First shot from my first L, and a random flower

neverender · 18 Apr 2006 at 23:06

Went out yesterday to try out my new 17-40mm L USM lens.
Anyway, it wasn't a great day, and this is the only shot I can came vaguely happy with:

Not that great tbh. If that's the true extent of the "L" quality, then I can't say I think it's worth the price tag but I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt for now. I'll need a bit of time to work out what settings to use with it to maximise quality. It is certainly is wiiiiiide though

It was quite fun to process this one anyway. Cloning out the telegraph poles and cables (which ruin EVERY landscape photo

).

Secondly, a random flower close-up taken a few days ago. Used extension tubes here to get up nice and close.

This was taken using the 18-55mm kit lens, which Im finding to to quite good for close up work.

hoodmeister · 18 Apr 2006 at 23:48

Oooo nice new toy

tbh I really like them both. The tones and colour reproduction in the first shot are great.. Looks pretty darn sharp too ~ which is actually quite hard for landscapes!
Second one is interesting too, liking the DoF

We should meet up again sometime

So I can play with your new toy!

morgan · 19 Apr 2006 at 08:53

buying L glass isnt a magic formula to getting a great shot or great quality everytime. Its not a miricle maker. It will give you improved sharpness, contrast and colour representation.

Spending £500 on a lens doesnt delivery better photos instantly...trust me I know after spending upwards of £3500 on equipment in the last year...it still takes a great deal of time and hard work.

sorry to sound like a misery guts but dont blame a bad days photography on your gear...its never that simple unfortuantely

neverender · 19 Apr 2006 at 11:33

morgan said:
buying L glass isnt a magic formula to getting a great shot or great quality everytime. Its not a miricle maker. It will give you improved sharpness, contrast and colour representation....

sorry to sound like a misery guts but dont blame a bad days photography on your gear...its never that simple unfortuantely

Oh gods no. I didn't mean to sound like that!
I'm wholly aware that shiny kit doesn't make me a better photographer, so please don't think I'm so naive, heh.
My point was that, while processing that shot and doing a bit of pixel-peeping I wasn't as impressed with the sharpness as I thought I may be, though as hoodi mentioned perhaps Im just expecting too much for a landscape lens.
The colours and contrast do come out very nicely from the camera though, that's for sure.

hoodmeister said:
We should meet up again sometime

Yes, we should! I'm back in Cardiff next week, but I've got lots on now (work, exams, house hunting) so I'm not sure how much time I'll have free

Cheers for the comments, both of you

SDK^ · 19 Apr 2006 at 18:02

neverender said:
and doing a bit of pixel-peeping I wasn't as impressed with the sharpness as I thought

You still need to sharpen the image in Photoshop to get the best out of it.
The 17-40L F4 is a sharp lens !!

By the way - Where was your focus point on the landscape photo ?

Mikharper · 19 Apr 2006 at 18:26

SDK^ said:
By the way - Where was your focus point on the landscape photo ?

I always have this problem.

SDK^ · 19 Apr 2006 at 19:16

If you take a lot of landscape photos then you should learn the hyperfocal distance for each aperture at the wide focal length.
Hyperfocal distance - If the lens is focused at the hyperfocal distance, everything from half the hyperfocal distance (in front) to infinity (∞) will be acceptably sharp.

The hyperfocal distance for the 17-40L at 17mm is as follows :

F4 = 3.8 Meters
F5.6 = 2.69 Meters
F8 = 1.9 Meters
F11 = 1.34 Meters
F16 = 0.95 Meters
F22 = 0.67 Meters
F32 = 0.48 Meters

neverender · 19 Apr 2006 at 19:32

SDK^ said:
If you take a lot of landscape photos then you should learn the hyperfocal distance for each aperture at the wide focal length.
Hyperfocal distance - If the lens is focused at the hyperfocal distance, everything from half the hyperfocal distance (in front) to infinity (∞) will be acceptably sharp.

The hyperfocal distance for the 17-40L at 17mm is as follows :

F4 = 3.8 Meters
F5.6 = 2.69 Meters
F8 = 1.9 Meters
F11 = 1.34 Meters
F16 = 0.95 Meters
F22 = 0.67 Meters
F32 = 0.48 Meters

Cheers for that mate, that's really useful

stuart38 · 19 Apr 2006 at 21:48

SDK^ said:
If you take a lot of landscape photos then you should learn the hyperfocal distance for each aperture at the wide focal length.
Hyperfocal distance - If the lens is focused at the hyperfocal distance, everything from half the hyperfocal distance (in front) to infinity (∞) will be acceptably sharp.

The hyperfocal distance for the 17-40L at 17mm is as follows :

F4 = 3.8 Meters
F5.6 = 2.69 Meters
F8 = 1.9 Meters
F11 = 1.34 Meters
F16 = 0.95 Meters
F22 = 0.67 Meters
F32 = 0.48 Meters

Im probably being thick - but wouldnt everything in the landscape pic above be well over those distances away anyway?

SDK^ · 19 Apr 2006 at 22:21

stuart38 said:
Im probably being thick - but wouldnt everything in the landscape pic above be well over those distances away anyway?

People tend to focus on an object in the distance and therefore lose foreground detail

In reality at 17mm F8 you can focus 1.9 meters in front of your position and get sharp focus from 1 meter to infinity.

stuart38 · 19 Apr 2006 at 22:29

SDK^ said:
People tend to focus on an object in the distance and therefore lose foreground detail

In reality at 17mm F8 you can focus 1.9 meters in front of your position and get sharp focus from 1 meter to infinity.

I will try and remember that

ElDude · 19 Apr 2006 at 22:31

If you look on this forum, there are a few people that have this lens that posted their images. Milou has one and I seem to remember his shots being really good using it

milou · 20 Apr 2006 at 01:49

Aye, tis a great lens. One of the first shots with it a while back: http://milouvision.net/photos/CRW_2184-01ab.jpg

and almost all of these were with it too:
http://www.milouvision.com/galleries/4159_1048088568/35008
http://www.milouvision.com/galleries/4159_1048088568/35010

At 17mm on a 5D (and even on a 300D) it'll distort a sea horizon.

ElDude · 20 Apr 2006 at 08:39

You have a 5D now? :eek:

Gamefreak501 · 20 Apr 2006 at 12:01

Both pictures have fantastic colour reproduction on them

Nice going. Feel like I'm missing out on the L lenses by having a Minolta system!

sproutpunx · 20 Apr 2006 at 15:18

So that was two days ago now, you got anymore to show us? I'm sure you must be playing with your new toy lots!

neverender · 20 Apr 2006 at 15:47

sproutpunx said:
So that was two days ago now, you got anymore to show us? I'm sure you must be playing with your new toy lots!

Not yet.
I'm in the process of travelling back to uni atm, stopping by my Dad's for a few days first. Oh, and I've managed to pick up a really nasty case of flu along thw way (sorest throat ever, I really cant describe how much pain Im in every time I swallow

) so not being able to get out much atm :mad:

AndyBorzi · 20 Apr 2006 at 15:53

At uni and you can afford L glass?

I must stop working and go to uni

SDK - is there a formula to work out the hyperfocal distance?

Alex53 · 20 Apr 2006 at 15:53

Hmm interesting this hyperfocal stuff. I'd read it before and then totally forgotten about it.

What I tend to do is focus on a foreground object and stick to using between f8 and f16. It works pretty well, but I like the certainty of knowing the hyperfocal distance.

Colin_da_Killer · 20 Apr 2006 at 16:55

That second photo I really like, very sharp and nice colours!