17-40L contrast

I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it almost
seems too contrasty. I'm sure nothing is wrong with the lens. I base this
observation on experience using an older 28mm 2.8 EF.

I'm still using film, so I wonder if these newer designed lenses are
maximizing contrast for primary use on digital cameras. I'll get the
successor to the 5D, so no plans to sell the lens.

Thanks!

Donald Specker wrote:
I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it almost
seems too contrasty. I'm sure nothing is wrong with the lens. I base this
observation on experience using an older 28mm 2.8 EF.

I'm still using film, so I wonder if these newer designed lenses are
maximizing contrast for primary use on digital cameras. I'll get the
successor to the 5D, so no plans to sell the lens.

A lens can only go to 100% contrast (or modulation) so I don't see how
a lens can have too much contrast. There are films however that have a
lot of contrast.
Scott

Donald Specker wrote:
I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it
almost seems too contrasty. I'm sure nothing is wrong with the lens.
I base this observation on experience using an older 28mm 2.8 EF.

I'm still using film, so I wonder if these newer designed lenses are
maximizing contrast for primary use on digital cameras. I'll get the
successor to the 5D, so no plans to sell the lens.

Thanks!

Here's a review and comparison that I found interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

This review was by no means the determining factor, but it did play a
part in my decision to eventually go for the 17-40L when I replaced my
older 20-35.

"TheDave©" wrote in message
...
Donald Specker wrote:
I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it
almost seems too contrasty. I'm sure nothing is wrong with the lens.
I base this observation on experience using an older 28mm 2.8 EF.

I'm still using film, so I wonder if these newer designed lenses are
maximizing contrast for primary use on digital cameras. I'll get the
successor to the 5D, so no plans to sell the lens.

Thanks!

Here's a review and comparison that I found interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

This review was by no means the determining factor, but it did play a
part in my decision to eventually go for the 17-40L when I replaced my
older 20-35.

Out of curiosity, why did you replace your 20-35? Was it just for the extra
width? And was it the f2.8L version? The reason I ask is that I have the
20-35 f2.8L, and I really like it.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Skip wrote:
Out of curiosity, why did you replace your 20-35? Was it just for
the extra width? And was it the f2.8L version? The reason I ask is
that I have the 20-35 f2.8L, and I really like it.

Mainly for the extra width, yes, though I wanted to move up to an 'L'
lens, also. I had the 20-35mm f3.5-4.5. It was a good lens and served
me well, but it was also time to move up.

I considered the 16-35mm f2.8L, but at almost twice the price I
couldn't justify it, though the extra stop would have been nice.

"TheDave©" wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:
Out of curiosity, why did you replace your 20-35? Was it just for
the extra width? And was it the f2.8L version? The reason I ask is
that I have the 20-35 f2.8L, and I really like it.

Mainly for the extra width, yes, though I wanted to move up to an 'L'
lens, also. I had the 20-35mm f3.5-4.5. It was a good lens and served
me well, but it was also time to move up.

I considered the 16-35mm f2.8L, but at almost twice the price I
couldn't justify it, though the extra stop would have been nice.

Ah, so it wasn't the "L" version. I wondered, because I actually like the
20-35 better than the 16-35, both being "L," and f2.8 lenses. I bought the
former used to have when my wife needed the latter for interior shots. I've
found it to be a little sharper, not a surprise, given the lesser zoom
ratio.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Donald Specker" wrote in message
news:gZWhh.9629$cx4.6803@trndny09...
I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it almost
seems too contrasty. I'm sure nothing is wrong with the lens. I base
this observation on experience using an older 28mm 2.8 EF.

I'm still using film, so I wonder if these newer designed lenses are
maximizing contrast for primary use on digital cameras. I'll get the
successor to the 5D, so no plans to sell the lens.

Thanks!


On the other hand I had one of these lenses on a 10D and a 20D and it was
one of the worse lenses I have ever owned, it was totally flat and soft.
But then I was told "What do you expect when you buy the cheap L Lens"



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com