Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ultra-Wides, Landscapes, and Distortion ...  (Read 19452 times)
welder
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2010, 10:52:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

The problem with the Sigma 12-24 is that the resolution just isn't there, at least not to make large prints. The fine details just get smudged, and in landscape photos this is a killer. Cropping only magnifies the lack of fine detail.

I personally find the 12-24 more useful in tight urban settings where the content of an image deals more with large structures as opposed to small details. I have occasionally used it on landscapes where I want an exaggerated perpective with something prominent in the foreground...but I'd never use it in place of a shift lens. If someone wanted a cheaper alternative to a shift lens, I would recommend investing in some pano gear instead. Or even a used 24TSE Mk I would be better.


Logged
jfirneno
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #81 on: November 05, 2010, 11:12:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm just a landscape dabbler but I had some fun with the 12-24mm at a lighthouse in Maine.  I tried to keep a fence out of the picture by raising the angle out of level with the horizon and thereby distorted the photo but it was still an interesting capture because of how wide it is.  Next time I'll crop out the unwanted items and get a less distorted look.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/jfirneno/DSC08052.jpg
Logged
Luis Argerich
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


Astrolandscaper


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2010, 01:51:41 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

I agree and dealing with distortion is easier than dealing with smudged details.
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 457


WWW
« Reply #83 on: November 05, 2010, 03:02:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot landscapes regularly with the 21mm ZE and I must say it is a wonderful lens. The 21mm has essentially replaced my 16-35mm f2.8.

The only real weakness the lens has is a bit of wave distortion which has never been a problem for me shooting landscapes.

The lens isn't cheap, but if you want the best, well you gotta pay for it.

I would also say that the new Canon 24mm TSE would be a good landscape choice. For me however the Zeiss has a better colour rendition.
Logged

Bill Koenig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354


« Reply #84 on: November 18, 2010, 03:32:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Using a 85mm f1.8 Nikkor lens with my D200 and a spherical Pano head, employing multiple rows and multiple columns has produced stunning image's that depending on the number of images used can easily be printed up 40x60 if needed.
I use Autopano pro to stitch the images, I often use this with HDR as well.
That said, its not going to work for every image, but its relatively inexpensive compared some of the glass mentioned here, of course it helps if one already has said lens in there kit. I made my own pano head, but there are many inexpensive models out there that will do the job.
I'm surprised that so little was said about stitching, also, there something about the look I get with a 85mm lens when stitching, I'm at a loss trying to explaine it. 
Logged

Bill Koenig,
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2010, 02:49:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for taking the time.

It really seems to be a toss-up between the Zeiss 21 and the Canon TS.

Almost unanimously, across many different forums and opinions, the 16-35 can't really stand up the the Zeiss 21, while the T/S does compare favorably in most areas, eclipsing it in others (namely distortion-free).

I would say though, for landscapes, color rendition would be more important consideration than a slight (fixable) wave.

How great a difference in color rendering would you say there is between the Canon T/S and the Zeiss 21? I am also curious about the "3D effect" of the Zeiss that so many seem to talk about.

I suppose I should just rent them both and see which one I like best ...

Jack



.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3767


« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2010, 03:35:10 PM »
ReplyReply

How great a difference in color rendering would you say there is between the Canon T/S and the Zeiss 21?

Hi John,

I wonder how much of that difference is going to remain after white balancing, and especially when one uses a custom profile or color recipe ... Most of us are not shooting film anymore so we have enough control over our color rendering to not need a lens characteristic for that.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #87 on: November 19, 2010, 04:24:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi John,
I wonder how much of that difference is going to remain after white balancing, and especially when one uses a custom profile or color recipe ... Most of us are not shooting film anymore so we have enough control over our color rendering to not need a lens characteristic for that.
Cheers,
Bart


I honestly don't know Bart. But I do understand what you're saying.

And yet, haven't you taken shots for which no amount of post-processing will help you get a pleasing result? And haven't you taken other shots where the colors are simply magical, perfect--simply because everything is just right?

For this basic reason, if I have the choice of two lenses at the same general price point, I would rather select the lens which is renowned for capturing absolutely perfect color rendition right from the start, because all the post-processing in the world is a poor substitute for perfection right out of the gate.

Jack




.
Logged
achrisproduction
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2011, 12:51:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot landscapes regularly with the 21mm ZE and I must say it is a wonderful lens. The 21mm has essentially replaced my 16-35mm f2.8.

The only real weakness the lens has is a bit of wave distortion which has never been a problem for me shooting landscapes.

The lens isn't cheap, but if you want the best, well you gotta pay for it.

I would also say that the new Canon 24mm TSE would be a good landscape choice. For me however the Zeiss has a better colour rendition.
16-35 II is a zoom and ZE 21 is a prime....there should be no comparison because they aren't the same.  can a ZE 21 shoot at 16mm? 
Logged
achrisproduction
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2011, 12:53:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I bought a little landscape lens last year (the Canon EF-S 10-22mm zoom), and it seems to have nice color rendition and focus, but the distortion it has at the wider end is pretty pronounced. I guess my question is, if one really wants to purchase the best single lens for landscape work on a Canon, which wide-angle lens is the ideal choice for

1. Low distortion?
2. Sharpness?
3. Color rendition?

For that matter, is a wide-angle lens even ideal for landscape? Would a more moderate lens (say 24mm) be better? Is taking the time to stitch a pano with a non-distorted lens preferable to taking a "wide-angle" shot with one ultra-wide lens--only to have it come out distorted?

I have been looking to upgrade from the 10-22mm (which I just sold on Ebay), but it seems all of the Canon ultra-wides essentially suck. In reading many reviews on lenses such as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, the 17-40 f/4, the 24mm f/1.4L II, etc. ... at best these seem to be average lenses.

I was wondering how many Canon people have actually tried the Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens for landscapes and such, on their own Canons, and compared this lens to the Canon offerings? In many of the reviews, several people said they actually "cringed" when comparing the shots they got from the Canon 16-35 (et al) to the Zeiss. From color rendition, corner-to-corner sharpness, etc., it seems the vote is unanimous that the Zeiss is the better lens. People also keep talking about "that 3D-look" with the Zeiss.

In short, for a Canon body, is there any wide-angle lens that can touch the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? In the research I've been conducting over the last few weeks, it sure doesn't seem so, but I'd like to hear some live feedback.

Thanks for any replies,

Jack




.
Either PS or TS.  Grin  I recommend TS-E 17.  Wink
Logged
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #90 on: January 14, 2011, 03:16:19 PM »
ReplyReply

16-35 II is a zoom and ZE 21 is a prime....there should be no comparison because they aren't the same.  can a ZE 21 shoot at 16mm? 

That's a very illogical statement.  You can stitch or crop to match any FOV for any focal length. You can even shoot from the same perspective if you want the comparison to be meaningful.
Logged
achrisproduction
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #91 on: January 15, 2011, 12:16:02 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a very illogical statement.  You can stitch or crop to match any FOV for any focal length. You can even shoot from the same perspective if you want the comparison to be meaningful.
thats great.  so all you have is one lens yea?
Logged
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #92 on: January 15, 2011, 07:26:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Huh
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad