Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

pixel peeping

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    tepot
    tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
    4 Mar 2012 - 11:50 PM

    Now i find i am pixel peeping, i just looked at some shots taken with my 17-40L and think they look a little soft, maybe i have a bad copy or maybe i'm just being over critical since i have just been looking at lenses. Is there a noticeable difference between fixed lenses and modern zooms? i was on the verge of buying three fixed wide angles instead of using the 17-40L but that works out expensive and would be heavy to carry around.

    If i was to look at fixed lenses, is there a best range i.e sigma, tamron etc?

    Terry.

    Last Modified By tepot at 4 Mar 2012 - 11:52 PM
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    4 Mar 2012 - 11:50 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    scottishphototours

    Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...

    tepot
    tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
    5 Mar 2012 - 12:17 AM

    i just did some searches for fixed lenses and there is a remarkably small choice which tells me that most folk are happy with modern zooms so maybe i'll stick with those.

    Terry.

    tepot
    tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
    5 Mar 2012 - 12:20 AM


    Quote: Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...

    are you saying i am a **** photographer then? Wink just kidding!

    i've only been out with the lens one time so far so you may well be right and i just need to get used to it, after all a tool is only as good as the person using it.

    Terry.

    GlennH
    GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
    5 Mar 2012 - 6:51 AM

    Not everyone likes the 17-40mm, or Canon wide-angles in general. Some avoid them like the plague. Here, for instance, although the comparison against a Zeiss is a little harsh!

    newfocus
    newfocus  8644 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
    5 Mar 2012 - 8:46 AM

    I don't find the 17-40 absolutely perfect by any means (if there is such a thing when it comes to lenses - they're all a compromise to some extent) but it is definitely capable of some great shots. As with most zooms, if you're pixel peeping, you will notice some colour fringes (chromatic aberrations) and corner softness at certain focal lengths and apertures. You learn how to work round those with a combination of in camera technique (basically taking the time to learn how the lens performs at different settings) and standard corrections during raw conversion to remove the fringing, etc.

    The results when compared with the Zeiss prime above which costs twice the price and is able to be more optimised for a fixed focal length aren't really a surprise Smile

    collywobles
    5 Mar 2012 - 8:57 AM


    Quote: Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...

    Fully agree

    User_Removed
    5 Mar 2012 - 9:06 AM

    A lot of Canon photographers seem to use the Nikon 14-24mm with an adaptor but, having said that, I believe that the most common cause of "softness" in photographs (especially if it seems evident across the entire image) is camera shake. That's why many serious landscape photographers always use a very sturdy tripod as a matter of course.


    .

    Last Modified By User_Removed at 5 Mar 2012 - 9:06 AM
    peterjones
    peterjones e2 Member 123927 forum postspeterjones vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
    5 Mar 2012 - 10:39 AM

    I used to own a Canon 17-40 f/4L and found it was a stunning performer.

    dcash29
    dcash29  81908 forum posts England
    5 Mar 2012 - 10:47 AM

    I didnt find my 17-40L a great performer on cropped format, it was matched by the Sigma 17-70 and beaten by the 17-55

    KathyW
    KathyW  111793 forum posts Norfolk Island12 Constructive Critique Points
    5 Mar 2012 - 10:54 AM

    Can't fault my 17-40L, it's the one lens I'd never part with.

    tepot
    tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
    6 Mar 2012 - 3:44 AM


    Quote: I didnt find my 17-40L a great performer on cropped format, it was matched by the Sigma 17-70 and beaten by the 17-55

    i've often said that some (after market) companies can at least rival the main companies in the field.

    Terry.

    dcash29
    dcash29  81908 forum posts England
    6 Mar 2012 - 8:42 AM


    Quote: i've often said that some (after market) companies can at least rival the main companies in the field.

    I cant say thats surprising as the 17-40L has been out for years, that in it self must say something. I went through the pixel peeping period and you know what, ignore it and take pictures. Im impressed with the Tamron 18-270 being reviewed on this site (and viewed at Focus) except for the rubbish lens creep although it depends how many floor pictures you take above the 18mm lock.
    I first purchased the sigma 17-70, exchanged for the 17-40L thinking it would be better. Only to find no real difference, only a massive reduction in versatility.

    The person behind the lens, what you yourself get out of photography and the versatility you want from a lens are more important.

    Last Modified By dcash29 at 6 Mar 2012 - 8:43 AM
    tepot
    tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
    9 Mar 2012 - 3:26 AM

    ok panic over, it turns out it was my post processing work lol

    Terry.

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.