November 24, 2017, 09:10:10 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM  (Read 123131 times)

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #135 on: June 26, 2017, 11:41:46 PM »
Out of camera JPEG (except for downsizing and watermark). I probably need to lighten it.

This is from my first trip with newly acquired used version of 17-40. I have never used wider than 24mm but wanted this for a trip to Northern Arizona and found one at Adorama for 459. I am very pleased with the results. Yes reports say the 16-35 f4L IS is sharper in corners and if I had the money I would have gotten it. Really I don't even have the money for this one, but I decided if I found one under 500 I would go for it.

This shot is at 21mm, f9 for 2 seconds, ISO 400 on a 5D3.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #135 on: June 26, 2017, 11:41:46 PM »

kaihp

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 782
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #136 on: June 27, 2017, 05:59:06 AM »
Out of camera JPEG (except for downsizing and watermark). I probably need to lighten it.

This is from my first trip with newly acquired used version of 17-40. I have never used wider than 24mm but wanted this for a trip to Northern Arizona and found one at Adorama for 459. I am very pleased with the results. Yes reports say the 16-35 f4L IS is sharper in corners and if I had the money I would have gotten it. Really I don't even have the money for this one, but I decided if I found one under 500 I would go for it.

This shot is at 21mm, f9 for 2 seconds, ISO 400 on a 5D3.

Looks great. I like the dark look of the photo, so I wouldn't lighten it much (if at all).

The 17-40L was my first lens when I changed to digital and it served me well for a very long time on my APS-C bodies.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5773
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #137 on: June 27, 2017, 09:44:25 AM »
Out of camera JPEG (except for downsizing and watermark). I probably need to lighten it.

This is from my first trip with newly acquired used version of 17-40. I have never used wider than 24mm but wanted this for a trip to Northern Arizona and found one at Adorama for 459. I am very pleased with the results. Yes reports say the 16-35 f4L IS is sharper in corners and if I had the money I would have gotten it. Really I don't even have the money for this one, but I decided if I found one under 500 I would go for it.

This shot is at 21mm, f9 for 2 seconds, ISO 400 on a 5D3.

Nice shot, thanks for posting. 

Any reason why the lens doesn't render the street lights into sun stars?  f/9 should be stopped down enough to do that, so I'm perplexed. 

- A

Click

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • *
  • Posts: 9476
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #138 on: June 27, 2017, 10:32:32 AM »
Looks great. I like the dark look of the photo, so I wouldn't lighten it much (if at all).

+1

Nice shot, MrFotoFool.  :)

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #139 on: June 27, 2017, 11:03:03 AM »
@ ahsanford - I don't think f9 is a small enough aperture for the starburst effect. Typically (as I understand it) you need f22. Maybe f16 is enough, but apertures larger than that do not work in my limited experience.

I do not know if focal length has any effect or not, meaning I don't know if it is harder to get with wider angle lenses. Perhaps someone reading this has the answer?

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5773
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #140 on: June 27, 2017, 11:48:06 AM »
@ ahsanford - I don't think f9 is a small enough aperture for the starburst effect. Typically (as I understand it) you need f22. Maybe f16 is enough, but apertures larger than that do not work in my limited experience.

I do not know if focal length has any effect or not, meaning I don't know if it is harder to get with wider angle lenses. Perhaps someone reading this has the answer?

Certainly, that effect pops more when you stop it down further, but you should see something sunstar wise at f/9, one would think.  Attached are two 24mm FF shots at f/8 (handheld, 1/250s) and f/13 (a solid 25s on a tripod) respectively -- no trouble with stars on the 24-70 f/4L IS, and my experience with the 16-35 f/4L IS has been similar.

Sorry to nitpick a lens detail like that.  I'm a rank amateur at this, so I must be missing something else -- perhaps proximity to the lighting itself?  Both of my shots the lighting is quite a ways off, whereas you were within a block of your lighting in Winslow there.

- A
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 11:50:19 AM by ahsanford »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21778
Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #141 on: June 27, 2017, 11:50:42 AM »
@ ahsanford - I don't think f9 is a small enough aperture for the starburst effect. Typically (as I understand it) you need f22. Maybe f16 is enough, but apertures larger than that do not work in my limited experience.

I do not know if focal length has any effect or not, meaning I don't know if it is harder to get with wider angle lenses. Perhaps someone reading this has the answer?

There are very faint and diffuse starbursts in the 'Standin on a Corner' shot.  Those areas of the image are a bit soft, there may be some mist in the air, and with the light sources OOF, that also mitigates the starburst effect.

You certainly don't need f/16 or narrower for the effect, nor do ultrawide angles preclude it.  Below are 14mm f/11 and 17mm f/8.

Under L'Arc

EOS 1D X, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, 2 s, f/11, ISO 100

Hôtel de ville de Tours

EOS 1D X, TS-E 17mm f/4L, 8s, f/8, ISO 100

And a 100% crop of the second one below.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« Reply #141 on: June 27, 2017, 11:50:42 AM »