(s) in their environment) portraits. Tilt is a great technique for isolating your subject from its surroundings. A small downward tilt will help keep all heads in focus in a large group photo.
I'm sure the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens will be an invited guest at many weddings. It will see use on full frame bodies for expansive interior/exterior shots and will see use on APS-C bodies for both interiors/exteriors and group photos."


It also rated the 24 II as matching, or exceeding, the Zeiss 21 on just about everything.

Jack




.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #70 on: November 03, 2010, 09:27:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that (waiting for the beep as you MF) will achieve any better focus than using AF will - it will beep when the same conditions are met, and the beep will come from the same AF sensor if that's the one you have set.

In theory, you're right. However, in practice, when I slowly rotate the focus ring (1) it is much more likely to "beep" than with AF, and (2) I trust its accuracy more. I find that, in challenging lighting situations, AF is more likely to "hunt" a few times (because it "tries too hard, too fast") ... whereas with a slow, deliberate MF effort in challenging lighting situations, the camera is much more likely to recognize "the ideal focus" on the first try.

Also, compositionally, sometimes the fixed focus dots don't land on the right spot. So I either have to re-compose the shot, to suit the dots, or I have to focus w/o the dots.




Live View at 5x or 10x will be better than AF in situations where you have time (and support) to use it, because you are seeing the image and not relying on any AF system and its limitations.

I take it you meant MF situations?

But yes, I absolutely agree with you here.

No doubt.

Jack




.
Logged
welder
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #71 on: November 03, 2010, 10:37:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On a crop body I'm not sure if the 17TSE is a good investment if you compare the IQ with the Tokina 11-16.

Well the Tokina can't shift. That's the investment right there. If you need the capability to shift in order to correct for pespective distortion, there is no other option at that focal length.

As far as IQ, the 17TS-E really has no faults. It may be a tad less sharp than the 24TS-E II, but that's like saying a a Porsche is a tad slower than a Ferrari.

If the lens is good on a FF body, it is good on a crop body too. (My personal preference is the 24TSE with a FF body, but a 17TSE on a crop body is certainly not going suck Smiley )

Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #72 on: November 03, 2010, 02:49:19 PM »
ReplyReply

For that matter, is a wide-angle lens even ideal for landscape?

That's a nonsense question ... reminds me of that kind of thoughtless questions like, which lens for Venice, which for Acapulco? There is no such thing as a lens that's "ideal for landscape" ... and also, there is no such thing as a lens that's unsuitable for landscape. So the answer can't be yes and can't be no. You can use any lens for landscape work, from fish-eye to super-telephoto. However the more extreme the lens—be it super-wide or super-long—the harder it is to make good and thoughtful use of it.
Logged
Policar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #73 on: November 03, 2010, 04:31:48 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not a nonsense question; he asked if ultra-wides were "ideal," not if they were usable.  Certain focal lengths (i.e. amounts of linear perspective distortion from artificially spacious to artifically flat) are better or at least more traditional for some subjects than others.

Imo, ultra-wides are usable for landscapes but they aren't ideal.  Most of my favorite landscapes are taken between 30mm and 85mm in full-frame terms.  Of course it depends on personal preference and way longer or way shorter can be fine, if less naturalistic.  On the other hand, an ultra-wide clearly isn't ideal for portraiture as it will make noses look huge, whereas a 105mm lens might be just about ideal.  Likewise a 105mm lens wouldn't be ideal for shooting hotel rooms and an ultra-wide would be a lot better.  So in some cases you can choose lenses rather prescriptively (unless you're intentionally going against what's normal).

As for manual focus vs. autofocus...with T/S you'll be using live view, anyway.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #74 on: November 03, 2010, 07:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a nonsense question ... reminds me of that kind of thoughtless questions like, which lens for Venice, which for Acapulco? There is no such thing as a lens that's "ideal for landscape" ... and also, there is no such thing as a lens that's unsuitable for landscape. So the answer can't be yes and can't be no. You can use any lens for landscape work, from fish-eye to super-telephoto. However the more extreme the lens—be it super-wide or super-long—the harder it is to make good and thoughtful use of it.

As Policar pointed out, mine was a valid question; yours was the nonsense answer.

To begin with I never asked if an ultra-wide lens was "for" landscape (nor did I ask what lens was "for" Acapulco or Venice), so you're making things up as you go along. I asked if most pros felt that ultra-wides were ideal for landscape (meaning generally produce the best results, in most landscape settings).

I understand that ultra-wides do have landscape applications ... thanks for pointing out the obvious ... but more and more I am finding most landscape photographers do not consider ultra-wides as a first-choice for landscapes. And, ironically, by you yourself stating that, "the more extreme the lens—be it super-wide or super-long—the harder it is to make good and thoughtful use of it," you're essentially admitting that ultra-wides are not ideal in your own view as well.

UWs can provide unique images to be sure, but as such are not really a mainstay but more for special effect.

Jack




.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6046


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2010, 07:18:32 PM »
ReplyReply

... the Nikon 14-24, the bulbous front element … can't use filters...

Lee Filters apparently has a solution:

"LEE Filters have developed a new Holder System specifically designed for use on super wide angle lenses.The SW150 Filter Holder has been designed to initially fit the Nikon 14-24mm lens, but will also be adapted to fit on other super wide lenses after its initial launch…"

The rest (and a picture) here

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ThomasPoeschmann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


WWW
« Reply #76 on: November 04, 2010, 08:39:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Lee Filters apparently has a solution:

This has been announced quite a while ago now but went not yet in production as far as I know. The price is a nightmare, the filters itself are 50% more expensive compared to the already not-that-cheap Lee 100 mm filters. Currently it only fits the Nikon 14-24, so you always need a second filter holder for all your other lenses which adds weight and volume.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6046


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: November 04, 2010, 09:22:19 AM »
ReplyReply

… The price is a nightmare… adds weight and volume.

Well, this thread is apparently about "the quest for the best", not the cheapest and most practical. Anyone considering the monstrosity the 14-24 is has long abandoned any concerns about size, weight and wallet impact anyway. And anyone interested what real photographers, and not armchair experts and posers, tend to use, should check what was in Galen Rowell's pockets and fanny packs, for instance.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
lookit
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #78 on: November 04, 2010, 08:59:21 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 full-frame lens is almost completely free of distortion, but it is soft at the edges (on full-frame) wide open.  I haven't noticed chromatic aberration but apparently it has more than some other lenses.  It is the widest available (though the same as a Cosina Voigtlander rangefinder prime lens that can be shoehorned into some DSLRs with great loss of features), and, by zooming in, probably gives better results at less-wide apertures than cropping from a single prime lens on which one spent all of one's money.  Since it is so wide, it leaves open the possibility of keeping the camera level and cropping as a cheap substitute for a shift lens.  A significant weakness for some purposes is that it can't take a protective filter, except with a front filter / flat lens cap holder that cuts off the edges except when zoomed in a bit and using a crop-sensor camera.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/310-sigma-af-12-24mm-f45-56-ex-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review

There is an 8-16mm version for crop sensor cameras only that seems to be similar.
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #79 on: November 04, 2010, 10:13:21 PM »
ReplyReply

i certainly would not recommend the 12-24 for landscapes, some have tested many copies of this lens and found a "good" one, from various comments it seems that mine is about average -- which is not very good, and certainly not good at the edges.  i bought it before crop-frame wide angles were available and have not used it much -- only for interiors where a pano won't work. wouldn't consider making a large print with this lens

distortion of the 12-24 is about half that of the Canon 17-24 (at 17mm), but so is the resolution
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad