Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era
  
 
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


Pixel Perfect wrote:
I keep reading this, yet in changing from 5D to 5D II I saw no change in corner performance. If the corners are good on one they should be good on the other.


So by that reasoning a lens that appears sharp on a 1MP camera would be just as good on a Nikon D800?

There has been much discussion about a sensor outresolving a lens. I assumed that this was less of a factor on the lower resolution 5D, but I suppose the difference between the 5D and 5D2 could be so small as to have no effect on images. Thanks for the input on the these particular cameras.

When I made the jump from my 40D to a 7D, I noticed the lack of sharpness on some of my lenses, which I initially attributed to a soft sensor. I falsely assumed this to be the case with other increases in pixel density as well.

I agree that I perceived lack of corner sharpness can be attributed to the distortion, as well as the vignetting on the 17-40.



Aug 15, 2012 at 11:06 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


Gunzorro wrote:
Shopchenko -- That would be an awesome UWA shoot-out! Canon 17-40L & 16-35L, Sigma 12-24 and Tokina 16-28! Probably the four most discussed UWA lenses for Canon full frame.


How about an adapted Nikon 14-24 thrown in there as well?



Aug 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


surf monkey wrote:
So by that reasoning a lens that appears sharp on a 1MP camera would be just as good on a Nikon D800?



Not sure what universe that would be called logic

Maybe the 17-40L would fall apart on a 36MP camera, but we'll never know as Canon doesn't make one. It does just fine on the 5D II/III, which are only about 30% more res than a 5D; hardly a going to stress the lens much more.



Aug 15, 2012 at 11:17 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


surf monkey wrote:
So by that reasoning a lens that appears sharp on a 1MP camera would be just as good on a Nikon D800?


Offering an absurdity as a response doesn't really get at the actual issue, does it?

Since the 17-40 (to use an example) can do a fine job of producing fine art prints at 20" x 30" (and some might argue for even a bit larger), eschewing this lens for reasons of "sharpness" on the 5D3 and not on the 5D is a debatable notion, to say the least - even more so in that the lens has been used with great success by quite a few folks shooting the 5D2.

As I mentioned earlier - and perhaps more than once - you cannot generalize about the sharpness of the 16-35 and the 17-40 without getting a bit more specific about where each lens has its strengths. The virtues of the 16-35 are that it has f/2.8, and that it is "better" in the corners than the 17-40 at the largest apertures, making it a fine lens for those whose primary need is to shoot low light, hand-held, ultra-wide photography.

While getting it if that sort of shooting is what you do makes a lot of sense, getting it to do, say, landscape photography makes little or no sense at all - at least if your approach to landscape is to use the tremendous DOF on the ultra wide, shooting it from the tripod, and typically stopping the lens down. Stopped down, the 17-40 produces excellent image quality across the frame, is more resistant to flare than the 16-35, and uses the more standard 77mm filter thread diameter rather than the larger and slightly unusual 82mm filters. In some tests it appears to produce slightly (but perhaps insignificantly) better center resolution in some situations. It is also a bit smaller and lighter and it costs less.

Both are excellent lenses, and both can produce fine image quality. However, each has its pluses and minuses - so rather than pronouncing one better than the other, it makes a lot more sense to compare both of these fine lenses objectively against your own shooting style and needs. (And if you shoot a cropped sensor body, don't rush out and get either of these just because they have red rings and the sacred letter "L." Looked at objectively, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is an all-around better choice among such lenses for most folks looking for a high quality lens for a cropped sensor body with this range of features.)

And no need to start our own "shoot out" of dubious reliability here. There are plenty of test reports and reviews available that we can look to.

Dan



Aug 15, 2012 at 11:26 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


Pixel Perfect wrote:
I keep reading this, yet in changing from 5D to 5D II I saw no change in corner performance. If the corners are good on one they should be good on the other.

surf monkey wrote:
So by that reasoning a lens that appears sharp on a 1MP camera would be just as good on a Nikon D800?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not sure what universe that would be called logic

Maybe the 17-40L would fall apart on a 36MP camera, but we'll never know as Canon doesn't make one. It does just fine on the 5D II/III, which are only about 30% more res than a 5D; hardly a going to stress the lens much more.


You guys need to relax. Did you not see the smiley face. I guess I'll add "just kidding" next time.
And I agreed with everything you said, so I don't see the point of tearing down my comments.



Aug 16, 2012 at 03:31 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


surf monkey wrote:
You guys need to relax. Did you not see the smiley face. I guess I'll add "just kidding" next time.
And I agreed with everything you said, so I don't see the point of tearing down my comments.


You may have been joking, but after participating in these forums for some time, I've seen people propose crazier stuff and accompany with smileys. ;-)



Aug 16, 2012 at 04:58 AM
halie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


I mostly like to take hand held landscape shots from cliff tops in low light focussed on infinity with an emphasis on corner subjects, sounds like the f/2.8 is perfect.


Aug 16, 2012 at 04:46 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


halie wrote:
I mostly like to take hand held landscape shots from cliff tops in low light focussed on infinity with an emphasis on corner subjects, sounds like the f/2.8 is perfect.


I think that one needed a smiley... ;-)

My preference is to make indoor handheld portraits in low light at f/16 with exposure times of at least 10 seconds...



Aug 16, 2012 at 04:48 PM
halie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Ultra-wide zooms in the 5D-III era


gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that one needed a smiley... ;-)

My preference is to make indoor handheld portraits in low light at f/16 with exposure times of at least 10 seconds...




Aug 16, 2012 at 05:20 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password