Opinion please and talk about new gen 17-40L.

I shot this picture this morning in the Lake District UK. These trees by the side of Lake Derwent have had all the pebbles washed away from their roots but they seem to have a lower set of roots which enable the trees to flourish. This shot was taken just after dawn when the air was sparklingly clear.

It was the first time I'd shot my new 17-40L for landscape (my previous one was stolen mid wedding last month) and as reported on the 16-9.com website, it's a lot lot better than the previous generation. The corners are still not as good as the center but about as good as the center was on my old lens! At f8 the sharpness is really really good through to f16 when it starts to go downhill for resolution and f22 is noticeably diffraction limited. That said at 17mm on FF who needs f22!

Aside from the truly horrible downsizing and jpeging (PS is really bad at downsizing information rich pics like this), I'm not sure if this picture works. At smaller sizes I'm sure it doesn't, it's just too busy, but I think that in a larger print (16X12"+) it could work. Any opinions on the pic in general?

http://www.studio-beni.net/roots.jpg

Incidentally, here is the shot I took at dawn about 1/2 and hour before the above pic. Not sure if it's a bit too velvia looking at present or whether a boat house is actually interesting at all (a stately home would have worked much better!) but I think it works. Again, apologies for the horrible jpg compression.

http://www.studio-beni.net/keswick.jpg

Ben,

Your photo speaks to me. My eyes wander up the beach and then carefully tread around the roots and rocks along the way. There's a lot going on here: healthy foliage and roots, earth and water, foreground and background. All the elements work harmoniously.

Hi Ben,

The colors of the background are delightful. This is a great landscape lens. Have you used the sigma 12-24? I'd wonder what you would think of it for your work.

Does the new 17-40 have a new designation, like Mark II, or else how does one recognize it is the new version?

Asher

Hah, the coloured pic was shot with the 70-200 f4L IS! There is no official new 17-40L, canon seems to have tightened up the QC on this lens on the quiet. This is my third copy (sold one, one stolen) and it's far superior.

BTW Asher, I purposely didn't add either image to the post as they are too big for a 1024X768 screen res which is what I and many are running.

Hi Ben, I'll check the percentages of people with that resolution!

Asher

Ben Rubinstein said:

Hah, the coloured pic was shot with the 70-200 f4L IS! There is no official new 17-40L, canon seems to have tightened up the QC on this lens on the quiet. This is my third copy (sold one, one stolen) and it's far superior.

Click to expand...

Ben Rubinstein said:

BTW Asher, I purposely didn't add either image to the post as they are too big for a 1024X768 screen res which is what I and many are running.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at your picture on an Apple 15" LCD monitor with 1024x768 resolution and it fits perfectly! In fact one could add a 1/2"!

BTW, have you tried the Sigma `12-24? I have the 24-105 IS and am interested in going wider.

Asher

I very very rarely use a WA for my landscape work, I can think of 5 pictures in total that have a focal length wider than 35mm and only two including the above that used a 17mm. It comes in handy for when I want to express a scene in a certain way but I'm not a fan of WA landscapes in general. Can't imagine what I would do with a focal length wider than 17mm, probably take some very bad photos! More than that, WA's and FF don't really work that well, I can push the above image to a 20X16" just and that's the first time I've said that of a shot taken with a 17-40L, I have one 'Highland Mist' shot with my old 17-40L which I wouldn't print over 18X12", it just isn't sharp enough. The Sigma doesn't have a good rep in general, it's the only one of its kind for FF but that doesn't make it a stellar lens by any means.

Ben Rubinstein said:

I very very rarely use a WA for my landscape work, I can think of 5 pictures in total that have a focal length wider than 35mm and only two including the above that used a 17mm. It comes in handy for when I want to express a scene in a certain way but I'm not a fan of WA landscapes in general. Can't imagine what I would do with a focal length wider than 17mm, probably take some very bad photos! More than that, WA's and FF don't really work that well, I can push the above image to a 20X16" just and that's the first time I've said that of a shot taken with a 17-40L, I have one 'Highland Mist' shot with my old 17-40L which I wouldn't print over 18X12", it just isn't sharp enough. The Sigma doesn't have a good rep in general, it's the only one of its kind for FF but that doesn't make it a stellar lens by any means.

Click to expand...

Ben,

You know I love your work. Part is the choice of location and the mood you set as well as your approach, angles and lighting. Detail is relative as we can move closer or step back. We are used to that. Still, as you point out, wide-angled detail-rich scenes may seem to breakdown faster than narrow-angle scenes as less pixel density is devoted to resolve features such as leaves which we expect to be seen clearly.

I have photographed many scenes for which I need very wide angles, however a 28 mm lens is a great compromize and the 28mm Zeiss Distagon f2.8 is a brilliant performer. It is said to have a slightly curved DOF meaning one can get more of the forground in focus too! This has color advantage for landscape and cam be used (or close to) wide open. Since we are not talking of action here, this lens adds well to the choices of landscape photography with the right lens to body addapter.

There are many cases that wider angles of view are needed as in panoramic views of the London Bridges, The Bay Bridge in San Francisco, The Venice Canals etc. I just turn my 50mm lens or whatever, to portrait and rotate through the optical center of the lens and thereafter, stitch with great results.

Still, I feel that with the right sensor and lens one can go way beyond 16x20, as I have seen Nicolas Claris' shots with his (great copy of the) Sigma 12-24, although I can't specify the exact focal lengths used in each case.

So I think that as sensors improve and using the best Zeiss and Leica or even Nikon or Olympus lenses, it might be worthwhile to re-explore the wider focal lengths again.

Asher

Ben,

Having said all that, I still would love to learn more of the 17-40 as it gives a lot more angle of capture range for landscapes city architecture and interiors.

So if you have more images with coments on how they print, that would be great.

Thanks for sharing your real experience. No review can match that!

Asher

It's as you say Asher, I try to shoot with an emphasis of taking a part of the landscape and using it to express what I have in mind. The two photos where I've used 17mm is the above B&W and this photo.



Personally I don't believe that all encompasing landscapes can express emotion in anywhere near as dynamic a way, wide vistas and digital doesn't really work unless you have a serious digital back, you just can't resolve enough detail to make it work, it just becomes a smooth and rather nothingy picture when printed large.

Hi Ben,

With the beauty of the last shot at 17mm, the lens is justifed already!

Try taking a pictures of the Tower of London without getting other buildings, you'll appreciate this lens! Even with the 24-70 is had to stitch!

Asher

Ben, I love your monochrome image of the trees, the composition and the angle is very interesting and calming. It looks as if you pushed the shadows quite a bit in this image, and I was wondering if it wouldn't look a bit less busy if everything wasn't quite as bright (which makes the image look a little flatter in my opinion - I usually feel my shots look "flat" as soon as I try to push too much dynamic range from an image.).

Regarding composition: Was this taken at 17mm? If so , I guess it would have been a bit more difficult, but I would have tried to frame it to either include the entire bottom-left rock, or exclude both rocks - it's a pity it's a cut off in th emiddle.

However, the cut-off branch at the top I really like, as it is a nice natural frame (boundary) to the top of the image, and it thus emphasises the feeling you must ahve felt, standing there below those trees.

I'm not sure why the one bothers me, while the other does not, but that's just my opinion. Both posted images are generally excellent.

Regarding lenses, my range currently spans from 28mm to 800mm, so I am a bit short (no pun intended) on the wide end. I must say, for landscape, I also generally have never felt the need for extreme wide angle, but there are many cases where I wish I had wider, so maybe later in this year I want to look at getting a good wide angle.

I still have to sort out for myself whether I want a fast prime, or a zoom (I am thinking, for wide angle, a zoom might just be a bit better for my needs) so of course my options are either the 17-40, or the 16-35. I know the latter lens is twice the cost of the former, but I imagine a 35mm f/2.8 will also make a very nice walk-around lens, especially for lower light situations (I am so happy with the noise performance of my camera, even though a f/1.2 or so is very desirable, I could perfectly live with a f/2.8).

However, for most wide-angle shots, one wants maximum depth of field in anyway (no need for f/2.8), so I am considering the 17-40, and then later, say, a 50mm f/1.4 or so (still much cheaper then a single 16-35).

I would thus also be interested to know of your experiences in printing your 17-40 images in large format, or even just seeing 100% versions or crops of some of your beautiful landscapes.

Dawid, I do agree with you about the rocks, problem was that when cropping for a 16X12" I had the choice between having the top brance uncomfortably close to the top or cut the rocks in half. I'm by no means set on a final crop so maybe I'll come back with a different version.

The shot in a mix of two exposures a stop apart as the sky was quite bright compared to the shadows under the trees, too much contrast in the trees seems to lose the impact of the roots, to be honest I need to print to see how the blacks look, on a flat screen (my laptop) I admit it does look flat however well calibrated, one of the reasons I still use a CRT for editing on.

I took this photo lying on the ground looking up at 17mm, it's had a bit of perspective adjustment courtesy of PTLENS so as not to over exaggarate the effect while still giving the wide look I was aiming for. I find that I'm always using this FL shooting from very low down, I guess I need the perspective so that it doesn't look too flat.

Hi Ben,

Sorry for jumping in to the discussion so late. I like all the pictures very much. Contrary to you, I shoot a lot of landscape at the wide end (I have a Sigma 12-24 and a Canon 24-105 F4 L on a 5D). Maybe I should give this a try (i.e. where you are coming from) to see if it will help me improve my resulst.

Re. the first three picture, I like it very much but I humbly think that it would improve if you'd just crop out the parallel dark branch at the top left. It distracts the attention if you ask me.

Regards,

Ben Rubinstein said:

It's as you say Asher, I try to shoot with an emphasis of taking a part of the landscape and using it to express what I have in mind. The two photos where I've used 17mm is the above B&W and this photo.

Personally I don't believe that all encompasing landscapes can express emotion in anywhere near as dynamic a way, wide vistas and digital doesn't really work unless you have a serious digital back, you just can't resolve enough detail to make it work, it just becomes a smooth and rather nothingy picture when printed large.

Click to expand...

TThanks Ben for pointing out the idea of more emotion in the landscape image with a narrow field of view. This might mean that landscape with a 30D (1.6 multipier) and a wider lens would be even better than using a full frame camera in circumstances where the pixel count was not limiting for the print size. This is because one would have a wider depth of field at the same aperture and could continue taking pictures with lower light or else just have better DOF at the same aperture, as one would be using a shorter focal length to get the same scene.

OTOH, is it possible that part of your intimacy or dynamic emotion you refer to is due to the entirely opposite effect, decreased depth of field? This would be the same effect as the purposeful shading of the corners in portraits to increase the impact of the central subjects.

So I wonder now, what leads to the emotional effect? Is it merely narrower angle of view, that is less subject matter to concentrate on or could it also be less depth of field as well?

Asher

Not sure if I should start a new thread about it but this was an image also taken at 17mm, also from floor level and the only time ever that i've wished for far wider, the only direction with a mountain in had far less stars than directly above.



I was sitting outside in the middle of the Scottish Highlands last night when I looked up and saw more stars then I've ever seen before in my life. I've never attempted star photography before but always wanted to so I got my camera out and using iso 3200 to compose (far too dark to see through the viewfinder!) I took this picture. It's actually 4 exposures layered in PS using 'Lighten'. The first 3 were long, one half hour, 2 quarter hours. Unfortunatly both the screen and histogram are stupidly inaccurate with this kind of shot, could have done with more exposure. The fourth was just to capture the moon and was taken a while later.

Not sure that it's any good but it was fun...

Asher, you may have a bit more DOF with wide lenses on a crop body, but hey, you need it given that smaller sensors are diffraction limited by f16! I can stop down more on FF and use less WA (ergo better IQ) lenses.

I use decreased DOF for my day job as a wedding photographer for1 precisely that reason, to accentuate the subject, it doesn't work for landscapes, still life yes, landscape no. Totally different expectations from the viewer. When you look at a person everything else is unimportant, it's the reason we have to focus on the eyes, it's where we look. When we look at a scene we see the scene, with tremendous mental DOF and a stupidly high level of dynamic range. We expect the same from a landscape photograph and it is disturbing and incongruous when we don't see it.

I was in a photographers studio outside Stirling on my drive back to England yesterday. He had a prolific amount of landscape images from Scotland which he sold to the passing tourist trade. The pictures were sold at sizes from 11X14 to 16X20 inches. They were shot on digital and almost every single one demonstrated my problem with WA digital landscapes. The scenes looked great, until you stepped closer when the trees turned to mush, the foliage in general had little detail, etc, etc. You HAVE to shoot within the limits of the resolving power of your sensor!! My picture before of the lake at dawn has most of the individual leaves resolved. The vast majority of the B&W and the misty trees above is resolved in print, i.e. not mush. The star photo could be blown up huge, it doesn't have detail that needs to be resolved further. What you cannot do is take photos which have detail that the eye EXPECTS to be resolved, but when the eye searches for detail, it's all mush. You don't look for individual blades of grass but trees, houses, etc should be resolved and not lacking in basic detail when you get closer than a foot from the photo. This is the reason why large format has ruled quality landscape photography for so long. The masters may only print a 16X20 but I promise you that you can get close without the detail turning to unresolved mush. Bottom line, pick your subject based on the viewers subconsicous expectations. You can do a wall sized mural with your 5D, but you can't do it of a highly detailed scene!

OK Cem and Dawid, here is the version left in the 4:3 crop that I had in mind when I shot it. The branch is lower so less distracting and there is more rock at the bottom. Tell me if it works better and I'll forget trying to get it into a 16X12" crop print.

Yes Ben, this works better for me. I find it as a whole to be in more "balance", if you understand what I mean..

Cheers,

Ben Rubinstein said:

OK Cem and Dawid, here is the version left in the 4:3 crop that I had in mind when I shot it.

Click to expand...

Hi Ben, sorry for the belated reply, but I am in agreement with Cem that this version seems, to my eyes, a lot more pleasant. This is a beautiful rendering.