14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?

[nightbreath]

Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..

Colour and contrast are non issues, they just don't factor into even a semi competent digital workflow.

Really? ??? Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?
I feel that what you say doesn't work for me. 17-40 and its "semi-competent" colors is an example

 

[privatebydesign]

Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..

Colour and contrast are non issues, they just don't factor into even a semi competent digital workflow.

Really? ??? Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?
I feel that what you say doesn't work for me. 17-40 and its "semi-competent" colors is an example

I am surprised that a photographer of your caliber is still hooked up on such irrelevancies. A competent digital workflow has made it easy to normalise output across not only lenses but manufacturers too. Wedding shooters who do still prioritise the consistency of the dress colour throughout an album (a rarity now it seems) can easily have second shooters using different manufacturers now, that used to cause all sorts of problems.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying gear doesn't matter, that is a stupid and naive position to take, but specifically with regards lens colour and contrast, they are so easily adjusted and normalised nowadays I stand by my comments.

As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.

 

[nightbreath]

As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.

I'm a seasoned photographer. From my point of view images that don't have middle shadows (I have looked through their portfolio) do not conform the "semi-competent" workflow expected results

 

[privatebydesign]

As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.

I'm a seasoned photographer. From my point of view images that don't have middle shadows (I have looked through their portfolio) do not conform the "semi-competent" workflow expected results

You are joking right?

Brooke Shaden's images look exactly how she wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy (she is one of only two women photographers to work for Playboy) and with a client list like this http://loufreeman.com/about/ I respect their collective opinion of her work a bit more than yours. Sure you have some great images, you are not an industry recognised authority with a client list like that, neither am I.

I do know that I can get my second shooters Nikon D3 with his 50 f1.8 (or even his POS 70-300!) to shoot images with indistinguishable colour and contrast characteristics to my 1Ds MkIII and 100 L Macro.

 

[nightbreath]

Brooke Shaden's images look exactly how she wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy...

I understand this. But I don't feel that recognition and artwork are tightly connected. And again — this is how I feel, not what people would say.

It seems there's a gap between two of us that makes understanding more complex. Let me exaggerate what I feel to make things clear:

I don't like this photo...

... because of:
- flat light;
- boring color harmony;
- lack of expression/emphasis;
- lack of veracity (I don't believe these people really do whatever they do, i.e. I see that they pose).

And the opposite to what we've just looked at is:

Why?
- good light;
- colors touch my feelings;
- readable emphasis;
- I 100% believe that girl; I don't even need to see her face, my imagination tells the story eyes can't see.

Another example. I don't like this photo...

... because of artificiality (lack of uniformity in lighting, shades, colors... you can even find duplicated sticks and see clouds from a sunny day) - my perception detects these things automatically without even noticing what exactly is wrong.

And the opposite is...

... because of consistency in what my eyes see.

My confidence is supported by my experience. The photos you have referenced to are similar to what I did one-two-three years before. And they suffered from the same issues mentioned above (and many-many others, by the way).

So the point is... photography (for me) is a mix of who you are and what you have (equipment, skills, story, etc.), so every small thing counts. It's all about content and the way you reproduce it. That's why, with all the small things floating in my mind, I have asked about color and contrast, because it works in conjunction with my current "equipment, skills, story..." mix

 

[Vossie]

..

Nice examples and well underbuilt explanation; I fully agree with your analysis.

 

[privatebydesign]

Not liking something is completely different from not being able to replicate it.

Being able to replicate something with exactly the same equipment is different from being able to create the same image with different equipment.

Being able to distinguish between images based solely on equipment used specifically with regards lens colour and contrast is something entirely different again, it is not connected to artist interpretation, likes or dislikes, they are empirically measurable metrics.

Anybody with a competent digital workflow can virtually eliminate individual lens "colour and contrast" as decision making factors in their photography process.

I only linked to those two photographers as examples to counter your comment "Really? ??? Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?" There are thousands of people creating professional looking images with modest equipment, whether you, or I, like or dislike their output is not material.

 

[nightbreath]

I should've been more specific when saying "professional" It seems I still cannot find a proper word to describe that kind of quality. I wanted to define somebody who's at the highest possible rung of every photography aspect.

For example, I have experienced a lot of different shooting environments and conditions. And sometimes a very similar set of equipment (same lens, flash, settings and subject; camera body is the only variable) gives different picture (i.e. lack of color variability).

Do know that each color `lives` in a specific to that color lightness levels? Sample showing yellow color specificity is attached, variability and saturation are the most interesting characteristics. So when it comes to post-processing and there's something you don't have in your original file, it won't magically appear there.

A theoretic example (straight out of my head): due to cheap electronics used in a camera it adds green tint to light green colors (by making them greener) and purple tint to dark green colors (by making them opposite to green). So the question is: would you even try making your colors look different from what your camera could achieve? What if we compare different camera manufacturers? Different sensor formats? Different lenses?..

 

[CarlTN]

For the money, to me the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 looks hard to beat...especially a slightly used copy for under $1k. Obviously it's only a manual focus lens, but at least it can set aperture and confirm focus.

If I were about to travel to all the beautiful parks I want to visit (unfortunately I'm not doing that yet...), it seems to me that the best camera and lens...would be the above Zeiss mounted to a Nikon D800E. Am I wrong to think this? Just seems 18mm is the ideal wide angle focal length, because it still doesn't have a huge amount of rectilinear projection "distortion", as have the lenses around 15mm and wider. Of course the future high megapixel Canon body will very likely be as good or better re/IQ than the D800E, but I bet that Canon will cost quite a bit more than the Nikon. The color and contrast of that 18mm Zeiss glass, just cannot be denied...and that one is extremely affordable. It might be slightly softer than the 21mm Distagon and the 15mm, but not enough to avoid using it...from the sample shots I've seen. At 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the other two Zeiss (and the Canon 14mm f/2.8 ii), seems like an awesome value to me.

 

[privatebydesign]

Nightbreath,

You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.

CarlTN,

I would say you are wrong, I would say a 6D and a TS-E 24 MkII would serve you much better than a D800E and an 18mm Ziess, if you really didn't want to stitch, and there is no reason not to in parks photography, the 6D and TS-E 17 probably actually resolve very similar amounts as the D800 and Ziess but the TS-E gives you much more landscape functionality.

 

[eml58]

I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus), and I just added the Wonderpana Filter Holder from Fotodiox to it, so now I can use my Lee Filters, so it's become even more usable.

Only real issue with the Zeiss is it cant be used with Filters, at least I cant work out how it could be done, but it has excellent IQ. I mostly now use the Canon 14 & 16-35 for my Underwater Imaging where I find the small issues that both Lenses seem to have are not so prominent.

 

[CarlTN]

Nightbreath,

You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.

CarlTN,

I would say you are wrong, I would say a 6D and a TS-E 24 MkII would serve you much better than a D800E and an 18mm Ziess, if you really didn't want to stitch, and there is no reason not to in parks photography, the 6D and TS-E 17 probably actually resolve very similar amounts as the D800 and Ziess but the TS-E gives you much more landscape functionality.

Thanks for the advice. The reason not to "always stitch", is because it takes extra time. I find myself always short on time when I'm doing landscape photography, visiting parks. Why? Because it's hours of driving and a few minutes of shooting (unless I camp in one park...but then, that means less time visiting other parts of the park, or other parks). Of course I would also want to do some pano stitches, but seems like the combo I mention would be a handy thing.

 

[CarlTN]

Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much. Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?

Two photos attached:
Strong points
- Sharpness (especially no coma (important for star shots) and little CA) - apparently best in class
- Silky focusing

Weak points:
- Manual everything (but you knew that)
- Not sure how robust it is, e.g. mount attached by just three screws. My focusing ring partially seized on me during a trip to Europe, effectively making the lens unusuable other than at infinity. I don'tknow what happened, i.e. I didn't drop it. It was replaced under warranty.

Non-point:
- Distortion. Quite a few gripes about distortion but I find that LR correction to be excellent with little loss of image area.

Nice shots! The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 I recently bought, has coma in the outer third of the field at wide aperture, but I find it only shows strongly on the brightest stars. Would be simple enough to clone the coma out.

 

[nightbreath]

You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.

We definitely speak different languages. It seems that your vision and my vision are different. And even taking into account all you said, it doesn't work for me. I would pay twice for 10% win in initial IQ.

 

[privatebydesign]

You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.

We definitely speak different languages. It seems that your vision and my vision are different. And even taking into account all you said, it doesn't work for me. I would pay twice for 10% win in initial IQ.

Just because you choose not to learn something doesn't mean it is difficult. Saying "it doesn't work for [you ]" doesn't mean it doesn't work. This is not about "vision", as in an artistic idea, this is about vision, as in what you actually see with regards colour, tone and brightness.

Colour, tone and contrast are not intrinsic IQ characteristics in a digital workflow, contrast, tone and colour response curves are 100% adjustable in a RAW file with zero negative effects, and normalising can be done automatically. Telling a display to show a pixel at 187,35,211 rather than display that same pixel at 183,35,207 has no detrimental effect on image quality. That is all profiling is doing, telling pixels how to be displayed when compared to a reference, if you do that with different brands of camera or lens they all display the same.

I paid $3,500 for a 300mm f2.8 lens instead of $1,200 for an f4 version because to me that one stop, an intrinsic characteristic of the lens, is worth the money. Light gathering capability can not be changed in post, neither can shutter speed. That is not true of colour, tone and contrast, they are easily changed, easily profiled, and easily normailised in a competent digital workflow.

 

[AmbientLight]

I don't understand the argument for ignoring differences in color rendering. It should be obvious that different quality lenses do render color differently.

If someone always heavily post-processes whatever has been shot, that may be a negligible difference as that photographer might risk losing some tonal quality anyway, but whenever you go for a specific look and its just gone, if your lens isn't able to capture all the nuances out there, you won't easily get that back in post processing. Wouldn't this be wasting your time?

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't understand the argument for ignoring differences in color rendering. It should be obvious that different quality lenses do render color differently.

If someone always heavily post-processes whatever has been shot, that may be a negligible difference as that photographer might risk losing some tonal quality anyway, but whenever you go for a specific look and its just gone, if your lens isn't able to capture all the nuances out there, you won't easily get that back in post processing. Wouldn't this be wasting your time?

The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.

When I used to shoot weddings on film colour correcting was out of my hands, lens colour was much more important and having a second shooter using a different camera and lens system was fraught with best colour management practice issues, it was a nightmare if you strove for consistent dress colour throughout an album.

Now, with a solid and competent digital workflow all camera and lens colour and contrast variability is so easily normalised with zero hit in IQ that it should play zero roll in choosing lenses.

Every lens out there, certainly any that natively fit on an EF mount, is more than capable of catching tone and colour nuances, due to the coatings used the effects on those nuances can be large or small, but normalising is one test image and one click away.

Flower photography is well known to have severe colour issues, try doing any kind of serious flower photography without camera profiles and you will see, it isn't the quality of the lens you use, it is the quality of your workflow that maintains accurate colour and tonality (again, not an artistic point but a measurable technical point).

Now we all know we can have technically sound but very boring images, that goes without saying, we can also have striking images without technical knowledge; but if we are to master our craft we need a good balance of the two.

I have listened to so many instructors preach on about "lens compression" I die a little inside each time I hear it, there is no such thing as lens compression, the effect they are talking about is perspective, plain and simple. They shouldn't be teaching that subject. Same with lens colour and contrast, nowadays those two are complete non issues.

Obviously there are important differences between lenses and software can't overcome things like lower resolution, slower AF, no AF, no IS, less light gathering (slower apertures), heavy distortion and very strong aberrations (small adjustments are easy but larger ones increase any IQ hit) so I am not advocating that any lens can do any job. All I am saying is the oft touted colour and contrast characteristics of a lens are practically immaterial now.

 

[Eldar]

I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus)

+1
I had the 14 and sold it. I have kept the 16-35 II, but I hardly ever use it. Last week I bought the 17 TS-E and played with it over the weekend. What a lens!! I have not looked at the filter solutions yet, but it seems there are alternatives that´s working.

 

[privatebydesign]

I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus)

+1
I had the 14 and sold it. I have kept the 16-35 II, but I hardly ever use it. Last week I bought the 17 TS-E and played with it over the weekend. What a lens!! I have not looked at the filter solutions yet, but it seems there are alternatives that´s working.

Eldar, like eml58 I recently got the Fotodiox Wonderpana. It is very well made and the perfect solution for round filter use, I only got the CPL as that was all I really missed. The complimentary additional 66 "ears" for grad filter use are not a good design, you can't rotate them on the Wonderpana so have limited functionality. BUT Fotodiox just, within the last couple of days, announced a rotation monut for the 66 ears, if you need grad filter use I'd hold off until they also bring those to market for the 17, at the moment they only make them for the Nikon 14-24.

The big advantage of the Wonderpana over the much touted Lee system and home made work arounds is the Wonderpana allows full movements without vignetting.

 

[nightbreath]

The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.

It seems we're still on different pages. I have mentioned "vision", because I see difference in the original file. I have attached an example. Let me attach a sample photo later

It would be great if you could add sample photos too.