Wide angle lens for Canon

[Stan Cunningham]

For landscape shots I was looking at the Canon L series EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens but a friend recommended a
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Lens. I need to keep it under a $1000.
I appreciate any comments from you all.
Thanks
Stan

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Stan Would go with the Canon I believe the 17-40 is around $750? and will have a higher resale value.. so at the end it might be cheaper. I'm sure the Tamron its a fine lens and will hear form users.

[Ian Cassell]

Stan. I've been using the Tamron for 3 years -- first on my 30D and now on my 7D. It's sharp and well built. The downside, in my book, is the fact that it doesn't have an ultrasonic motor, so it is a bit slower focus, but that hasn't really been an issue for me. I believe there is a new version with IS, but I've seen the older one going used in the $300-350 range.

[Jim Greenfield]

Stan
I use a Canon 17/40 - I find it a super lens, as sharp as a tack. I try to work at f8 or smaller as like many superwides, it is a bit soft in the corners when used wide open.... but I guess that won't be a problem with landscapes.
The only caveat I would raise is that I have seen quite a few reports of bad copies and criticism of Canon's quality control, particularly with zoom manufacturing. So if possible, try before you buy would be my advice.
I guess I was lucky, I bought mine used off Ebay.

Jim Greenfield
www.oceaneyephoto.com

[Morkel Erasmus]

If you have the extra bucks you should look at the 16-35mm f2.8 L II :)

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

The 17-40L is a superb lens and if you have a 5D MKII it Rocks!

[Danny J Brown]

I love my Canon 17-40 f/4 L lens! I never understood why people pay more for f/2.8 wide angles because, like Jim Greenfield, I always stop my landscape lens down to at least f/8 and usually much more, especially when I'm looking for super slow shutter speeds. If you leave a circular polarizer attached to the 17-40 all the time it will be sealed almost completely from the elements. As far as Canon zooms, I also have the 70-200 f/2.8 L and it is tack sharp, so I guess I got lucky!

[Joseph Kurkjian]

I love my Canon 17-40 f/4 L lens! I never understood why people pay more for f/2.8 wide angles.

Well, Canon claims at least one advantage ... the "high precision" AF sensitivity associated with an f/2.8 or larger maximum aperture; that said, practically speaking that doesn't mean squat to me when I'm shooting landscapes.

If you leave a circular polarizer attached to the 17-40 all the time it will be sealed almost completely from the elements. As far as Canon zooms, I also have the 70-200 f/2.8 L and it is tack sharp, so I guess I got lucky!

Actually you are not lucky, just smart like a fox IMO (check out comparisons at both SLR Gear and The Digital Picture). Compared to the 17-40 at 17mm the 16-35 (mkII or the mkI {implied}) at 16mm has a definite weakness. Yes, things get better for the 16-35 at higher focal lengths but IMO so what ... this is just a WAG on my part but I'm pretty sure most folks that purchase a WA lens want to shoot at the widest FOV fairly often.

From my perspective the 17-40 is light weight (important to me when hiking), delivers more than acceptable optical performance on either a 1DmkII or xxD body, and well built (I'm guessing, no problems in almost 7 years). The only suggestion I have for anybody using the 17-40 on an xxD body is to pick up a better (improved shading) lens hood (e.g. the one used on the 24mm f/2.4 lens). There is nothing wrong with the lens hood supplied with the 17-40; the only issue is that hood is designed for use on a FF body (as versus an xxD body).

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

[Markus Jais]

I use the 4/17-40L and love that lens. It is very sharp and very well built. It is definitely a good investment and I can highly recommend it.

Markus

[arash_hazeghi]

For what body? 17-40 is fine for cropped but not for FF. BTW I don't call 17-40 wide on cropped since it is 27mm, you should also check Canon EF-S 10-22 that will give 16-35 equivalent on crop.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

From my perspective the 17-40 is light weight (important to me when hiking), delivers more than acceptable optical performance on either a 1DmkII or xxD body, and well built (I'm guessing, no problems in almost 7 years). The only suggestion I have for anybody using the 17-40 on an xxD body is to pick up a better (improved shading) lens hood (e.g. the one used on the 24mm f/2.4 lens). There is nothing wrong with the lens hood supplied with the 17-40; the only issue is that hood is designed for use on a FF body (as versus an xxD body).

Excellent advice but don't chuck the wide hood as you will need it for your 5D MKII when you are smart enough to get one and mount the 17-40 on it where it shines for landscapes and panoramas.

Like some other "not the Rolls Royce lenses" the 17-40 f/4 L has many hidden talents you just have to be smart enough to find them.

PS I often use a Kenko 2X (non intrusive converter) makes a very useful 34-80 f/8 (saves carrying th 24-70 on long hikes), sure it is slow but I take most of my landscapes at f/8 or slower.

[alain vandal]

The 17-40 f4 stoped down to f8 it's just an excellent lens for landscape (and every else). At f4 it's already good. The Tamron are Di II, so made for cropped sensor, with a full frame it gonna have lots of vignetting not even sure you gonna get rid of. On a crop body it's a 28mm equivalent so wide. A friend of mine use it on his 30D and the image are excellent. He only have a small complain about the motor noise and speed of AF being not USM.

[David Stephens]

For what body? 17-40 is fine for cropped but not for FF....

Could you explain your thinking here? I think that the 17-40 is close to ideal for a FF body.

Dave

[arash_hazeghi]

Could you explain your thinking here? I think that the 17-40 is close to ideal for a FF body.

Dave

It does not meet my standards, weak points are soft and hazy corners, pronounced vignetting and whopping distortion. your mileage might vary :)

Photozone reference review points out these problems.

[David Stephens]

It does not meet my standards, weak points are soft and hazy corners, pronounced vignetting and whopping distortion. your mileage might vary :)

Photozone reference review points out these problems.

Great. Thanks for your specific problems. Now, would suggest a FF alternative zoom?

BTW, DxO's Optics Pro corrects for most of the distortion shown in the Photozone images. Those are all uncorrected images.

Dave

[arash_hazeghi]

Great. Thanks for your specific problems. Now, would suggest a FF alternative zoom?

BTW, DxO's Optics Pro corrects for most of the distortion shown in the Photozone images. Those are all uncorrected images.

Dave

When I was doing wide angle shots I used Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 you can fit it on 5DMKII with an adapter. Of course images can be corrected in post but the flaw is in optics at first place... 17-40 distortion is somewhat heavy and non uniform it is hard to correct for photos that need to be geometrically precise, plus you lose resolution when you correct distortion in post.BTW the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII is slightly better in this regard...

[alain vandal]

for sure wide open there is vignetting and corner are a bit soft. vignetting is easely correctable in the computer, softness not, but it's gone when stopped down, anyway in landscape you shoot at f8-f22. From my experience I keep detail even very far away. This is one of the drawback of the fullframe, You miss the lens sweet spot. The 17-40 are designed for FF, if your are not sure look at size the shade. If you use it with a crop sensor your are better to use the 24-105 shade or the one for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 (both 77mm). On a crop APS-C or APS-H, I feel I need more reach or feel restricted, when I use it as a allaround.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Liked reading this a lot. I purchased a 17-40 f/4 ( to be used on my 40D) last month. based on initial testing, I am very happy with the results.

One reason people buy the 16-35 is because its 16mm. At those focal lengths 16 and 17 is a big difference is what I have heard. not like 28 and 29. Anyways, it was out of my budget so I did not dive too deep into that. 17-55 f/2.8 is something lot of people advise....but that is pricier. so is 24-105 and that wont be very wide on 40D. same with 24-70. so 17-40 it was for me. At the end of the day, I still have dont have any IS lens :-)

[alain vandal]

Exactly for this: a wider and a faster lens, I just buy a 16-35 used for the price of a 17-40 I have before and that was stolen recently. If you do a lot of architectural work distortion can be a problem, but for landscape, who really bother? It's all depend on what you do and choosing the right tool for that. for architectural you'r better with a tilt-shift lens. You have tons of lansdscape or photojournalism images made with the 17-40 or the 16-35, both give really good image. On APS-C I continued to think it's on the short side to be a real allaround.

[Joseph Kurkjian]

Some perspective ... I use a 1.26X crop factor body for landscapes and the 17-40 is the right solution for me from the standpoint of FOV; if OTOH I wanted to shoot with a FF body for an even wider FOV then Canon's 16-35 would be a better solution (assuming I wanted to stick with Canon glass).

The problem I have with landscapes is (IMO) the 16-35 isn't good enough on a FF ... my preference would be a Nikon 14-24. Unfortunately (again, for me) the 14-24 won't take a filter and that by itself is a show stopper (I shoot in an environment with a fair amount of sand blowing around).

The terms "I", "my", and "for me" pop up frequently and are very important ... consider the following quesions and simply vary the number "99" to better represent your particular situation.

If 99 percent of your prints are 8x10 does it make sense to buy an $8,000 (or $5,000, or whatever) camera along with whatever glass to get (maybe) a slightly better 11x14?

If 99 percent of your FOV requirements are satisified with the current lenses in your bag does it make sense to purchase more glass to go wider? Before you answer this question consider that quite often it's easy to shoot a three or four frame pano sequence and get the FOV you wanted in the first place; note, you can't always do this if it's windy and branches are moving all over the place.

Does it make sense to buy fast glass for that once-in-a-lifetime shot if the extra weight will have a unacceptably negative impact during hikes, or perhaps even force you to leave the photography gear at home?

I think everybody here has honestly contributed to the pool of good suggestions. Problem is no matter how hard folks try to be helpful they can't (1) wear OP's shoes or (2) be in complete agreement with everybody else.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

[arash_hazeghi]

Good points here, a few more comments about 14-24 if you are interested in getting one,

first you can use filters with 14-24, somewhat clunky solution but possible

here is how http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMX5p...layer_embedded

also the comments you read on the internet about the front element being vulnerable usually comes from people who don't actually own this lens, I had this lens for a year and shot in heavy rain, storm and even sand, used it everywhere from beaches in SoCal to Mojave desert with no issue at all, it was in like new condition when I sold it. The front element has very tough anti scratch coating and unless you drop it head on or bang it to a piece of rock it has no issues. The Canon 17 TSE has similar design with exposed front element, again nothing to worry.

[David Stephens]

When I was doing wide angle shots I used Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 you can fit it on 5DMKII with an adapter. Of course images can be corrected in post but the flaw is in optics at first place... 17-40 distortion is somewhat heavy and non uniform it is hard to correct for photos that need to be geometrically precise, plus you lose resolution when you correct distortion in post.BTW the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII is slightly better in this regard...

Thanks.

DxO really does an amazing job of correcting my 24-105mm f/4 adjusting for both geometrics and softness (don't ask me how they do it) and I'd expect similar results with the 17-35; however, I am thinking about getting a scenic-specific lens and will probably go with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. That wouldn't fit our OP's budget, but it looks like close to the ultimate for a FF wide angle lens for those willing and able to spend the money.

Dave

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks.

DxO really does an amazing job of correcting my 24-105mm f/4 adjusting for both geometrics and softness (don't ask me how they do it) and I'd expect similar results with the 17-35; however, I am thinking about getting a scenic-specific lens and will probably go with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. That wouldn't fit our OP's budget, but it looks like close to the ultimate for a FF wide angle lens for those willing and able to spend the money.

Dave

Can you post a full size example where soft corners at f/4 have been fixed? I will be interested in buying this sw since I also have a 24-105.

[David Stephens]

Can you post a full size example where soft corners at f/4 have been fixed? I will be interested in buying this sw since I also have a 24-105.

I'll dig around when I get home from work to see what I can find in my library. If I don't find anything right off the bat I'll take a test image with some archetectural features in it. I'll do it at 24mm and f/4. Also, I can turn off geometric correction in DxO, so you can see with and without the correction. I think that'll be about as severe a test as you can devise, since most of us do stop down a little at 24mm. Oh, heck, I'll just go ahead and do some test images test images at both f/4 and f/8.

Dave

[David Stephens]

Ok Arash and other friends, here's a simple little demonstration of the effectiveness of DxO's Optics Pro at adjusting for the geometric errors in most lens, but particularly wide angle zoom lenses, like Canon's EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. Keep in mind that the corrected images that you see below are automatically corrected by Optic Pro as part of the RAW conversion. These days we really have to evaluate our camera bodies and lenses after correction.

All the images were taken with my Canon 5D MkII with the 24-104mm mounted and focused at 24mm focal length. I put the rig on my Induro C414 tripod with the Arca-Swiss Z1 attached. I used the remote release and dampened the camera vibration with my hand on the camera, rather than locking the mirror up. One image was at f/4 and the other is at f/8 at ISO 200, adjusting shutter speed for roughly equivalent exposure. I added 15-points of Contrast and bumped Saturation up to 10 to make vignetting easier to see.

This is shot from the 6th floor looking to the West, with the sun toward the left of the image, accounting for the general darker tint of the right side of the sky. (Hey, I wanted to get something out rather than wait for ideal conditions). I did get the sensor perpendicular to those buildings at either edge of the image. The pincushion effect would be very dramatic if I tilted the camera up. I can correct for pincushion easily with Optics Pro, but it's a manual adjustment, like in Photoshop. I'm demonstrating here the automatic geometric corrections that Optics Pro achieves right out of the box.

The following image is at f/8 uncorrected. It's easy to see the barrel distortion by looking at the sidewalk near the bottom of the image. Vignetting is a little harder to see at f/8 than it'll be at f/4, but look to the upper right corner to see the sky getting darker toward the corner.








The following image is at f/8 with automatic geometric distortion applied. Note the sidewalk and the upper right corner.



Here's the same scene taken at f/4 and uncorrected. Note how much more noticeable the vignetting at the upper right is.



Finally, here's the automatically corrected image taken at f/4:



Anyone that'd like to look in further detail can see the Original size jpeg files at my Flickr site at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/...7623674002878/

If you do look at the Original size, you might focus on the sign near the lower right corner and compare the details and straightness.

You can download a test version of Optics Pro for free. It has modules for most Canon and Nikon dslr bodies and lenses, as well as some other popular cameras. Without a lens module for your lens it will not make the automatic geometric demonstrated here.

In my processing flow, Optics Pro fits where Lightroom would in most workflows. I've got CS4, but only use it for major changes or things like brightening a bird's eye or something requiring a mask.

I may make a separate thread so that it's easier for others to find this, BUT I think it belongs in a "which lens" thread because the question can only be fully answered by considering what the results can look like after RAW conversion. Optics Pro can save to DNG, jpeg, tiff formats. I save everything to jpeg, unless I'm going to work it further with PS, then I'll do tiff.

Dave

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks a lot for posting Dave appreciate your time, but I don't think this is a good test for distortion, there aren't many parallel lines and subjects are far, a more appropriate test would be the inside of a building where you have parallel lines.

here is an example:



17-40 20d f/8, distortion corrected in photoshop but still remains an issue. Grand Central station NYC.




Also vignetting is not a big problem in a shot like this, in fact if you use Canon DPP sw it will corrected automatically (peripheral illumination correction), in situations where light is low and you have to use high ISO vignette correction will cause noise because you are effectively lifting the exposure in the corner areas.

Anyways, what I was more interested in seeing was corner sharpness, in the corrected version the corners have been brightened up but the branches and buildings in the right border are still relatively hazy/mushy compared to the center.

Thanks for demo :)

[Blayne Olsen]

Dave, can you run Arash's interior shot through DxO?

[arash_hazeghi]

For reference here is a photo I took with Nikon 14-24 at 14mm and f/2.8, this shot has absolutely no vignette or distortion correction applied to it, notice how horizontal and vertical lines remain parallel throughout the frame. If the lens had a lot of distortion by the time I corrected it, I would have ended up with something like a 18-20mm FOV.




BTW, chapel view is from Carmel mission in Carmel, California. One of the oldest and most decorated, a must see if you are visiting the area!

[David Stephens]

Compare the buildings on the right corrected and uncorrected and you see very dramatic improvement. (Follow the Flickr link and look at the Original size). In the Original size you can move from center to edge in the Uncorrected version and easily see the decreasing sharpness. In the Corrected version the demarkation of softness is harder to observe.

My 24-105 may not be the best example. I'd received permission from Canon to send it in for evaluation, then I purchased DxO and elected not to send it in.

Your building example is complicated by the pincushion caused by tilting the sensor vs. the subject. I can see barrel distortion mixed in with pincushion. DxO would allow you to fix both. As you say, it doesn't demonstrate vignetting well, due to the uneven lighting.

I find that DPP is excellent a maximizing sharpness, but weak at other geometric corrections, compared to DxO. I prefer DPP to Lightroom, except it's a pain in the butt to use. DxO gives me the convenience of Lightroom with the good parts of DPP while added superior geometric correction.

This discussion demonstrates how a difference in priorities that can result in different perception of the acceptability of a lens and related software. Arash is disturbed more by edge softness than I am, while I'm more focused on barrel, vignetting and pincushion distortion. Either view is legitimate, in my view. Of course, we'd all love a lens that exhibited none of these characteristics.

Happy as I am with my 24-105mm, I'm still considering the 21mm 2.8 Zeiss for my scenic images. :D

Dave

[Roger Clark]

If 99 percent of your FOV requirements are satisified with the current lenses in your bag does it make sense to purchase more glass to go wider? Before you answer this question consider that quite often it's easy to shoot a three or four frame pano sequence and get the FOV you wanted in the first place; note, you can't always do this if it's windy and branches are moving all over the place.

I agree. I do a lot of landscapes, and often my shortest lens is 28mm, even with a 1.6x crop body. My shortest lens now is 20 mm and I do have a FF body (5DII). When I need wider, I simply do a mosaic. e.g. the image currently on my home page is an 18-frame mosaic done with a 28 mm lens on a FF body. I can choose the aspect ratio that is best for the image, rather than what the camera gives. I can do them hand held or on a tripod. I can often do a mosaic faster than it takes to change lenses (including getting the lens out of the bag). As I gained experience and confidence to do mosaics I find most situations, including moving animals, and windy conditions are not a problem. If I'm doing wildlife and my lens is too long, I do a mosaic. But some subjects are more difficult, like waves at a beach or fireworks.

Roger

[David Stephens]

Dave, can you run Arash's interior shot through DxO?

I'll play around with it, but doubt it. The software is specific to the lens and body combination and needs to see the EXIF data to make its adjustments. The 20D is not a current camera, but the old module may still be out there somewhere.

That would be nice if I can. It'll improve that shot a bunch if I can figure out how to load up the modules.

[arash_hazeghi]

Compare the buildings on the right corrected and uncorrected and you see very dramatic improvement. (Follow the Flickr link and look at the Original size). In the Original size you can move from center to edge in the Uncorrected version and easily see the decreasing sharpness. In the Corrected version the demarkation of softness is harder to observe.

My 24-105 may not be the best example. I'd received permission from Canon to send it in for evaluation, then I purchased DxO and elected not to send it in.

Your building example is complicated by the pincushion caused by tilting the sensor vs. the subject. I can see barrel distortion mixed in with pincushion. DxO would allow you to fix both. As you say, it doesn't demonstrate vignetting well, due to the uneven lighting.

I find that DPP is excellent a maximizing sharpness, but weak at other geometric corrections, compared to DxO. I prefer DPP to Lightroom, except it's a pain in the butt to use. DxO gives me the convenience of Lightroom with the good parts of DPP while added superior geometric correction.

This discussion demonstrates how a difference in priorities that can result in different perception of the acceptability of a lens and related software. Arash is disturbed more by edge softness than I am, while I'm more focused on barrel, vignetting and pincushion distortion. Either view is legitimate, in my view. Of course, we'd all love a lens that exhibited none of these characteristics.

Happy as I am with my 24-105mm, I'm still considering the 21mm 2.8 Zeiss for my scenic images. :D

Dave

Dave in the Grand Central camera was placed on a flat base (no tilt) so whatever you see is the distortion coming from the lens, and as you can see it is very complicated to correct even after one round of correction in PS.

I also agree that sharpness and corner is subjective, I often print my architecture shots at very large sizes or display them on my 30" screen (2560 X 1600) so I can easily see these imperfections and get distracted by them, they may not be an issue at all for other viewers. Digital post processing has brought wonders to photography in recent years and a lot can be done and it is relatively inexpensive, but it can't quite match high performance optics.

If you want I can post a sample that a took a few weeks ago from inside of a church with 24-105 at 24mm, whatever I did to it I was not able to produce an image that retained a wide view and was distortion free. I would be interested to see if your DxO sw can correct this one (aside from corner issues). I will leave the exif intact so you can use it.



Best,
Arash

[David Stephens]

Arash, can you send me the RAW file for the Grand Central image? I can add the modules for the 20D and your lens module to my Optics Pro install and show you the automatic correction and then correct the pincushion manually (in about 15-seconds).

My email is dcstep@swbell.net

[arash_hazeghi]

[QUOTE=David Stephens;470769]Arash, can you send me the RAW file for the Grand Central image? I can add the modules for the 20D and your lens module to my Optics Pro install and show you the automatic correction and then correct the pincushion manually (in about 15-seconds).


Unfortunately I don't the CR2 file anymore, that image is from 2005, my HDD crashed destroying all the data :(

I will post the photo with 24-105 later, I have the CR2 for that one as well.


Arash

[arash_hazeghi]

Here is the church shot,

5D MKII 24-105L 24mm f/4 1/40sec ISO 3200. EXIF is intact if you need focus distance etc.




Here is a link to full size JPEG (17.5 MB) This has already had vignette correction applied in DPP (+40).

Looking forward to see how it looks like when you get all the lines parallel.

[David Stephens]

I'm at work now. I'll try to get to it this evenning. That should be a great demonstration shot.

[David Stephens]

Ok, here you go friends:



There were a few problems. I received a nice, large jpeg, but DxO couldn't recover all the EXIF information. When I looked at the details of the file it showed that it was taken at 24mm, but there was no indication that it was a 24-105mm zoom lens, which DxO needs in order to do automatic correction

So, I made made the two large columns at mid-room parrallel, manually adjusted barrel distortion and leveled the lintel of the window at the center and front of the room. All took less than two minutes, but you can't see what DxO would have done automatically if it'd had the complete EXIF data. You would have seen barrel and some pincushion correction, but the levelling wouldn't have been done and making the columns parrallel wouldn't have happened.

I suspect that the sensor was not perpendicular to the columns.

Ignore light and color changes because I couldn't complete a full range of lighting and color without the RAW file. There was a good bit of noise in the dark portion of the picture that got agravated when I brought up the shadow details. Starting with a RAW file that wouldn't have been an issue. Focus instead on the geometric corrections. Although they're not automatic in this particular case, they are representative of what Optics Pro does automatically.

For convenience, here's the original in the same thread pane:



You can see the Original full sized image here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/4457858841/sizes/o/

Dave

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi David,

Thanks for taking the time to process this photo, not sure why DXO could not read the EXIF, can you manually select the correct lens profile?

BTW, I also did a quick correction in Photoshop using the standard distort filter did not spent much time perfecting it just a quick dirty barrel + perspective, differences are small, columns are a tad more parallel in PS version and the view is wider but the door frame in the left seems to be more straight in DxO version. prospective is a bit unnatural in both.

PhotoShop


DxO




Also the larger version seems to have lost its quality/sharpness but that might be due to JPEG compression. Overall both are good enough for small web presentation and casual shots but for large prints and professional-grade work the low distortion lenses such as the Nikon 14-24 or the older Zeiss primes would still have better results. For landscapes concerns are fewer because you are shooting at f/8-f/11 so vignetting and corner softness are not very pronounced, distortion is also less of an issue unless you have tall trees in the foreground.
But at the same time, most lenses including cheaper EF-S or non-L EF lenses and in some cases even third party Sigma and Tamron lenses perform well at f/8-f/11 so there is no need to spend more for the L zooms if landscape is the only application...


Thanks again for discussion and samples plus processing the file

Arash

[John Chardine]

Interesting thread.

Stan- if you have a 1.6 crop body, the Canon 10-22mm is supposed to be very good. Also the Sigma 10-20mm is a good performer as well.

BTW my 17-40 works extremely well on both my 5D and mark IV.

[John Chardine]

I agree. I do a lot of landscapes, and often my shortest lens is 28mm, even with a 1.6x crop body. My shortest lens now is 20 mm and I do have a FF body (5DII). When I need wider, I simply do a mosaic. e.g. the image currently on my home page is an 18-frame mosaic done with a 28 mm lens on a FF body. I can choose the aspect ratio that is best for the image, rather than what the camera gives. I can do them hand held or on a tripod. I can often do a mosaic faster than it takes to change lenses (including getting the lens out of the bag). As I gained experience and confidence to do mosaics I find most situations, including moving animals, and windy conditions are not a problem. If I'm doing wildlife and my lens is too long, I do a mosaic. But some subjects are more difficult, like waves at a beach or fireworks.

Roger

Roger- I am very interested in doing more image mosaics but I was under the impression that to do it right you need a setup so that you can rotate the camera/lens about the lens centre to avoid parallax error (Really Right Stuff sell a nice setup). How important is this in reality?

[David Stephens]

Arash, do you have an opinion to share about the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8ZE (EF mount)?

The little bit I've seen of it, the results looks stunning, with great contrast and color, with barrel distortion very low.

I'm seriously thinking of buying it in the next year, after I get my EF 500mm f/4L IS. :cool: Now that I've upgraded my tripod and added an Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead, I'm thinking about working more seriously on my scenics.

Dave

[Stan Cunningham]

WOW, this OP is at the bottom of the learning curve with respect to most of you.
But I really appreciated the discussion and the way you all are so willing to share your knowledge.
Most of my pics are for myself, or in the classroom as I teach Wildlife Bio at ASU, but I do write for some outdoor mags and supply the pics. I will have to check my budget and think about many of the things you guys were talking about. I think I really need a "post click" course as a limited lightroom edit is all I'm good for at this time.
Thanks and keep posting for us newbies, by the way I shoot a 50D and need a second body and debating between a 7D and 5D, I know the ff would be nice but with wildlife the 7D sounds great and the improved video would be good for my teaching tools. But that is another thread and all you pros have nothing to worry about as far as competition from me.
Thanks again
Stan

[David Stephens]

Stan, I'm no pro, but I do own both the 7D and 5D2. If you have some images collected somewhere I'd love to look and then suggest which camera might serve you best. Also, we need to know what lenses you already have.

The 50D is a very fine camera. If you're mainly "documenting", then you're unlikely to need an upgrade in equipment and will gain more from some remedial Lightroom training. Starting with RAW and doing some slight tweaks to contrast, saturation, color curve and lighting, all very easily done, will make your images "pop" a little more. There are several nice diy articles in this forum. Depending on what you're shooting, a high quality tripod and ballhead might be a better next step. Still, if you have video in mind, then you'll need a camera upgrade. You might start by looking at the video forum here.

Having seen a few "academic" images, many are absolutely pathetic. I'm not talking about your images, which I haven't seen, but just in general. If you're typical in your photography skills to your academic compatriots, then stepping up you skills just a knotch or two would be a great service. Roll around in the nature images here and at photo.net and even the better stuff on Flickr and you'll appreciate the potential. I think that the better your images are, the more inspired your students will be.

Dave

[Stan Cunningham]

Thanks David, Where would you suggest I post a series or 3 for critiques?
I have some on http://stanssite.smugmug.com/ which are a mixture of my daughter's sports photos, my "fishing article" photos, some that I like, and then many for my students. Another on my list to find a good website for posting photos that I'm proud of for possible sale, but I'm not expecting a great commerce inflow so cost would be a concern.

Also, another thing I just did not understand was the comment that the f4 17-40 was fine for a cropped sensor like the 7D, but not a ff like the 5D.
Can some one explain that to me?
Thanks

[David Stephens]

Thanks David, Where would you suggest I post a series or 3 for critiques?
I have some on http://stanssite.smugmug.com/ which are a mixture of my daughter's sports photos, my "fishing article" photos, some that I like, and then many for my students. Another on my list to find a good website for posting photos that I'm proud of for possible sale, but I'm not expecting a great commerce inflow so cost would be a concern.

Also, another thing I just did not understand was the comment that the f4 17-40 was fine for a cropped sensor like the 7D, but not a ff like the 5D.
Can some one explain that to me?
Thanks

Stan, the "Eager to Learn" Forum is fantastic. Post one at a time and pick two or three of your favorites. One general observation is that you tend to underexpose. In lots of those situations you needed +1EV or maybe even +2EV when there's no risk of blowing out whites. The sensor reacts very differently than film, particularly slides, so you have to approach the capture differently if you want to get the most feather detail possible. There are some great tutorials here and some recommended books that address the subject very well.

That's a lot to roll around in, but you'll get it in a matter of just a few weeks. You're ready for the Eager to Learn right now. You get to places with good subjects and you're already doing a much better job than average of capturing what you see. This site will help you improve a few notches quickly.

What was being discussed about the 17-40mm is that it's kind of soft and distorted at the edges on a full frame camera, like the 5D2. A crop sensor camera, like your 50D, doesn't use the edges and corners of that lens and uses only the central area of the lens; therefore, the "bad" performance of the lens doesn't come into play. However, on a crop-sensor camera it's FOV is only equivalent to 27mm on a FF camera. (Assuming a 1.6 crop, like on a 7D).

You didn't mention your lenses, but looking at your stream I see a balance between birds, mammals and scenics. Would you be willing to carry around two bodies, like I and some others do? If not, then get the 7D with some high quality lenses, including a wide-angle. The video controls on the 7D are a little more intuitive and a much stronger camera for birds in flight because of its superior AF system, higher burst rate and crop sensor. I keep my 5D2 and carry it around all the time, because I think it's superior for scenics, portraits and interior shots. The 7D, given your interest in video, will be a step forward from your 50D. Also, birds in flight will be a bit easier.

Dave

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, do you have an opinion to share about the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8ZE (EF mount)?

The little bit I've seen of it, the results looks stunning, with great contrast and color, with barrel distortion very low.

I'm seriously thinking of buying it in the next year, after I get my EF 500mm f/4L IS. :cool: Now that I've upgraded my tripod and added an Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead, I'm thinking about working more seriously on my scenics.

Dave

Hey Dave,

No, I never had/looked into that lens, but there are two reviews on the internet that compare the Nikon 14-24 with both Ziess and Contax primes on a 1DSMKIII and conclude that the Nikon is better, since I had he Nikon I didn't explore other options, there is a G-type adapter that you can use to mount it on Canon FF bodies with manual aperture control.

I recently got a 500 and looking into getting the new 70-200 f/2.8 II as well, so I had to let the wide angle lenses go as I no longer take architecture projects, for casual shots and events I use the 24-105, if Canon ever makes a WA zoom as good as the Nikon I will be tempted to add it to my collection though :D

Best

Arash

[David Stephens]

...

I recently got a 500 and looking into getting the new 70-200 f/2.8 II as well, so I had to let the wide angle lenses go as I no longer take architecture projects, for casual shots and events I use the 24-105, if Canon ever makes a WA zoom as good as the Nikon I will be tempted to add it to my collection though :D

Now that's a taste that'll eat into the ol' budget! :cool: I feel your pain.

Dave