>>IMO<<
16-35mm is only good for indoor wide angle and low light shots (church), otherwise for landscapes you'll never need faster than f/4
that's why I got the 17-40mm f/4
anorphirith,
now that you mention Church. Yes, the wide end would made nice pics of the whole church view.
If i stay at the back of the church, shooting at 16mm, f2.8 of the whole church, do the pics have enough dof (since most of the fov is at infinity)?
Don't have any pics available, but IMHO the 16-35 excels at indoor events on a 1.3 crop camera. That is its first line of duty for me. The fact that it can do landscapes, cityscapes and architecture as well is a plus but not a deciding factor as the 17-40 can do this equally well.
Until a lens comes out that beats the holy hell out of my f/2.8 trinity, I won't be selling any of them. Of my 3 zooms, my 16-35 is my least used, but when it gets the shot, I remember why I spent 954 after tax on it used (Mk1)
Shane,
That third shot in the cornfield is a beauty. Nice eye. To the OP, I had a 17-40 and sold it planning on getting the 16-35 but haven't gotten it done yet. Two reasons the exchange, the extra stop gets you all sorts of possibilities one of which Shane has illustrated above. Second, wide angle /= landscape. It also means wider, broader view. One more millimeter of width is quite significant down on this end. I'm still looking for a used one. They are hard to find.
Thanks. Yes, #1 is one of my all-time favorites. I used only 1 support light (continuous), a 600-watt Lowell with a gel. The rest is all ambient plus the lighting in the rooms (mostly tungsten) ... and a decent amount of post-processing of course. Camera is the 1Ds II for that one; 5D Mark 1 for the others (I think).
veroman wrote:
Thanks. Yes, #1 is one of my all-time favorites. I used only 1 support light (continuous), a 600-watt Lowell with a gel. The rest is all ambient plus the lighting in the rooms (mostly tungsten) ... and a decent amount of post-processing of course. Camera is the 1Ds II for that one; 5D Mark 1 for the others (I think).
16-35 is on my list also. You needed to correct for lens distortion on these didn't you?
veroman wrote:
Thanks. Yes, #1 is one of my all-time favorites. I used only 1 support light (continuous), a 600-watt Lowell with a gel. The rest is all ambient plus the lighting in the rooms (mostly tungsten) ... and a decent amount of post-processing of course. Camera is the 1Ds II for that one; 5D Mark 1 for the others (I think).
tell wrote:
16-35 is on my list also. You needed to correct for lens distortion on these didn't you?
If you're referring to my images, no. My copy has very low distortion. It also went through Canon's service department for critical adjusting and calibration at one point. When it came back to me it was like a new, different, better lens than I had before sending it in. Really ... night and day difference. They did a great job (Jamesburg, NJ facility).
The only lens in my arsenal that I have to seriously correct for barrel distortion is my 24-105. When I use it for interior work (which I often do), I generally don't shoot it any wider than 35-40mm.
Wow. I'm amazed at the lack of distortion. The verticals are just about perfectly straight from edge to edge. The little bit of tilt there is looks natural. Thanks for sharing.
Tell
veroman wrote:
If you're referring to my images, no. My copy has very low distortion. It also went through Canon's service department for critical adjusting and calibration at one point. When it came back to me it was like a new, different, better lens than I had before sending it in. Really ... night and day difference. They did a great job (Jamesburg, NJ facility).
The only lens in my arsenal that I have to seriously correct for barrel distortion is my 24-105. When I use it for interior work (which I often do), I generally don't shoot it any wider than 35-40mm.
tell wrote:
Wow. I'm amazed at the lack of distortion. The verticals are just about perfectly straight from edge to edge. The little bit of tilt there is looks natural. Thanks for sharing.
Tell
You're welcome. Forgot to mention: my 16-35 is the Mark 1. Never found a need to go to the Mark II, though I imagine there's an improvement at the extreme borders.
