Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nice Landscape Lens in L flavour  (Read 5676 times)
David R. Gurtcheff
Guest
« on: August 25, 2005, 01:41:45 PM »
ReplyReply

You didn't mention if you will be using a full frame or 1.6X crop factor camera. I use full frame, and for the type of work I do (seascapes mostly), the 17~40mm f4 L lens is the lens I seem to use most, mostly at the wider end. I also have a 24~70mm f2.8 L, that I use as a "walkaround" lens, but often when a great seascape with big sky presents itself, the 24MM isn't wide enough. I know you mentioned primes, but the above two Canon zooms, I find, hold sharpness in 20"x30" prints, and I am not sure Canon's shorter primes would be any sharper.
Good luck
Dave
Logged
Julius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2005, 01:18:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I use the EF16-35/f2.8L on my 20D for landscapes too. I like to blow up my shots to 20"x30" as well. But somehow they just don't seem to be crisp and sharp enough. The same goes for landscape shots using the EF70-200/f2.8L IS. Those shot with either EF50/f1.4 and EF135/f2L fair better. Therefore I am also interested in a superb wide angle lens for landscapes. The Canon 14mm and 24mm primes just don't seem to be good enough.

I plan to buy the new EF24-105/f4L as a walk around lens to go along with my upgrade to the 5D. I must admit I have doubts as to whether it will satisfy me on the wide end for landscapes.
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2005, 02:57:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You didn't mention if you will be using a full frame or 1.6X crop factor camera. I use full frame, and for the type of work I do (seascapes mostly), the 17~40mm f4 L lens is the lens I seem to use most, mostly at the wider end. I also have a 24~70mm f2.8 L, that I use as a "walkaround" lens, but often when a great seascape with big sky presents itself, the 24MM isn't wide enough. I know you mentioned primes, but the above two Canon zooms, I find, hold sharpness in 20"x30" prints, and I am not sure Canon's shorter primes would be any sharper.
Good luck
Dave
Whoops, I use a Canon EOS 1D MKII

Nice photograph, looks to be a really good lens
Logged
Julius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2005, 09:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the advice. The image I was talking about indeed has lots of trees: My wide angle landscape example

I don't print my photos using desktop printers. They are printed on a large traditional Kodak machine in a photography studio catering to hobbists. This Kodak machine can output up to a maximum of 24" wide. But unfortunately it uses only 8-bit per colour.

.....Julius
Logged
Guest
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2005, 08:53:20 AM »
ReplyReply

The widest L prime is the 24/1.4 (~31/1.4 on your 1D Mk II).
The widest prime is the 20/2.8 (~26/2.8 on your 1D Mk II).
The widest L is the 16-35/2.8 (~21-45/2.8 on your 1D Mk II).
It's little sister is the 17-40/4 (~22-52/4 on your 1D Mk II).

These are the usual candidates. However, another unusual candidate is the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. This corelates to a 15-36/4-5.6 lens on your 1D Mk II. This is wildly wide.

Hummmmm......... How wide do you need?

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D8Q4

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2005, 06:20:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have owned many Canon wide lenses since my FD days to present and have always been critical of the quality of retrofocus wide lenses in general, (not just Canon). The old 17-35f2.8L was a bit of a dog for landscape work but the current 16-35f2.8L is very good and is the first ultra-wide lens for 35mm SLR that makes me happy, (prime or zoom). The 28-70f2.8L was a good medium range wide and the 24-70f2.8L is now even better, (and also pleases me). Canon has not put too much effort into prime wides for a while, as is the same for the competition. (an updated 14mm would be nice with some UD glass).

I now shoot on a full frame 1Ds II which every one knows puts a high demand on all lenses, particularly wides. I have printed 24x36 from these lenses on a Epson 7600 and have been impressed with minimal aberrations seen. (At least as good as my scanned Hasselblad output). Only if you are very close to a subject do the lower corners fall off a bit. The infinity detail stays quite crisp. The best I have seen so far in this range. (The 17-40f4L is likely just as good).
With regard to the 17-40, this would be wide enough for my needs, however, do images suffer any distortion.

I know the 'fish eye' type lenses give a distorted look, but this is to be expected, and this lens is chosen for this reason.

If the 17-40 gives good results without distortion at the wide end then I'm going for this one.
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2005, 08:17:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why does everyone immediately assume that "landscape" equals wide angle? My 70-200L gets used about as much as my 24-70L and 17-40L combined. This on a 1D2 and a 10D.

Paul
I'm with you. I even exercise my 300. You have to shoot what you visualize.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2005, 04:32:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I have an old 35-350 L, which I use just as much as the wides for landscape. When composing , I find myself using 350 ml almost exclusively and with the Canon D10, I'm enjoying landscape at 480 ml equivalent.
These are often stitched to give panoramas, ie extreme telephoto wide angles (!)
Cheers,
Brian
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2005, 12:39:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I am in the market for an L type Canon lens for landscapes. I would prefer a prime as they always seem that bit sharper than a zoom.

But which one......................

Thanks for any advice on this
Logged
bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2005, 11:42:25 AM »
ReplyReply

"My baby" is the 16-35 L. Just an amazing piece of work. It's wide enough for most landscape work, even on the 1.6 (I use 20D).

I do also use the 10-22. It's up there in the price range of L glass, and it performs way better than most of Canon's non-L lenses, at least in my opinion.

YMMV. Good luck! Bob.

Here's a recent pic with the 10-22.

Logged

bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2005, 01:53:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Julius, what printer are you using for 20x30?  That makes a difference, doesn't it?

One thing to consider is printing on canvas.  Because of the nature of the media, I think it is a lot harder to determine actual crispness.  They look super!  It also depends on the shot.  If you have a wide vista with 100,000 pine trees off in the distance, good luck.

Bob.
Logged

bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2005, 03:10:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The 16-35 on a 1dsmkII should have the same field of view as the 10-22 on a 20d.  

I would seriously consider the 16-35. It's worth the money.  My baby!

Bob.
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2005, 08:32:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi But unfortunately it uses only 8-bit per colour.
What kind of printers use more than 8 bits?  I think all the inkjets are 8?
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2005, 09:33:23 AM »
ReplyReply

The Epson inkjets use more than 8-bits internally, but their drivers are 8-bit. You can use ImagePrint and print 16-bit, but the RIP costs nearly as much as the printer.
Logged

D White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73

Don White


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2005, 12:51:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I have owned many Canon wide lenses since my FD days to present and have always been critical of the quality of retrofocus wide lenses in general, (not just Canon). The old 17-35f2.8L was a bit of a dog for landscape work but the current 16-35f2.8L is very good and is the first ultra-wide lens for 35mm SLR that makes me happy, (prime or zoom). The 28-70f2.8L was a good medium range wide and the 24-70f2.8L is now even better, (and also pleases me). Canon has not put too much effort into prime wides for a while, as is the same for the competition. (an updated 14mm would be nice with some UD glass).

I now shoot on a full frame 1Ds II which every one knows puts a high demand on all lenses, particularly wides. I have printed 24x36 from these lenses on a Epson 7600 and have been impressed with minimal aberrations seen. (At least as good as my scanned Hasselblad output). Only if you are very close to a subject do the lower corners fall off a bit. The infinity detail stays quite crisp. The best I have seen so far in this range. (The 17-40f4L is likely just as good).
Logged

Dr D White DDS BSc
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2005, 08:11:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Why does everyone immediately assume that "landscape" equals wide angle?  My 70-200L  gets used about as much as my 24-70L and 17-40L combined.  This on a 1D2 and a 10D.

Paul
Logged

ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2005, 02:48:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Why does everyone immediately assume that "landscape" equals wide angle? My 70-200L gets used about as much as my 24-70L and 17-40L combined. This on a 1D2 and a 10D.

Paul
I'm with you. I even exercise my 300. You have to shoot what you visualize.
Good points  Smiley
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2005, 06:05:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have an old 35-350 L, which I use just as much as the wides for landscape. When composing , I find myself using 350 ml almost exclusively and with the Canon D10, I'm enjoying landscape at 480 ml equivalent.
These are often stitched to give panoramas, ie extreme telephoto wide angles (!)
Cheers,
Brian
350 ml?

That is about the capacity of my 70-200 mm f4. Just a guess, not that I actually tested it.

 ::  ::  ::

Sorry - engineering background showing - heheh!
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad