Flare, what flare

dod · 24-05-2005, 19:44

Taken on the way home from work, more or less right into the sun with no hood. I REALLY like this lens

Edit: Horizon fixed

feenster · 24-05-2005, 20:29

Nice shot - i like it. However, the horizon isn't quite level, and the clouds are slightly blown out. A quick play in Photoshop should sort it out nicely

What lens was it with?

Matt

dod · 24-05-2005, 22:11

Thankks Feenster, here's a variation with the levels for the sky adjusted. Too much?

IanC_UK · 24-05-2005, 22:15

Its a very nice shot, even with the original dodgy horizon

Was that the 17-40 ??

feenster · 24-05-2005, 22:20

Dod,
No i think that looks excellent personally. Might look nice in black & white too

Matt

KenCo1964 · 24-05-2005, 22:23

Don't want to be a scare monger but i think you must have bought your camera the same place as me, i can see at least 7 small black dots even at this resolution in the sky more centre to right side of pic.
Find the ccd clean post and do the test described there.

dod · 24-05-2005, 22:25

Thanks, and yes 17-40.

here's a variation. I think I'll give it a go in black and white, see how it turns out

here's the B&W, looks okay

TerraS · 24-05-2005, 22:39

Nice shot. Looking good in all the variations.

Not sure about the grey border though.

Matty · 25-05-2005, 18:19

really nice shots these, agree with Dave, grey border has to go!

dod · 25-05-2005, 19:32

as if by magic

. White doesn't show up too well here though. Thanks for the comments and suggestions

milou · 25-05-2005, 22:15

The B & W conversion does it for me.

So....you'd def recommend the 17-40 then?

dod · 25-05-2005, 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by milou

The B & W conversion does it for me.

So....you'd def recommend the 17-40 then?

Thanks, yes, this lens is the sharpest in my bag by a long way. Even nicer than the 70-200 F4, in my opinion anyway. Expensive but worth it

milou · 26-05-2005, 13:24

Hmmm...tempting as I've just sold my 300D USM kit lens and a Tamron 28-300 on eBay. All I have now is the 50mm f/1.8. The 17mm aspect would be perfect for landscape. Hmmmm......

Matty · 26-05-2005, 18:20

put a thin black line around the border, shows it better here then!

dod · 26-05-2005, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by milou

Hmmm...tempting as I've just sold my 300D USM kit lens and a Tamron 28-300 on eBay. All I have now is the 50mm f/1.8. The 17mm aspect would be perfect for landscape. Hmmmm......

I'll admit I'm biased but if this helps these are 100% crops from near the centre. First is straight from the camera, second has a slight unsharp mask applied. Taken at 40mm and F4.0 ISO 100. I looked at almost every wideangle there is before choosing this. Originally I intended getting the tokina 20-35 ATX F2.8 but chose the canon for a number of reasons.

1. I dont need 2.8 for landscapes, usually working at f8 or smaller.
2. This had a better range, longer and wider than the other wide angle zooms.
3. it's an "L" :P
4. I want to use it for outdoor sport as well, checking old shots showed the minimum aperture I ever used was about 5.6

It would be the ideal lense if it was something like a 17-80. At the moment the 40 to 70 range is covered by my 28-105 which is okay but not in the same league as this.

Anyway, just my opinions.

Edit: can't help it, I really like this lens

another of my cliches 40mm f6.3, ISO 100

milou · 26-05-2005, 23:50

Cheers

I can see that the f/4.0 would be useful but similar to you, my landscape work is all f/16 etc. I'm thinking that as a quality lens it would last and if need be, would maintain a decent resale value. My plan is to have the 17-40 and the 70-200 to cover the remainder of the rnage with the 50mm as a fill-in. I'll have to think some more on it though as I've just paid £750 for some sexy root canal and crown work on molar no. 36 with possibly more on its way :/ Plus there's the planned motorbike (I've just dialed in my mid-life crisis).

CT · 26-05-2005, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by milou

(I've just dialed in my mid-life crisis).

I think I'm on about my 3rd! :lol:

milou · 26-05-2005, 23:54

But this time my wife's agreed with it :o

24-05-2005, 19:44	#1 (permalink)
dod Feet under the table Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nairn Posts: 1,911	Flare, what flare Taken on the way home from work, more or less right into the sun with no hood. I REALLY like this lens Edit: Horizon fixed

26-05-2005, 23:50	#16 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	Cheers I can see that the f/4.0 would be useful but similar to you, my landscape work is all f/16 etc. I'm thinking that as a quality lens it would last and if need be, would maintain a decent resale value. My plan is to have the 17-40 and the 70-200 to cover the remainder of the rnage with the 50mm as a fill-in. I'll have to think some more on it though as I've just paid £750 for some sexy root canal and crown work on molar no. 36 with possibly more on its way :/ Plus there's the planned motorbike (I've just dialed in my mid-life crisis). __________________ 100% zimmer photoblog

24-05-2005, 20:29	#2 (permalink)
feenster Getting Comfy Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Huddersfield(ish) Posts: 150	Nice shot - i like it. However, the horizon isn't quite level, and the clouds are slightly blown out. A quick play in Photoshop should sort it out nicely What lens was it with? Matt

24-05-2005, 22:11	#3 (permalink)
dod Feet under the table Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nairn Posts: 1,911	Thankks Feenster, here's a variation with the levels for the sky adjusted. Too much?

24-05-2005, 22:15	#4 (permalink)
IanC_UK Feet under the table Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 2,137	Its a very nice shot, even with the original dodgy horizon Was that the 17-40 ??

24-05-2005, 22:20	#5 (permalink)
feenster Getting Comfy Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Huddersfield(ish) Posts: 150	Dod, No i think that looks excellent personally. Might look nice in black & white too Matt

24-05-2005, 22:23	#6 (permalink)
KenCo1964 Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Co. Durham England Posts: 1,069	Don't want to be a scare monger but i think you must have bought your camera the same place as me, i can see at least 7 small black dots even at this resolution in the sky more centre to right side of pic. Find the ccd clean post and do the test described there.

24-05-2005, 22:25	#7 (permalink)
dod Feet under the table Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nairn Posts: 1,911	Thanks, and yes 17-40. here's a variation. I think I'll give it a go in black and white, see how it turns out here's the B&W, looks okay

24-05-2005, 22:39	#8 (permalink)
TerraS Been here a while Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 257	Nice shot. Looking good in all the variations. Not sure about the grey border though.

25-05-2005, 18:19	#9 (permalink)
Matty Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: kings hill Posts: 5,269	really nice shots these, agree with Dave, grey border has to go!

25-05-2005, 19:32	#10 (permalink)
dod Feet under the table Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nairn Posts: 1,911	as if by magic . White doesn't show up too well here though. Thanks for the comments and suggestions

25-05-2005, 22:15	#11 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	The B & W conversion does it for me. So....you'd def recommend the 17-40 then?

26-05-2005, 13:24	#13 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	Hmmm...tempting as I've just sold my 300D USM kit lens and a Tamron 28-300 on eBay. All I have now is the 50mm f/1.8. The 17mm aspect would be perfect for landscape. Hmmmm......

26-05-2005, 18:20	#14 (permalink)
Matty Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: kings hill Posts: 5,269	put a thin black line around the border, shows it better here then!

26-05-2005, 23:54	#18 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	But this time my wife's agreed with it :o