If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
17-40L contrast
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
17-40L contrast
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
17-40L contrast
"TheDaveŠ" 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
17-40L contrast
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
17-40L contrast
"TheDaveŠ" 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
17-40L contrast
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Contrast wedding | Jack | Digital Photography | 56 | May 4th 06 11:58 PM |
Contrast Wedding | Jack | Photographing People | 13 | May 4th 06 09:19 PM |
Too much contrast? | Brian | Digital Photography | 6 | November 22nd 05 02:50 AM |
LCD Contrast | Father Kodak | Digital Photography | 1 | November 18th 05 01:31 PM |
Contrast with New TRI-X | ATIPPETT | In The Darkroom | 10 | March 5th 04 10:06 AM |