17-40L contrast

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Donald Specker - 19 Dec 2006 19:21 GMT

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!

Reply to this Message

Scott W - 19 Dec 2006 19:48 GMT

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 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

Reply to this Message

TheDave© - 19 Dec 2006 21:13 GMT

> Donald Specker wrote:
> I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thanks!

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

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-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.

Reply to this Message

Skip - 20 Dec 2006 01:09 GMT

>> Donald Specker wrote:
>> I've been shooting with a 17-40L recently and there are times it
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 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.

Signature

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

Reply to this Message

TheDave© - 20 Dec 2006 04:30 GMT

> 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.

Reply to this Message

Skip - 20 Dec 2006 14:13 GMT

>> Skip wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, why did you replace your 20-35? Was it just for
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> 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.

Signature

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

Reply to this Message

Paul - 21 Dec 2006 23:55 GMT

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> 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"

Signature

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

Reply to this Message