Gregory.Rotter wrote:
Steezus, were any filters used? PP??
No filters, it was with the 14-24, I would love to build a filter holder for it in the future though. The shot is a 6xp DRI with some LuciArt applied for sharpening. The colors were pretty crazy to begin with though!
^ I wonder what it would have looked like with a CPL filter. I wouldn't mind seeing some 16mm vs 16mm shots with the 16-35 VR vs the 14-24, with and without a CPL. That's the one thing that's stopping me from being tempted to get the 14-24, the lack of being able to use a cpl :/
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
^ I wonder what it would have looked like with a CPL filter. I wouldn't mind seeing some 16mm vs 16mm shots with the 16-35 VR vs the 14-24, with and without a CPL. That's the one thing that's stopping me from being tempted to get the 14-24, the lack of being able to use a cpl :/
I actually have both lenses right now and was wanting to switch to the 16-35 for easy filter use. So far I have ruined a lot of photos that would have been great due to the CPL creating a completely convoluted sky when used for UWA. It doesn't appear to be as wicked on the DSLR screen when viewing it out in the sun, but it is often un-fixable with my PP skills. The 14-24 is also miles ahead sharper at all apertures in the corners and even the center is a bit better, so I am going to get rid of the 16-35 and keep the 14-24. I will still try and build my own filter holder for the 14-24, but I have learned my lesson with the CPL on wide angle (plus a CPL really softens the edges on a UWA lens.) If my wife ever left me, I would marry my 14-24.
Steezus wrote:
I actually have both lenses right now and was wanting to switch to the 16-35 for easy filter use. So far I have ruined a lot of photos that would have been great due to the CPL creating a completely convoluted sky when used for UWA. It doesn't appear to be as wicked on the DSLR screen when viewing it out in the sun, but it is often un-fixable with my PP skills. The 14-24 is also miles ahead sharper at all apertures in the corners and even the center is a bit better, so I am going to get rid of the 16-35 and keep the 14-24. I will still try and build my own filter holder for the 14-24, but I have learned my lesson with the CPL on wide angle (plus a CPL really softens the edges on a UWA lens.) If my wife ever left me, I would marry my 14-24.
You lost me, did you mean you ruined a lot of photos by not being able to use a cpl on the 14-24 (lost you at the 'convoluted bit'), and that you would have been able to had you had the 16-35, but that the 14-24 is sharper and that's why you're selling the 16-35?
I will let Steezus answer your question Gregory but I have found with the 16-35 a CP ruins the sky in any shot below about 24mm. To top it off, if you put a normal filter on you will have heavy vignetting. If you want to use a filter below about the 28mm range without the heavy vignetting you need a slim filter. If you want to darken the sky, only option is going to be a Grad ND slim....which aren't easy/cheap to find
I went for a Marumi Super DHG CPL 77mm to use on my 24-70. Do you think I would get heavy vignetting with that? Cost me a pretty penny too. I'm assuming I should be all clear to use it at 24mm on the 24-70, but what about on the 16-35 if I decide to go for that lens later on
Unless it is designated as 'SLIM' I would avoid it IF you don't want the vignetting. You can always go about 1mm out and crop if you have no other options and want the CPL effect. If you use a CPL on sky, it will affect it below 24mm. If purposes are not for sky you may be better off with a grad. Besides, the strongest range of the 16-35 I would say is from 18-24, you may be better off with the 24-70 for anything outside that range if you plan on having both
And in regards to sharpness, The 16-35 is extremely sharp from 5.6 on and very sharp wide open at f/4. The range is perfect in my opinion as well. I have shot this lens with 50% accuracy hand-held at 1 sec. The VR is quite extroadinary
Ryan said exactly what I was trying to convey. The 16-35 shots using a CPL on the wide end during blue sky scenes look really messed up. I started using my 16-35 with CPL on a road trip across the US, so I didn't upload to a computer and check the shots on a nice monitor. I ended up with a ton of great scenes that ended up looking like complete sh!#. IMO, fixing sky in post is probably the most difficult thing to do since it is so easy to tell if you altered it. I don't think there is a CPL that exists that will alleviate the problem. I had read about the problem before hand, but thought I could shade the glass with my hand or spin around 3 times, take the shot and the sky would magically be okay.
I better post a shot so I don't feel like I derailed the thread!
Yup it's slim. If and when I do go for it, it's mostly because I can't really justify owning the 14-24, knowing how much use it would probably get. I'd feel less guilty I suppose (I've read about so many people buying it then selling it because of it's extreme focal range, weight etc) As it is, having just bought the 70-200VRII, I am seriously getting itchy about keeping my 70-300VR, but hey. I'm gonna hang on to it till I see reason not to.
Don't suppose you could pm me an example of said 'sh**ness'.
Honestly, the 16-35 and 14-24 weight difference is minuscule. People might think I am crazy, but I would say the 14-24 is more versatile. 24mm is approaching the beauty of the new 24G, which is a site to behold, plus the wide end cannot be imitated by 16mm shots stitched together.
What does the MP bit mean?
