October 20, 2014, 01:07:02 AM

Author Topic: 17-40 Replacement  (Read 4857 times)

BozillaNZ

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2013, 01:52:11 AM »
When you do landscape shots, do you manually focus to infinity then stop down to f16? If you have never done it, try it. You will be surprised by how much the border and corner improves.

Reason? Canon's UWA zooms all suffer from severe field curvature. I have used all 4 of them: 17-40 f4, 17-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 I and II, they all exhibit this. The field curves inward from center to corner, pretty heavily.

If you let the AF focus on center frame, the corner will be very out of focus. However if you manually focus to infinity, then corner focus plane will at least be pushed further and won't be so out of focus anymore.
Look ma, me cameraz can push shadow 10 stoops w/o noizes, OMGWTFBBQChickenwingHaxorz!!!11
www.flickr.com/photos/bozillanz/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2013, 01:52:11 AM »

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2013, 04:28:35 AM »
I use manual live view focus, and normally F11. I think the 17-40 is a good lens, but i want outstanding IQ, thats the reason.

I know the 24 TSE II is very sharp, and the tilt/shift capability is a plus, but i`ve heard that the colors and microcontrast of the Zeiss are remarkable and really make a difference.
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2013, 04:44:20 AM »
I thought the 17-40 was a really good lens... Until I got the 24-70 mk2. I think of it as very capable now but it doesn't have the X factor of the 24-70 mk2- which I suspect is not dissimilar to the Zeiss 21...

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8851
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2013, 10:37:22 AM »
The 17-40 can be good, but you have to stop down.  Use it at 24-28mm and f/11 for good edge to edge sharpness.  That's the case with other lenses as well (except Tilt- shift).  Use it at f/11 - f/16 depending on the depth of field you need.
 
After f/11, all lenses are basically the same, because diffraction becomes the limiting factor, so don't expect a expensive lens to be noticeably better at f/16.   Check the MTF charts at the test sites, the results start to equalize at f/8, by f/11 they are similar, and by f/16 they will be identical.
 
The beauty of a TS-E is that you can get a greater depth of field without stopping down so far, which means better results by using the optimum aperture.  You can use that 17mm TS-e at f/8 or even a little wider aperture.
 
In any event, the point is that when you are doing landscape, you must stop down to get depth of field, and then spending $$$$ additional only gives a tiny bit of improvement, or virtually none at f/16.
 
17-40mm

 
Zeiss 21mm
 

 
Canon 24mm TS-E

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2013, 03:17:01 PM »
Thanks, thats very interesting.
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 Replacement
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2013, 03:17:01 PM »