Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


pixel peeping


tepot 11 4.4k United Kingdom
4 Mar 2012 11:50PM
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.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

scottishphototours 11 2.6k 2
4 Mar 2012 11:57PM
Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...
tepot 11 4.4k United Kingdom
5 Mar 2012 12:17AM
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 11 4.4k United Kingdom
5 Mar 2012 12:20AM

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 10 1.9k 1 France
5 Mar 2012 6:51AM
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 9 644 2 United Kingdom
5 Mar 2012 8:46AM
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 11 3.6k 9 United Kingdom
5 Mar 2012 8:57AM

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


Fully agree
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
5 Mar 2012 9:06AM
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.


.
peterjones 13 4.2k 1 United Kingdom
5 Mar 2012 10:39AM
I used to own a Canon 17-40 f/4L and found it was a stunning performer.
dcash29 9 2.0k England
5 Mar 2012 10:47AM
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 12 1.8k 12 Norfolk Island
5 Mar 2012 10:54AM
Can't fault my 17-40L, it's the one lens I'd never part with.
tepot 11 4.4k United Kingdom
6 Mar 2012 3:44AM

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 9 2.0k England
6 Mar 2012 8:42AM

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.
tepot 11 4.4k United Kingdom
9 Mar 2012 3:26AM
ok panic over, it turns out it was my post processing work lol

Terry.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.