Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2007, 11:11 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8
Default

Ok, after help from you all and lots of research I have decided to go with a nice wide angle lens for landscape photos for my cross country/costa rica trip. But am having trouble deciding on which to go with. the 17-40 is half the price but I do not want to get half the quality. any suggestions. Thanks Nick.
speezdout is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 7, 2007, 7:39 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Well - An f/2.8 does let in x2 the light of an f/4 :-) :lol: :G

-> This is only critical during the fleeting moments shortly before sunrise or sunset where the lighting colors can be quite different especially when it involves moving seascape...




NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2007, 9:20 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8
Default

ahha, so I would get significantlybetter results with the 2.8 if I were shooting sunrises and sunsets? Here's another question for ya, upon returning from my trip I plan to print my best images on a large canvas (not sure on size yet). I currently shoot with a fine Large format, but was wondering what type of advantages there was shooting in a RAW format if any. Thanks again. Nick.
speezdout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2007, 10:56 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Only diifference i found between raw and large format jpeg is when it comes to editing sharpness, contrast and Colors.

Raw atleast foor me works well to edit the colors better.

THe below shot was edited from Raw. I also toook a jpeg but during editing for sharpness and contrast i somehow coudnt get the same effect as this one.

But thats my view and i prefer Raw for large prints.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/godvivek/353543300/

vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2007, 11:14 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

speezdout wrote:
Quote:
ahha, so I would get significantlybetter results with the 2.8 if I were shooting sunrises and sunsets?
You can't make that jump in reasoning. The gain is when you want to shoot at f2.8 and not narrower. If you shoot a sunrise or sunset at f11 it won't make a bit of difference. My guess is the shot in question was shot at 2.8 to get a faster shutter speed to freeze the water. So the gain was in the affect of the water. If you're not trying to freeze motion I can't see another reason to use such a wide aperture for a a sunrise/sunset shot (or any landscape shot).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2007, 2:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

if money is not an issue here I would go for the 16-35mm f2.8. I just like to have the speed there when you do need it. Most of the time for landscapes you are not going to use it.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2007, 2:46 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

speezdout wrote:
Quote:
ahha, so I would get significantlybetter results with the 2.8 if I were shooting sunrises and sunsets?
I wouldn't say significantly better results - but more of the "effects" you're after... There's not much difference in IQ between the 17-40 and the 16-35 - BTW the picture posted was with a Sigma 17-35EX HSM @ f/2.8

The difference is in the color of the sky which varies from red->orange->yellow to blue as the sunrise (or in reverse in sunset) - 1/2 the light mean you won't be capturing some of the color tone with the desired effect if you have to wait for the sky to brighten up twice as much - This is what JohnG meant for a moon shot in not being to freeze the water (the 'muddy' water and the lost of the wavefront) at narrower apertures with slower shutter speeds:




-> The moving clouds also "muddy" up the outline of the moon (or sun)... with slower shutters

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 12:29 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Default

speezdout wrote:
Quote:
Ok, after help from you all and lots of research I have decided to go with a nice wide angle lens for landscape photos for my cross country/costa rica trip. But am having trouble deciding on which to go with. the 17-40 is half the price but I do not want to get half the quality. any suggestions. Thanks Nick.
I agree with what NHL and others said. You said you wanted wide on a 20D well I got the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5/4.5 so a stop+ down ona f/2.8 but it's nice and wide, but for the speed I got the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L, that way I was covered for whatever, nice beach scene pass me a tequila please :G
inness is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM.