Film_Ruled
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.25 #11 · 'Master' EF 1635mm f/2.8L II USM Thread | |
gazzajagman wrote:
Film_Ruled....No I don't have a copy of this new lens. With all the forum hype that's been occuring concearning this lens, I was hoping for better results.
You really ought to get one and test it your self, the internet is not a very good gauge of how things are in the real world.
For me, and I make a really good chunk of my income from landscapes, this new lens is about as good as we are going to get from a ultra-wide zoom that is holding 2.8 throughout the range. There is not going to ever be a single ultra-wide zoom on this planet that will be perfect wide open across the range, ever. If Canon were to make a 16-24 3.5 aspheric, you might have your dream lens, but this is a compromise lens made to fill a broad need, not a specific one like landscapes.
In fact, you are going to be hard pressed to even find a prime wider than 20mm that will be tack in the corners even a couple stops down from wide open. The CZ Distagon 21mm 2.8 achieves the results is does due to it's optical design...which makes the lens *huge* compared to say, the Nikon 20mm 2.8 AIS.
As far as sealing not being good for landscapes shooters? I beg to differ. Some of my best selling images are in really remote areas and in very foul or about to get foul weather.
By the way, I much prefer other methods for landscape work. If I am even using digital, which for most of it I am not, I use either my 24mm T/S or my 24mm 1.4 over the zoom for niche reasons. If I am going to go as wide as 16-20mm, I don't even bother with digital and instead, use the 30mm 5.6 aspheric ( equal to 17mm ) on my Hasselblad XPan with Astia 100, my Fuji GSW690III or a 4x5. Any one of those will blow the doors clean off any digital for landscape work.
The bottom line is I have the lens, do this full time, know what my realistic expectations are of the new Canon lens and see quite an improvement in the overall image quality.
Just for kicks, I went out and shot a few frames in my backyard at both 16 & 20MM. I shot at 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.0 and 16.0.
At 16mm, the lens cleaned up well on blades of grass in the corners by F 8.0
At 20mm, they cleaned up by F 8.0.
This is what *I* just found, not what I read on some forum.
Bro, that is the best you are going to get from a 2.8 ultra-wide zoom, period.
Enjoy your Tamron, but please don't go knocking this lens until you try it with in ALL of it's intended uses.
That is what amateurs on the internet do.......you don't want to be one of those, do you? 
Edited by Film_Ruled on Apr 02, 2007 at 10:21 PM GMT
|
