Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on November 01, 2010, 10:18:32 am
-
I bought a little landscape lens last year (the Canon EF-S 10-22mm zoom), and it seems to have nice color rendition and focus, but the distortion it has at the wider end is pretty pronounced. I guess my question is, if one really wants to purchase the best single lens for landscape work on a Canon, which wide-angle lens is the ideal choice for
1. Low distortion?
2. Sharpness?
3. Color rendition?
For that matter, is a wide-angle lens even ideal for landscape? Would a more moderate lens (say 24mm) be better? Is taking the time to stitch a pano with a non-distorted lens preferable to taking a "wide-angle" shot with one ultra-wide lens--only to have it come out distorted?
I have been looking to upgrade from the 10-22mm (which I just sold on Ebay), but it seems all of the Canon ultra-wides essentially suck. In reading many reviews on lenses such as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, the 17-40 f/4, the 24mm f/1.4L II, etc. ... at best these seem to be average lenses.
I was wondering how many Canon people have actually tried the Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens for landscapes and such, on their own Canons, and compared this lens to the Canon offerings? In many of the reviews, several people said they actually "cringed" when comparing the shots they got from the Canon 16-35 (et al) to the Zeiss. From color rendition, corner-to-corner sharpness, etc., it seems the vote is unanimous that the Zeiss is the better lens. People also keep talking about "that 3D-look" with the Zeiss.
In short, for a Canon body, is there any wide-angle lens that can touch the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? In the research I've been conducting over the last few weeks, it sure doesn't seem so, but I'd like to hear some live feedback.
Thanks for any replies,
Jack
.
-
Distortion is very easy to fix in PP.
The only lens that matches the IQ of the Zeiss 21 is the Nikon 14-24 2.8 (with adapter).
I assume you have a crop body so the best UWA you can get is the Tokina 11-16 F2.8. It's better than the Canon 10-22 as it is sharper and faster.
The 17-40 and the 16-35 are designed for FF bodies and won't perform well in a crop body. I wouldn't use the Zeiss 21 or the Nikon 14-24 on a crop body either.
-
... Tokina 11-16 F2.8. It's better than the Canon 10-22 as it is sharper...
Care to provide a link supporting this claim?
-
Before I embark on a psycho-analysis of your perfectionist desires :) , would you care to define the distortion you are talking about? Are you talking about barrel/pincushion distortion, or the unavoidable perspective distortion associated with all wide-angle lenses?
-
Check out: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
Brian
-
Check out: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm...
Thanks. However, Ken compares Tokina to Nikon 12-24. He has no direct comparison to Canon 10-22. At the same time, Ken is full of superlatives for the Canon, and considers it better than Nikon 12-24. He goes on to recommend Canon 10-22, not Tokina 11-16, for Canon owners.
-
Care to provide a link supporting this claim?
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1
You can also check thedigitalpicture.com to compare images
-
Distortion is very easy to fix in PP.
I am not sure how that's done, actually. Never really tried to do that before.
The only lens that matches the IQ of the Zeiss 21 is the Nikon 14-24 2.8 (with adapter).
In other words, the Zeiss is the best wide-angle for a Canon, then, right? Thought about the 14-24 also, but (with the adapter) it would be prohibitively expensive, and I am not sure it is any better than the Zeiss. Further, I am not sure on an "ultra-wide" anymore either ...
The 17-40 and the 16-35 are designed for FF bodies and won't perform well in a crop body. I wouldn't use the Zeiss 21 or the Nikon 14-24 on a crop body either
Not so, in many of the tests, both of these supposedly FF lenses actually performed better on APS-C cameras ... E.g.:
"Vignetting is very well controlled - at least when using (the 17-40) on an APS-C DSLR ... Looking a bit beyond the APS-C scope it is worth to mention that the lens didn't perform quite as well during our corresponding full format test ..."
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/448-canon_1740_4_50d?start=1
Thank you for your response,
Jack
.
-
Before I embark on a psycho-analysis of your perfectionist desires :) , would you care to define the distortion you are talking about? Are you talking about barrel/pincushion distortion, or the unavoidable perspective distortion associated with all wide-angle lenses?
Here is a photo I took of St. Marks Lighthouse:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/stmarks.jpg)
It could now be re-named "The Leaning Tower of St. Marks" (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack
.
-
That's just perspective distortion; you had the camera pointed slightly up. Any of the other lenses mentioned would show the same effect, which is exaggerated by wide-angle lenses. Think about how tall buildings appear when you look up at them.
-
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1
You can also check thedigitalpicture.com to compare images
It appears they're pretty well on a par, the Canon and the Tokina, although the Tokina has a fixed f/2.8 aperture and not a variable one like the Canon.
Still, I highly-doubt either one of them would stand up too well to the Zeiss 21mm distagon.
This begs the other part of my question, which is are ultra-wides really all that desireable for landscape photography? I am reading more and more that many professionals aren't shooting that wide for their landscapes. Although I have read some decent reviews of the Canon 16-35 II, I have read several people who say they "thought" they had a good lens in the 16-35 ... until they shot the Zeiss.
To me it seems like, if you're going to travel somewhere and spend the time, and the money, getting into perfect position etc. ... it only makes sense to use the best lens you can possibly afford.
At ~$1700, the Zeiss 21mm is priced near its rivals, and if it is that much better (to where it makes the former Canon lens owners "cringe" when comparing images), why not just get the Zeiss?
I don't mind MF on a landscape lens as you have plenty of time to do so, especially with Live View ...
Jack
.
-
For that matter, is a wide-angle lens even ideal for landscape? Would a more moderate lens (say 24mm) be better? Is taking the time to stitch a pano with a non-distorted lens preferable to taking a "wide-angle" shot with one ultra-wide lens--only to have it come out distorted?
I went to a show a couple years ago where the prints I saw really impressed me in terms of immersion and hyper-realism. I later found out that the photographer used focal lengths between 35mm and 85mm (full frame digital equivalent) for 99% of his shots. He said that he doesn't use ultra-wides because, when printed very large, the linear perspective distortion in the corners becomes obvious and the large print isn't as immersive or naturalistic.
He went on to say that ultra-wides make a great first impression and provide a sense of depth and immediacy when printed small, but that when you enlarge an ultra-wide print it feels artificial specifically because of the perspective distortion in the corners and exacerbated issues with converging vertical lines (unless you correct for them with a tilt/shift lens).
So if it's traditional barrel distortion or whatever, you can fix it in photoshop. But if it's perspective distortion (as in the picture above), maybe you are shooting too wide for your subject matter. It's entirely a matter of style.
I think my "ultimate" landscape kit would be a 5DII and a set of tilt/shift lenses. Unfortunately, this would probably exceed $10,000.... I find rise/fall pretty indispensable when photographing anything with vertical lines.
Right now my two "main" lenses are 135mm and 180mm apo-sironar-s plasmats. The 180mm is quickly becoming my favorite, but both are great focal lengths. I want a 240mm and 300mm now, but they are $$. The 135mm is just wide enough to be wide but the distortion is minimal. Since switching to large format I have become addicted to rise/fall, too..... I love the look of straight lines.
-
That's just perspective distortion; you had the camera pointed slightly up. Any of the other lenses mentioned would show the same effect, which is exaggerated by wide-angle lenses. Think about how tall buildings appear when you look up at them.
I was shooting pretty straight, but even still it looks goofy to me.
Is there any way to correct this in Photoshop?
I have heard architect photographers use tilt-shift lenses to remove this effect, but was wondering if a 21mm lens would also minimize it?
Thanks,
Jack
.
-
I went to a show a couple years ago where the prints I saw really impressed me in terms of immersion and hyper-realism. I later found out that the photographer used focal lengths between 35mm and 85mm (full frame digital equivalent) for 99% of his shots. He said that he doesn't use ultra-wides because, when printed very large, the linear perspective distortion in the corners becomes obvious and the large print isn't as immersive or naturalistic.
He went on to say that ultra-wides make a great first impression and provide a sense of depth and immediacy when printed small, but that when you enlarge an ultra-wide print it feels artificial specifically because of the perspective distortion in the corners and exacerbated issues with converging vertical lines (unless you correct for them with a tilt/shift lens).
So if it's traditional barrel distortion or whatever, you can fix it in photoshop. But if it's perspective distortion (as in the picture above), maybe you are shooting too wide for your subject matter. It's entirely a matter of style.
I think my "ultimate" landscape kit would be a 5DII and a set of tilt/shift lenses. Unfortunately, this would probably exceed $10,000.... I find rise/fall pretty indispensable when photographing anything with vertical lines.
Right now my two "main" lenses are 135mm and 180mm apo-sironar-s plasmats. The 180mm is quickly becoming my favorite, but both are great focal lengths. The 135mm is just wide enough to be wide but the distortion is minimal. Since switching to large format I have become addicted to rise/fall, too..... I love the look of straight lines.
Interesting. Thanks.
That is kind of what I was thinking, really, was to get a superlative fixed-frame lens and do panos (if necessary) ... rather than fiddling with a lower-quality zoom ...
Jack
-
VERY easy to deal with distortion in PS4 & 5: GoTo Filter > Lens Correction (then Custom)
Apply changes.
Voila
Brian
-
I was shooting pretty straight, but even still it looks goofy to me.
Is there any way to correct this in Photoshop?
No you weren't -- the horizon line would be dead center if you were "shooting straight." The upward tilt of the camera results in the leaning building. This will happen with any lens.
You have several options:
1. in Photoshop, choose Filter > Lens Correction and play with Vertical Perspective. (In CS5 choose the Custom panel first.)
2. Shoot with the camera perfectly level, but with a much wider lens. Your photo will have the horizon dead center, but you can then crop this in Photoshop to your desired framing. (This was a common tactic back when we didn't have much in the way of shift lenses for 35mm cameras.)
3. Buy a shift lens, and use it correctly. This is a very expensive option, you might try the other two first.
The most recent versions of Photoshop and Lightroom apply automatic distortion corrections to many lenses. This does great things for my Canon 10-22, though of course it doesn't fix the problem in your photo above.
-
… Not so, in many of the tests, both of these supposedly FF lenses actually performed better on APS-C cameras …
Bear in mind that on a (Canon) crop body, 21 mm becomes effectively 34 mm, quite a modest wide angle, nothing ultra- or super-wide angle there.
Also, on a crop body, FF-designed lenses can not possibly perform "better", as they project only one and the same image on the sensor plane. What people are referring to as "better" is the fact that you are looking at the center crop of a full image, thus eliminating the edges, where most lenses, even the best ones, are inferior to the center.
-
It could now be re-named "The Leaning Tower of St. Marks" (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
The lens has not much to do with it though... It's not distorsion, it's perspective (and the rectilinear rendering associated with it). You can avoid it by keeping your camera horizontal (and cropping if needed) or by the use of a tilt-shift lens, or with the "vertical" slider in LR3/ACR6 (develop/lens correction/perspective).
"The camera" by Ansel Adams may still be a very good reading on the subject!
See here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses1.htm) or elsewhere otherwise...
Edit : ooops, seems I'm late...
-
Interesting. Thanks.
That is kind of what I was thinking, really, was to get a superlative fixed-frame lens and do panos (if necessary) ... rather than fiddling with a lower-quality zoom ...
Jack
I have no experience with panoramas, but I think (as a bunch of other people have gone on to chime in) that you probably want a tilt/shift lens--and one that's wide but not ultra-wide--if you're looking for clean, undistorted perspective with parallel vertical lines, like in a painting. As others have mentioned, you can instead and relatively easily perform perspective correction in photoshop--even for converging verticals, but that does change the frame a bit (in effect turning the image into a top-heavy trapezoid until vertical lines are parallel and then cropping the edges).
The 24mm Canon tilt/shift lens looks phenomenal to me (and would be my choice in focal length on a cropped sensor based on totally arbitrary personal preference)...but it's pricey and probably not much cheaper used. Photoshop or other software that performs perspective correction for both barrel distortion and perspective distortion might be the best option for price and flexibility.
I could also continue to proselytize about large format even though I'm still basically incompetent with it and one look at my photos and you'd call me out, so I won't. And, honestly, if I had the money and this were more than a hobby, I'd go completely digital.
-
VERY easy to deal with distortion in PS4 & 5: GoTo Filter > Lens Correction (then Custom)
Apply changes.
Voila
Brian
Thanks for the tip ... but, after being stumped for a sec, I found it's actually Filter > Distortion > Lens Correction :)
Jack
-
No you weren't -- the horizon line would be dead center if you were "shooting straight." The upward tilt of the camera results in the leaning building. This will happen with any lens.
Well, I didn't have a level, but it seemed I was shooting straight.
You have several options:
1. in Photoshop, choose Filter > Lens Correction and play with Vertical Perspective. (In CS5 choose the Custom panel first.)
Thanks for the tip, but (as above) I discovered it was Filter > Distortion > Lens Correction on mine.
2. Shoot with the camera perfectly level, but with a much wider lens. Your photo will have the horizon dead center, but you can then crop this in Photoshop to your desired framing. (This was a common tactic back when we didn't have much in the way of shift lenses for 35mm cameras.)
Thank you again for the tip, but I don't see how I could shoot much wider than 10mm. I will try to get the horizon dead center, though, as you recommend.
3. Buy a shift lens, and use it correctly. This is a very expensive option, you might try the other two first.
I will. I was looking at the T/S 24mm and it doesn't seem to be what I am looking for. I am starting to lean heavily toward the simplicity of the Zeiss.
I still have the EF-S 15-85mm and might just use it at ~ 17mm. It is pretty sharp and it has IS (unlike the 10-22).
The most recent versions of Photoshop and Lightroom apply automatic distortion corrections to many lenses. This does great things for my Canon 10-22, though of course it doesn't fix the problem in your photo above.
This sounds like a great feature, but I only have Lightroom 2.7 and PS CS4.
Do these progams have this feature, and if so, do you have to program it to do this or does it do so automatically?
Thanks again for the information,
Jack
.
-
Bear in mind that on a (Canon) crop body, 21 mm becomes effectively 34 mm, quite a modest wide angle, nothing ultra- or super-wide angle there.
Exactly. I am thinking about shying away from "ultra wide" to a more moderate wide.
Also, on a crop body, FF-designed lenses can not possibly perform "better", as they project only one and the same image on the sensor plane. What people are referring to as "better" is the fact that you are looking at the center crop of a full image, thus eliminating the edges, where most lenses, even the best ones, are inferior to the center.
I don't have the training to dispute this, but I did read in several reviews that the resolution, vignetting, etc. were better when tested on crop cameras (as quoted above).
.
-
The lens has not much to do with it though... It's not distorsion, it's perspective (and the rectilinear rendering associated with it). You can avoid it by keeping your camera horizontal (and cropping if needed) or by the use of a tilt-shift lens, or with the "vertical" slider in LR3/ACR6 (develop/lens correction/perspective).
"The camera" by Ansel Adams may still be a very good reading on the subject!
See here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses1.htm) or elsewhere otherwise...
Edit : ooops, seems I'm late...
Thank you.
.
-
I have no experience with panoramas, but I think (as a bunch of other people have gone on to chime in) that you probably want a tilt/shift lens--and one that's wide but not ultra-wide--if you're looking for clean, undistorted perspective with parallel vertical lines, like in a painting.
As far as I can see, if you try to fit an very large angle of view into a flat image, you unavoidably will have to fight perspective.
Making the converging lines parallel may help, especially with buildings, but there will be the odd case where it will just seem as goofy as before (making the top of the building too big eg).
To flatten perspective more efficiently, the solution is simple (but not always doable) : step back and zoom in.
I'd say ultra wide angles show more foregiveness with natural images where there isn't anything really square or straight but random shapes, where the viewer can't remark the 'distorted' corners ; mountains are the best example I can think of, but your example would have also worked without the supposed-to-be-vertical light tower.
-
I have no experience with panoramas, but I think (as a bunch of other people have gone on to chime in) that you probably want a tilt/shift lens--and one that's wide but not ultra-wide--if you're looking for clean, undistorted perspective with parallel vertical lines, like in a painting. As others have mentioned, you can instead and relatively easily perform perspective correction in photoshop--even for converging verticals, but that does change the frame a bit (in effect turning the image into a top-heavy trapezoid until vertical lines are parallel and then cropping the edges).
The 24mm Canon tilt/shift lens looks phenomenal to me (and would be my choice in focal length on a cropped sensor based on totally arbitrary personal preference)...but it's pricey and probably not much cheaper used. Photoshop or other software that performs perspective correction for both barrel distortion and perspective distortion might be the best option for price and flexibility.
I could also continue to proselytize about large format even though I'm still basically incompetent with it and one look at my photos and you'd call me out, so I won't. And, honestly, if I had the money and this were more than a hobby, I'd go completely digital.
Well, I appreciate your perspective and your taking the time to provide it.
I think I am either going to go with my current Canon EF-S 15-85mm and use it at 15-24mm (24-38mm), while trying some of the above suggestions, but most probably I will just sell this lens too at some point and go with the Zeiss 21mm.
Jack
.
-
More options to correct distortion: Ptlens (nifty little nice utility, very affordable) and also DxO optics has excellent distortion correction in the available modules.
The 15-85 is good enough, it's actually very good. I think the Tokina 11-16 is still an improvement if you want to go wider. I don't think the Zeiss 21 makes sense in a crop body, 34mm for the price it has and a cropped image doesn't make much sense. AND I'm not sure if the difference between the Zeiss and a good lens like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 will be that big specially in terms of sharpness.
In a FF body it's a completely different story and the Zeiss, the 14-24 and other lenses have a lot of merit.
For a crop body I think the 11-16 15-85 is a good enough combo for most landscape scenarios.
-
Thank you again for the tip, but I don't see how I could shoot much wider than 10mm. I will try to get the horizon dead center, though, as you recommend.
Only do this if you are planning to *crop* later to your preferred composition. Otherwise it's generally a no-no to have the horizon dead center in your landscape image.
Let me add a quick correction of your photo. Notice how you do lose some of the edges when performing the correction in Photoshop:
-
More options to correct distortion: Ptlens (nifty little nice utility, very affordable) and also DxO optics has excellent distortion correction in the available modules.
Thanks for the info.
The 15-85 is good enough, it's actually very good. I think the Tokina 11-16 is still an improvement if you want to go wider.
The 15-85 is a better overall lens than the 10-22 IMO. Sharper, heavier, and it also has IS.
However what it also has, that I am not especially fond of, is lens creep. I still say, if I want to go extra wide, I'd ultimately be better off doing a Pano ... even a marginal one.
I don't think the Zeiss 21 makes sense in a crop body, 34mm for the price it has and a cropped image doesn't make much sense. AND I'm not sure if the difference between the Zeiss and a good lens like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 will be that big specially in terms of sharpness.
I haven't seen the actual numbers (or performance) between the two ... but the Zeiss is consistently described as "Legendary" ... "3D-like" ... and I haven't seen such praise over the Tamron. For corner-to-corner sharpness, et al, the universal consensus is the Zeiss seems to be peerless (at least for Canon). This is why two shots merged shots with a 21mm Zeiss would be better than anything an ultra-wide could do.
In a FF body it's a completely different story and the Zeiss, the 14-24 and other lenses have a lot of merit.
For a crop body I think the 11-16 15-85 is a good enough combo for most landscape scenarios.
If I lose the 15-85, I think (if I don't get the Zeiss) that the 14-24 would be the way I'd go. I just don't like the protruding front element--and the fact you can't protect it with a filter.
Jack
.
-
Only do this if you are planning to *crop* later to your preferred composition. Otherwise it's generally a no-no to have the horizon dead center in your landscape image.
I thought about that kind of composition and figured that had to be the case :)
Let me add a quick correction of your photo. Notice how you do lose some of the edges when performing the correction in Photoshop:
Thank you, and yes I did notice.
It almost seems pointless to have the extra mm ... if you're only going to crop it anyway.
Another thing I don't like is the pitiful "afterthought" these EF-S lenses have to Manual Focus. It's almost like I can't focus unless it's AF.
More and more, I am getting sick of AF features and like to have total control of the focusing myself ... and the Zeiss lens is actually designed to be focused manually with, by all acounts, a smooth and extra-precise focus ring.
Thanks again,
Jack
.
-
... but the Zeiss is consistently described as "Legendary" ... "3D-like" …
Similarly, Leica owners would swear they can hear angels sing when they put a Leica lens next to their ear, and see them dance when they look into the lens… It is just a piece of glass, people! Is it better than the next piece of glass? Yes, it is. Does it matter ultimately? Absolutely not.
What makes or breaks an image is an emotional impact it has on the viewer, i.e., the content, not the pixel-peeping perfectionist obsession. The "legendary" stuff is a sandbox for the independently wealthy perfectionists to shoot brick walls and backyard trees. Real photographers shoot with what works practically, e.g. Art Wolfe shoots with the "lousy" Canon 16-35 zoom.
As for pairing Zeiss 21 and a crop body… what can I tell you… it is like adding leather seats to a Yugo (and trust me, I know what I am talking about :))
-
... and the Zeiss lens is actually designed to be focused manually with, by all acounts, a smooth and extra-precise focus ring...
Which has absolutely no practical relevance on a super-wide angle (due to its enormous depth-of-field). You will be most likely using a hyperfocal scale anyway.
-
Similarly, Leica owners would swear they can hear angels sing when they put a Leica lens next to their ear, and see them dance when they look into the lens… It is just a piece of glass, people! Is it better than the next piece of glass? Yes, it is. Does it matter ultimately? Absolutely not.
It does matter, ultimately, if a lens takes a better photo and makes you feel better about your effort in producing the photo.
What makes or breaks an image is an emotional impact it has on the viewer, i.e., the content, not the pixel-peeping perfectionist obsession. The "legendary" stuff is a sandbox for the independently wealthy perfectionists to shoot brick walls and backyard trees.
Well, one's own pride and emotions towards one's own work also count. And, though artistry, experience, etc. all combine to be more important overall ... I still can't see how any image wouldn't be improved by being taken with a better lens.
Real photographers shoot with what works practically, e.g. Art Wolfe shoots with the "lousy" Canon 16-35 zoom.
I've heard many fine reviews of the 16-35 (II) ... but I've also heard 100% of the comparisons of this same lens to the Zeiss fall in landslide favor toward the Zeiss.
I don't know (or care about) what a "real photographer" is, I only know the direction in which my own thoughts and preferences are heading.
As for pairing Zeiss 21 and a crop body… what can I tell you… it is like adding leather seats to a Yugo (and trust me, I know what I am talking about :))
Well, the 7D is no Yugo. It can print superb images up into the mid 20s. It may not be a D3x, but it's the cream of the current crop of ASP-C offerings. Furthermore, ultimately I am going to get a FF for landscape, while keeping the 7D for macro photography for the next few years. The 7D can produce macro prints superbly up to the max size I'll ever need to print them.
For landscapes, ultimately I will either get the next iteration of the 5D or 1Ds (or perhaps the 5D II when the price drops), and therefore I want a timeless FF lens for landscape work, when I have the extra time I plan on having to devote to it.
Jack
.
-
Which has absolutely no practical relevance on a super-wide angle (due to its enormous depth-of-field). You will be most likely using a hyperfocal scale anyway.
Wrong.
Getting better pinpoint focus, getting better center-to-border sharpness, getting better color rendition, and getting a better overall effect to the veiwer is absolutely relevant.
So is the prospect of less potential mechanical difficulties and better resale value.
Jack
.
-
...if a lens takes a better photo…
And that is the crux of our debate: my position is that it is not the lens that takes better photos, the photographer does. The lens might take technically superior photos, but that still does not translate directly into better photos.
... and makes you feel better about your effort in producing the photo… one's own pride and emotions towards one's own work also count…
Perhaps… but such issues are best handled with one's shrink. ;)
... I still can't see how any image wouldn't be improved by being taken with a better lens…
I can: it is a matter of raising false hopes and priorities. By relying on the lens' "magical" features, by believing that it is the lens that takes better pictures, by expecting to improve one's photography by employing "better" lenses, one is inevitably downplaying photographer's role in producing better images by concentrating on creativity, vision, idea, feel, etc., things that actually result in truly better photos. Why bother after all, when using a "legendary" lens is supposed to result in "legendary" photos?
-
Another thing I don't like is the pitiful "afterthought" these EF-S lenses have to Manual Focus. It's almost like I can't focus unless it's AF.
From a practical standpoint, this is true. The standard focusing screen in your camera is designed for brightness, not accuracy -- even with a silky smoooooth manual focus ring, you won't be able to achieve accurate manual focus. That is, images will *appear to be* in focus through your viewfinder when they are not, in fact, in focus. Canon assumes you will use autofocus (which works quite well when used properly.)
Canon makes extra-precision screens for better manual focus with fast lenses. I have them installed in my 1-D bodies. They work well, but even wide open with fast lenses, I find the AF to be more accurate and repeatable. (However, I am usually shooting things that move a lot, not landscapes.) If you want manual focus to work best when shooting landscapes, use a tripod and Live View, zoomed all the way in, using a Hoodman loupe. I do this for architecture, and it works very well.
-
Thanks for the tip ... but, after being stumped for a sec, I found it's actually Filter > Distortion > Lens Correction :)
Jack,
There's another option which you might find more flexible.
Select the 'Rectangular Marquee Tool' (the one with the dotted line).
Use it to select all or part of your image.
Right-click over the selected part of the image and choose 'Free Transform' from the drop-down menu. This option allows you to stretch or compress the image to your heart's content. However, if you want to avoid cropping when stretching, you should enlarge the canvas first.
For more options in 'Free Transform' mode, right-click again and the drop-down menu will offer you, Warp, Perspective, Distort, Skew etc.
Experiment and see what works best. For example, the 'perspective' option allows you to make equal corrections on both side of the image simultaneously, when you tug on one of the little squares in the corner of the selection, whereas 'distort' allows you to make corrections that apply separately to one side of the image.
Wonderful thing, Photoshop.
I would add, for a really wide effect in confined environments containing close subjects, the TS-E lenses are the best option, especially the new TS-E 17mm. On full frame this lens provides a significantly wider effect than a single shot from a 14mm lens, when stitching the usual 3 images you get from one extreme of shift to the other.
On a cropped format, the 17mm TS-E, after stitching, will give you a wider result than a single shot from an EF-S 10mm lens, and superb detail and resolution from corner to corner.
If the subject is distant, there's usually no problem getting a perfect stitch. You can use any lens. You often don't even need a tripod.
If the subject is close, there can be huge problems with discontinuities and getting straight lines to match, but not if you use a TS-E.
With Photoshop's 'Photomerge' you can even get perfect stitches of close subjects using a TS-E lens without tripod.
-
However what it also has, that I am not especially fond of, is lens creep. I still say, if I want to go extra wide, I'd ultimately be better off doing a Pano ... even a marginal one.
If you shoot a pano from the exact same position, you will have the same perspective and therefore will have the same leaning lighthouse. You will likely have more detail in the image assuming the same quality of lens.
-
This begs the other part of my question, which is are ultra-wides really all that desirable for landscape photography?
I find the super-wide lens is overrated for landscape work. The exaggerated perspective can be effective at times, but can also become a boring gimmick if over-done. I have the Nikkor 14-24 but almost never use it because it's just not a useful focal range for me on full-frame. I can't quite bring myself to sell the lens because it's just so darn good at what it does, even if it's not something I have much use for.
I'm more likely to work in the slightly wide to slightly telephoto-range for the majority of my work (though there are certainly exceptions), in full-frame terms I'd say 30-85mm is where I'm most comfortable; I use the Nikkor 45mm PC-E a lot. I do use a 24mm T/S lens also, but almost never go wider than that unless it's one of those situations where you just don't have a choice due to subject size and proximity.
In your situation I would take a good hard look at the newish TS-E II lenses from Canon, either 17mm or 24mm depending on which FOV you would find more useful with your cropped sensor. I found the Nikon 24mm PC-E to be very useful as a slightly-wide lens on APS-C. Not only do you get perspective control (which isn't just for buildings) but also DOF control and the option of flat stitching. Canon isn't exactly known for their wideangle lenses, but by all accounts they outdid themselves with the 17mm and 24mm TS-E II's (only Canon lenses I've ever been jealous of). I don't think the Zeiss is so much better that it's all that compelling, especially if you end up having to correct perspective in photoshop on a regular basis (which degrades image quality).
I think the advantages of T/S lenses for landscape photography are under-appreciated by a lot of photographers who think they're just for shooting architecture. If I could get T/S lenses for all the focal lengths I shoot, that's all I'd ever use.
-
I find the super-wide lens is overrated for landscape work. The exaggerated perspective can be effective at times, but can also become a boring gimmick if over-done. I have the Nikkor 14-24 but almost never use it because it's just not a useful focal range for me on full-frame. I can't quite bring myself to sell the lens because it's just so darn good at what it does, even if it's not something I have much use for.
I know what you mean, but the Nikkor 14-24 does have that flexibility common to all zooms, the range of focal lengths. 24mm is not particularly wide, and 14mm is very useful in confined spaces where it might be impossible to step back.
Having just compared the 17mm TS-E with the EF-S 10-22, I see that the stitched images from the 17mm are only wider when the camera is horizontal, and then one sacrifices height. With camera vertical, the width of the resulting stitch is about the same as the width of a single shot at 10mm with camera horizontal. But of course, the detail, the resolution and the freedom from chromatic abberation is much better with that 17mm TSE.
-
Most aspects of the op have already been covered - at least once - but at the risk of something-or-other I'd like to contribute. Firstly, I always find it odd that people ask about focal lengths for landscapes. Macro, interiors, portraits, yes, but "landscape"? It's a very, er, wide term.
I have the Nikon 14-24 and find it invaluable for interiors - it has earned its purchase price repeatedly. I try to avoid the need for vertical perspective correction in pp by shooting level and at the optimum height, but of course that's not always possible. However there's one form of distortion that really bothers me about fl's as wide as 14mm on full-frame (the widest prime I have, other than Fisheyes, is 20mm) and that's the volume anamorphosis effect. The non-linear stretching approaching the periphery of the wide axis is noticeable and (to me) unpleasant, even for vegetation, rocks, clouds etc. In fact I can live with it for interiors more easily than in (seldom used) landscape applications.
I've twice tried evaluation copies of DxO which offers the capacity to correct this form of distortion. I'm surprised that whenever I've tried to raise this subject no one seems bothered about it except me! As best I recall DxO offers two strategies each of which corrects differently to suit differing subjects and distances. Of course DxO also offers mapped geometrical distortion characteristics for a given lens/body combination - assuming it's in their db. But I use NX2 and don't feel moved to buy DxO as well. Most corrections can be effected in PS with a little effort, including this one.
here's a link to the relevant page of DxO's site:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis
Roy
-
And that is the crux of our debate: my position is that it is not the lens that takes better photos, the photographer does. The lens might take technically superior photos, but that still does not translate directly into better photos.
That's like saying, "The car doesn't win the race; the driver does."
It's true in a sense, but it also completely overlooks the fact that said driver better be in a @%$#!&* fast car to begin with or he won't even be in the race. In short, it takes both a top-notch car and a top-notch driver to win the race.
Perhaps… but such issues are best handled with one's shrink. ;)
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/jackoff.gif)
I can: it is a matter of raising false hopes and priorities. By relying on the lens' "magical" features, by believing that it is the lens that takes better pictures, by expecting to improve one's photography by employing "better" lenses, one is inevitably downplaying photographer's role in producing better images by concentrating on creativity, vision, idea, feel, etc., things that actually result in truly better photos. Why bother after all, when using a "legendary" lens is supposed to result in "legendary" photos?
Huh? The only thing "false" about your silly post is downplaying the importance of lens selection. First of all, no one has said anything about "magic," so you're still jerkin your pud here. I am just talking about tools for the job and the advatages/disadvantages of each.
If you don't think lenses are important, go try to take an ultra-close shot of a bird 500 yards away without a super-telephoto lens and you'll see what I mean (and you'll also see why there's a ~$6000 tag in getting such a lens). Or try to take an ultra-close 5:1 shot of a dragonfly's eye without the right lens (or stacked equipment) and you'll also begin to "get it" about the importance of lens selection.
Sure, maybe there's a lot more flexibility of choice when talking landscape lenses, I realize this, and I also realize the creative vision of the artist needs to be at the helm of any effort. No shit, Sherlock.
But that still doesn't mean a person can't really try to zero-in on which tools for the job might best suit him ... as well as make an earnest effort to get the very best quality equipment his budget will allow him to. Because, yes, some lenses are simply better than others and these better lenses are the ones I want to discuss (as well as which focal lengths are most suitable).
Since this particular forum is entitled, Cameras, Lenses, and Shooting Gear, I feel my subject matter is appropriate here (whereas your nonsense is not). I was just trying to get ideas from more knowledgeable and experienced forum members, and (thankfully) several have stepped-up to offer some suggestions I hadn't considered as well as confirmed some things I was noticing. If you want to sit here and ridicule my questions, that's cool I guess, but you're swingin-n-missin by a country mile.
I don't doubt for a minute that I have to keep improving my compositional skills, my knowledge of equipment, my roundedness in using Photoshop, etc., in order to get the most out of what I am trying to do. Again, no shit Sherlock. But if a person wants to be in the race, he's got to first sit his ass down in a "fast car" ... and he has to select the right type of "fast car" for his kind of race.
A straight-runner won't be much good for a slalom race ...
Jack
.
-
From a practical standpoint, this is true. The standard focusing screen in your camera is designed for brightness, not accuracy -- even with a silky smoooooth manual focus ring, you won't be able to achieve accurate manual focus. That is, images will *appear to be* in focus through your viewfinder when they are not, in fact, in focus. Canon assumes you will use autofocus (which works quite well when used properly.)
Perhaps this is why images I could swear were in focus "in my viewfinder" looked slightly OOF on my monitor ???
What about when using Live View? The images I take using Live View seem to come out the best.
And finally, AF works well in a "basic" sence, but it still pales in value compared to Live View and MF. This allows me to bring into perfect focus exactly what I want to be in focus.
Canon makes extra-precision screens for better manual focus with fast lenses. I have them installed in my 1-D bodies. They work well, but even wide open with fast lenses, I find the AF to be more accurate and repeatable. (However, I am usually shooting things that move a lot, not landscapes.) If you want manual focus to work best when shooting landscapes, use a tripod and Live View, zoomed all the way in, using a Hoodman loupe. I do this for architecture, and it works very well.
Okay, that's what I thought with Live View. But what is a Hoodman's Loupe?
Thanks again for your insight,
Jack
.
-
Jack,
There's another option which you might find more flexible.
Select the 'Rectangular Marquee Tool' (the one with the dotted line).
Use it to select all or part of your image.
Right-click over the selected part of the image and choose 'Free Transform' from the drop-down menu. This option allows you to stretch or compress the image to your heart's content. However, if you want to avoid cropping when stretching, you should enlarge the canvas first.
For more options in 'Free Transform' mode, right-click again and the drop-down menu will offer you, Warp, Perspective, Distort, Skew etc.
Experiment and see what works best. For example, the 'perspective' option allows you to make equal corrections on both side of the image simultaneously, when you tug on one of the little squares in the corner of the selection, whereas 'distort' allows you to make corrections that apply separately to one side of the image.
Wonderful thing, Photoshop.
I would add, for a really wide effect in confined environments containing close subjects, the TS-E lenses are the best option, especially the new TS-E 17mm. On full frame this lens provides a significantly wider effect than a single shot from a 14mm lens, when stitching the usual 3 images you get from one extreme of shift to the other.
On a cropped format, the 17mm TS-E, after stitching, will give you a wider result than a single shot from an EF-S 10mm lens, and superb detail and resolution from corner to corner.
If the subject is distant, there's usually no problem getting a perfect stitch. You can use any lens. You often don't even need a tripod.
If the subject is close, there can be huge problems with discontinuities and getting straight lines to match, but not if you use a TS-E.
With Photoshop's 'Photomerge' you can even get perfect stitches of close subjects using a TS-E lens without tripod.
Thank you for taking the time Ray. I will experiment with all of this.
Jack
.
-
If you shoot a pano from the exact same position, you will have the same perspective and therefore will have the same leaning lighthouse. You will likely have more detail in the image assuming the same quality of lens.
I understand what you're saying, but I thought that any such effect is the result of Barrel Distortion (an inherent problem w/ ultra-wides).
So you're saying "The Leaning Tower of St. Marks" would have occured in a less-wide lens that doesn't have Barrel Distortion?
I guess I will have to try it at 20mm and see. Will also compose a few panos, from a level perspective, and crop what I want out of it.
Thanks.
.
-
I find the super-wide lens is overrated for landscape work. The exaggerated perspective can be effective at times, but can also become a boring gimmick if over-done. I have the Nikkor 14-24 but almost never use it because it's just not a useful focal range for me on full-frame. I can't quite bring myself to sell the lens because it's just so darn good at what it does, even if it's not something I have much use for.
That is how I was feeling about my 10-22 ... and I just did sell it for that reason. Everything I shot at super-wide was kind of distorted. I liked it at first but have grown tired of it.
I'm more likely to work in the slightly wide to slightly telephoto-range for the majority of my work (though there are certainly exceptions), in full-frame terms I'd say 30-85mm is where I'm most comfortable; I use the Nikkor 45mm PC-E a lot. I do use a 24mm T/S lens also, but almost never go wider than that unless it's one of those situations where you just don't have a choice due to subject size and proximity.
Interesting. Do you take just single images or do you stitch with such focal lengths?
In your situation I would take a good hard look at the newish TS-E II lenses from Canon, either 17mm or 24mm depending on which FOV you would find more useful with your cropped sensor. I found the Nikon 24mm PC-E to be very useful as a slightly-wide lens on APS-C. Not only do you get perspective control (which isn't just for buildings) but also DOF control and the option of flat stitching. Canon isn't exactly known for their wideangle lenses, but by all accounts they outdid themselves with the 17mm and 24mm TS-E II's (only Canon lenses I've ever been jealous of).
I had looked at these lenses, but the only real reviews I've been able to find were for the 'I' iterations not the 'II' versions.
I don't think the Zeiss is so much better that it's all that compelling, especially if you end up having to correct perspective in photoshop on a regular basis (which degrades image quality).
I think the advantages of T/S lenses for landscape photography are under-appreciated by a lot of photographers who think they're just for shooting architecture.
Good point.
If I could get T/S lenses for all the focal lengths I shoot, that's all I'd ever use.
Interesting.
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
.
-
Most aspects of the op have already been covered - at least once - but at the risk of something-or-other I'd like to contribute. Firstly, I always find it odd that people ask about focal lengths for landscapes. Macro, interiors, portraits, yes, but "landscape"? It's a very, er, wide term.
I have the Nikon 14-24 and find it invaluable for interiors - it has earned its purchase price repeatedly. I try to avoid the need for vertical perspective correction in pp by shooting level and at the optimum height, but of course that's not always possible. However there's one form of distortion that really bothers me about fl's as wide as 14mm on full-frame (the widest prime I have, other than Fisheyes, is 20mm) and that's the volume anamorphosis effect. The non-linear stretching approaching the periphery of the wide axis is noticeable and (to me) unpleasant, even for vegetation, rocks, clouds etc. In fact I can live with it for interiors more easily than in (seldom used) landscape applications.
I've twice tried evaluation copies of DxO which offers the capacity to correct this form of distortion. I'm surprised that whenever I've tried to raise this subject no one seems bothered about it except me! As best I recall DxO offers two strategies each of which corrects differently to suit differing subjects and distances. Of course DxO also offers mapped geometrical distortion characteristics for a given lens/body combination - assuming it's in their db. But I use NX2 and don't feel moved to buy DxO as well. Most corrections can be effected in PS with a little effort, including this one.
here's a link to the relevant page of DxO's site:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis
Roy
This seems to be exactly the unwanted effect I am seeking to correct.
I am not sure if this DxO software would have corrected the image I displayed or not, but I noticed in one of the pictures presented as a "before" in the link you provided that there was a lightpost bent-in ... and on the "after" photo it was straight.
Thanks for the link,
Jack
.
-
Perhaps this is why images I could swear were in focus "in my viewfinder" looked slightly OOF on my monitor
Yes, exactly. A great manual focus lens will not make any difference here.
So you're saying "The Leaning Tower of St. Marks" would have occured in a less-wide lens that doesn't have Barrel Distortion?
Yes, exactly. The lean comes from having the camera pointed slightly upward. A perfect lens will not make any difference here.
The Hoodman Loupe: http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017
-
if you are considering a Zeiss lens, subcribe to diglloyd.com
There just isn't any really good ultrawide for Canon crop frame (the closest would be the Canon 14 which has some issues of it's own). The Tokina 11-16 is measurably better than the Canon 10-22, but i think it would be hard to spot the difference in a printed image - neither has decent edge sharpness until you stop down to f8+ (true as well for all other wide zooms except the Nikon 14-24). most primes 24mm and wider need to be stopped down as well
in addition to the Zeiss 21, the Canon 17 and 24 have corner-corner sharpness even at larger apertures and do not have the mustache (or wave) distortion of the Zeiss 21 and all of the wide zooms. mustache distortion is hard to correct, and PT lens helps but doesn't fix it, don't know about DXO and haven't done a test yet with LR3. mustache distortion can be really annoying when you got straight lines in the image. PT lens and DXO will also fix perspective distortion but i'm not sure at what cost in resolution (and you've got to remember not to frame the subject too tight) - the largest print i've made with significant correction using PT Lens is a 13x19 from 5D and 24-105 of a power plant with smokestack, it will withstand close inspection and would be completely unusable without correction
if neither i nor the subject is moving, i'd rather shoot a panorama than use an ultrawide lens - particularly with a crop-frame camera - most of the time, shooting verticals, a 50mm eff prime works great, and i've hardly ever needed to go wider than 35mm or longer than 100mm
a lot depends on the use of the images - if they're not going to be printed, it probably doesn't make much difference. but if there's important detail in the corners or edges i wouldn't print larger than 11x17, from an 11-16, even stopped down --with really good wide glass, 17x25 is just possible from a 7D, but shooting a panorama with reasonably priced primes, 17 or 20x?? is not a problem even with some cropping
-
The Hoodman Loupe: http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017
I just got one of these (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/677008-REG/LCD_Viewfinder_LCDVF.html). Much nicer than the Hoodman Loupe, and still relatively affordable compared to the Zacuto Z-Finder. The 2x magnification is nice when trying to nail focus at 100%, and the eye cup is much better than the Hoodman as well.
-
Interesting. Do you take just single images or do you stitch with such focal lengths?
I sometimes stitch, but not always or even a majority of the time.
I had looked at these lenses, but the only real reviews I've been able to find were for the 'I' iterations not the 'II' versions.
I'm surprised, there has been lots of discussion of the II's, even here at LuLa. The 24 TSE II is greatly improved from the original (the 17 TS-E is completely new and had no predecessor).
-
...in full-frame terms I'd say 30-85mm is where I'm most comfortable
+1 on these focal lengths. No need to worry about "volume anamorphosis" or whatever if your lenses barely distort perspective in the first place. Borderline ultra-wides (24mm equivalent) can also be useful if you have simple, non-detailed corners (skies, etc.), imo, but my default is 180mm (roughly equivalent to 45mm, actually).
That said, there's something very dramatic about ultra-wides...until you make a huge print from one and the corners look "off." Some people love ultra-wides--and, like hdr or something, they provide impressive images in small prints and on the web, which is fine--but the popular opinion that wider is better when shooting outdoors is wrong and I don't know how it gets propagated. Ultra-ultra wides are best for architecture and interiors, when you need to fit a lot in frame and can't back up--or for the sake of intentional distortion and "weirdness;" see virtually any Terry Gilliam movie, for example.
If I could get T/S lenses for all the focal lengths I shoot, that's all I'd ever use.
You can get T/S lenses for every focal length. The only trade-off is each sheet of film costs like $5...and you get light leaks, accidental double exposures, film plane calibration issues, a five-pound camera that's designed like a sail and is incredibly fragile, and you need like five charts just to figure out how to expose and focus correctly.
On the original topic, the Zeiss looks like the "best lens ever" and if having the best lens ever frees you to shoot how you want, buy it. What lens tests cover up is that even if you have great resolution, color rendering and micro-contrast may be off--so some of that subjective magic may-or-may-not actually be real even if flat charts don't show it. Look at photos taken with the coastal optics 60mm f4 (the real best lens ever): the colors are always perfect. That said, I have never used any of these lenses in question because they cost as much as my entire set-up! But if 10-20mm is too wide on a crop body and you're buying 21mm with the intention of later switching to full-frame, just be aware that it may be too wide, too, and since it's not tilt/shift you will have all manner of unavoidable perspective distortion. Count mine as another vote (in theory, haven't tried any of these options) for 24mm or 45mm (on full frame) TS-E, but try all the options (rent, maybe) before comitting...
-
I was looking at the T/S 24mm and it doesn't seem to be what I am looking for. I am starting to lean heavily toward the simplicity of the Zeiss.
There is certainly nothing wrong with the Zeiss. But keep in mind that whatever new lens you get it has no bearing on your perspective issue. If that's an issue of concern for you and you are also concerned about sharpness, then the TS-E would seem a better option. With a non-shift lens, you either have to a) shoot with the horizon in the middle of the frame and then crop the composition later; b) apply perspective correction in Photoshop later (in which case you are somewhat altering your composition and will need to take that into account as you are setting up the shot...plus you are degrading pixel quality as you stretch the image by applying digital correction) or c) stitch panos.
Given those options, I would say that instead the TS-E seems like the simplest choice.
I also believe that the Zeiss comes with some barrel distortion (of the "moustache" variety, from what I've heard) while the 24MM TSE ii has practically no distortion.
-
I am going to throw my lot in with the folks who have recommended the tilt-shift lenses. I have both the 17mm TS-E and the 24mm TS-E II, both excellent. The 24 is what is on my 5DMkII 95% of the time. It is a spectacular lens. There is no barrel distortion, no CA, extremely resistant to flare, and it is absolutely sharp corner to corner. If I had to give up all my lenses and only keep one, the 24mm TS-E II would be the one. Pricey, but worth every single penny IMO.
-
On the not so expensive scale the TSE 45 and the superb TSE 90 are also worth consideration. I do landscapes only and I find I use the TSE 90 a lot, sometimes shifting to create a stitched image equivalent of a 40mm lens. It's like having a very sharp 40-90 zoom with tilt capability.
And the 90 works wonders for flowers and semi-macro photography too.
-
Yes, exactly. A great manual focus lens will not make any difference here.
Even when the focus dogs "beep" to signify perfect focus? This doesn't sound possible. What good would they be then?
I can understand, though, if "I" think it's in focus ... but hear no "beep" ...
Yes, exactly. The lean comes from having the camera pointed slightly upward. A perfect lens will not make any difference here.
Okay, thanks. I know you said it earlier, but I wasn't sure I wanted to accept this. Learn something new every day.
The Hoodman Loupe: http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017
Thanks for the link,
Jack
.
-
if you are considering a Zeiss lens, subcribe to diglloyd.com
Thanks, however, based on all this further feedback, I am leaning toward the 17mm Tilt Shift ...
There just isn't any really good ultrawide for Canon crop frame (the closest would be the Canon 14 which has some issues of it's own). The Tokina 11-16 is measurably better than the Canon 10-22, but i think it would be hard to spot the difference in a printed image - neither has decent edge sharpness until you stop down to f8+ (true as well for all other wide zooms except the Nikon 14-24). most primes 24mm and wider need to be stopped down as well
in addition to the Zeiss 21, the Canon 17 and 24 have corner-corner sharpness even at larger apertures and do not have the mustache (or wave) distortion of the Zeiss 21 and all of the wide zooms. mustache distortion is hard to correct, and PT lens helps but doesn't fix it, don't know about DXO and haven't done a test yet with LR3. mustache distortion can be really annoying when you got straight lines in the image. PT lens and DXO will also fix perspective distortion but i'm not sure at what cost in resolution (and you've got to remember not to frame the subject too tight) - the largest print i've made with significant correction using PT Lens is a 13x19 from 5D and 24-105 of a power plant with smokestack, it will withstand close inspection and would be completely unusable without correction
if neither i nor the subject is moving, i'd rather shoot a panorama than use an ultrawide lens - particularly with a crop-frame camera - most of the time, shooting verticals, a 50mm eff prime works great, and i've hardly ever needed to go wider than 35mm or longer than 100mm
a lot depends on the use of the images - if they're not going to be printed, it probably doesn't make much difference. but if there's important detail in the corners or edges i wouldn't print larger than 11x17, from an 11-16, even stopped down --with really good wide glass, 17x25 is just possible from a 7D, but shooting a panorama with reasonably priced primes, 17 or 20x?? is not a problem even with some cropping
Thank you for your feedback. That is pretty much the direction I am headed ...
Jack
.
-
I sometimes stitch, but not always or even a majority of the time.
Interesting.
I'm surprised, there has been lots of discussion of the II's, even here at LuLa. The 24 TSE II is greatly improved from the original (the 17 TS-E is completely new and had no predecessor).
Well, I have only been thinking about them for about a week now. When I started checking, there was no "TS-E 24 II" review yet at Photozone (though they did have the 17) and neither is reviewed at SLRLensreview.com.
In looking at the TS-E 17mm, the reviews at B&H, what was said at Photozone, and what has been said here ... it seems like a better overall bargain than the Zeiss (equal quality, wider, more versatile). However, I am more than a little concerned that it (like the Nikkor 14-40) has no way to protect the front element, not even a hood.
Jack
.
-
There is certainly nothing wrong with the Zeiss. But keep in mind that whatever new lens you get it has no bearing on your perspective issue. If that's an issue of concern for you and you are also concerned about sharpness, then the TS-E would seem a better option. With a non-shift lens, you either have to a) shoot with the horizon in the middle of the frame and then crop the composition later; b) apply perspective correction in Photoshop later (in which case you are somewhat altering your composition and will need to take that into account as you are setting up the shot...plus you are degrading pixel quality as you stretch the image by applying digital correction) or c) stitch panos.
Given those options, I would say that instead the TS-E seems like the simplest choice.
I also believe that the Zeiss comes with some barrel distortion (of the "moustache" variety, from what I've heard) while the 24MM TSE ii has practically no distortion.
Good post. I guess in wanting "the simplicity of the Zeiss" I was over-simplifying in my mind.
The fact that I had never used a T/S made me shy away from it, but I suppose after I get the hang of it then it will indeed be the best and simplest choice.
Jack
.
-
I am going to throw my lot in with the folks who have recommended the tilt-shift lenses. I have both the 17mm TS-E and the 24mm TS-E II, both excellent. The 24 is what is on my 5DMkII 95% of the time. It is a spectacular lens. There is no barrel distortion, no CA, extremely resistant to flare, and it is absolutely sharp corner to corner. If I had to give up all my lenses and only keep one, the 24mm TS-E II would be the one. Pricey, but worth every single penny IMO.
Thank you for your comments.
Out of curiosity, what made you choose the 24 II over the 17?
-
On the not so expensive scale the TSE 45 and the superb TSE 90 are also worth consideration. I do landscapes only and I find I use the TSE 90 a lot, sometimes shifting to create a stitched image equivalent of a 40mm lens. It's like having a very sharp 40-90 zoom with tilt capability.
And the 90 works wonders for flowers and semi-macro photography too.
I have seen some really nice flower shots with the 90 TS also ...
.
-
Yes, exactly. A great manual focus lens will not make any difference here.
Yes, exactly. The lean comes from having the camera pointed slightly upward. A perfect lens will not make any difference here.
Just to clarify: the leaning tower is a result of the camera back/sensor not being vertical. With the camera back vertical, the shift lens allows you to move the horizon up and down at will and the verticals in the image will stay vertical. (The tilt function is another thread!)
-
Interesting.
Well, I have only been thinking about them for about a week now. When I started checking, there was no "TS-E 24 II" review yet at Photozone (though they did have the 17) and neither is reviewed at SLRLensreview.com.
In looking at the TS-E 17mm, the reviews at B&H, what was said at Photozone, and what has been said here ... it seems like a better overall bargain than the Zeiss (equal quality, wider, more versatile). However, I am more than a little concerned that it (like the Nikkor 14-40) has no way to protect the front element, not even a hood.
Jack
.
I don't have the 17 TSE, I do have the Nikon 14-24, the bulbous front element is not a problem but the lens is heavy and can't use filters so I use it mostly for night landscapes (it's F2.8) and I use the 17-40L at daytime.
On a crop body I'm not sure if the 17TSE is a good investment if you compare the IQ with the Tokina 11-16.
-
Even when the focus dogs "beep" to signify perfect focus? This doesn't sound possible. What good would they be then?
The "focus beep" comes from the autofocus system. If you are going to accept the judgement of the AF system (which has all kinds of its own problems, btw), why not just use autofocus -- in other words, why manually focus and wait for the "beep" to tell you that focus is achieved?
-
The "focus beep" comes from the autofocus system. If you are going to accept the judgement of the AF system (which has all kinds of its own problems, btw), why not just use autofocus -- in other words, why manually focus and wait for the "beep" to tell you that focus is achieved?
Because I tend only to use one "dot" ... usually with macro (not landscape) ... and place it on the eye of the subject (wherever it may be, compositionally). With AF on, it may or may not beep ... but if I slowly MF it will "beep" when it's there.
.
-
I don't have the 17 TSE, I do have the Nikon 14-24, the bulbous front element is not a problem but the lens is heavy and can't use filters so I use it mostly for night landscapes (it's F2.8) and I use the 17-40L at daytime.
On a crop body I'm not sure if the 17TSE is a good investment if you compare the IQ with the Tokina 11-16.
Where is a comparison of the two?
But it's also about lack of distortion plus image quality, color rendition, etc. ...
-
Because I tend only to use one "dot" ... usually with macro (not landscape) ... and place it on the eye of the subject (wherever it may be, compositionally). With AF on, it may or may not beep ... but if I slowly MF it will "beep" when it's there.
I don't think that (waiting for the beep as you MF) will achieve any better focus than using AF will - it will beep when the same conditions are met, and the beep will come from the same AF sensor if that's the one you have set. Live View at 5x or 10x will be better than AF in situations where you have time (and support) to use it, because you are seeing the image and not relying on any AF system and its limitations.
-
Thank you for your comments.
Out of curiosity, what made you choose the 24 II over the 17?
I didn't choose one over the other, I have them both. While they are both fantastic lenses, the 24 II is, well, more fantastic for me as it's the focal length that suits me better.
-
I didn't choose one over the other, I have them both.
I realize that.
However, you had previously said, "If I had to give up all my lenses and only keep one, the 24mm TS-E II would be the one," and so I asked you why you chose the 24 over the 17 as "the only one."
I was wondering if there were a performance difference between the two.
While they are both fantastic lenses, the 24 II is, well, more fantastic for me as it's the focal length that suits me better.
I see. Yet, for me, the focal length of the 17 is going to pan-out to be ~27mm.
Thanks again for your input,
Jack
.
-
thedigitalpicture.com has a review of 11-16 with 50D and 17TS with 1DS3. doubt that anyone has taken the trouble to test a 17TS on crop frame. from my experience with the 11-16 (and no experience with the 17TS) i'd expect significantly better performance from the 17TS at larger apertures and noticeably better performance even with the 11-16 at f8 combined with a lack of distortion. but i agree that it's not a great investment in terms of image quality on a crop-frame camera (although the lens on it's own should be a fine investment) when you can get better overall resolution from a 5D2 with 17-40 stopped down to f8.
-
thedigitalpicture.com has a review of 11-16 with 50D and 17TS with 1DS3. doubt that anyone has taken the trouble to test a 17TS on crop frame. from my experience with the 11-16 (and no experience with the 17TS) i'd expect significantly better performance from the 17TS at larger apertures and noticeably better performance even with the 11-16 at f8 combined with a lack of distortion. but i agree that it's not a great investment in terms of image quality on a crop-frame camera (although the lens on it's own should be a fine investment) when you can get better overall resolution from a 5D2 with 17-40 stopped down to f8.
Interesting. But actually, on TheDigitalPicture.com link you provided, it directly says,
"While there are many good uses for the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens, landscape and architecture, especially interior architecture, are the most popular uses for this lens. These uses take full advantage of the tilt/shift/rotate movements and typically require the low distortion, low flare and high sharpness this lens delivers.
Obviously, APS-C (1.6x FOVCF) bodies frame tighter than their full-frame counterparts. This fact perhaps makes the wide focal length of this lens even more useful for these primary purposes.
The Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens is also more suited to people photography on an APS-C body. The 27.2mm full-frame-angle-of-view-equivalent focal length is still wide for portraits, but it works well for full body and environmental (subject(s) in their environment) portraits. Tilt is a great technique for isolating your subject from its surroundings. A small downward tilt will help keep all heads in focus in a large group photo.
I'm sure the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4 L Tilt-Shift Lens will be an invited guest at many weddings. It will see use on full frame bodies for expansive interior/exterior shots and will see use on APS-C bodies for both interiors/exteriors and group photos."
It also rated the 24 II as matching, or exceeding, the Zeiss 21 on just about everything.
Jack
.
-
I don't think that (waiting for the beep as you MF) will achieve any better focus than using AF will - it will beep when the same conditions are met, and the beep will come from the same AF sensor if that's the one you have set.
In theory, you're right. However, in practice, when I slowly rotate the focus ring (1) it is much more likely to "beep" than with AF, and (2) I trust its accuracy more. I find that, in challenging lighting situations, AF is more likely to "hunt" a few times (because it "tries too hard, too fast") ... whereas with a slow, deliberate MF effort in challenging lighting situations, the camera is much more likely to recognize "the ideal focus" on the first try.
Also, compositionally, sometimes the fixed focus dots don't land on the right spot. So I either have to re-compose the shot, to suit the dots, or I have to focus w/o the dots.
Live View at 5x or 10x will be better than AF in situations where you have time (and support) to use it, because you are seeing the image and not relying on any AF system and its limitations.
I take it you meant MF situations?
But yes, I absolutely agree with you here.
No doubt.
Jack
.
-
On a crop body I'm not sure if the 17TSE is a good investment if you compare the IQ with the Tokina 11-16.
Well the Tokina can't shift. That's the investment right there. If you need the capability to shift in order to correct for pespective distortion, there is no other option at that focal length.
As far as IQ, the 17TS-E really has no faults. It may be a tad less sharp than the 24TS-E II, but that's like saying a a Porsche is a tad slower than a Ferrari.
If the lens is good on a FF body, it is good on a crop body too. (My personal preference is the 24TSE with a FF body, but a 17TSE on a crop body is certainly not going suck :) )
-
For that matter, is a wide-angle lens even ideal for landscape?
That's a nonsense question ... reminds me of that kind of thoughtless questions like, which lens for Venice, which for Acapulco? There is no such thing as a lens that's "ideal for landscape" ... and also, there is no such thing as a lens that's unsuitable for landscape. So the answer can't be yes and can't be no. You can use any lens for landscape work, from fish-eye to super-telephoto. However the more extreme the lens—be it super-wide or super-long—the harder it is to make good and thoughtful use of it.
-
It's not a nonsense question; he asked if ultra-wides were "ideal," not if they were usable. Certain focal lengths (i.e. amounts of linear perspective distortion from artificially spacious to artifically flat) are better or at least more traditional for some subjects than others.
Imo, ultra-wides are usable for landscapes but they aren't ideal. Most of my favorite landscapes are taken between 30mm and 85mm in full-frame terms. Of course it depends on personal preference and way longer or way shorter can be fine, if less naturalistic. On the other hand, an ultra-wide clearly isn't ideal for portraiture as it will make noses look huge, whereas a 105mm lens might be just about ideal. Likewise a 105mm lens wouldn't be ideal for shooting hotel rooms and an ultra-wide would be a lot better. So in some cases you can choose lenses rather prescriptively (unless you're intentionally going against what's normal).
As for manual focus vs. autofocus...with T/S you'll be using live view, anyway.
-
That's a nonsense question ... reminds me of that kind of thoughtless questions like, which lens for Venice, which for Acapulco? There is no such thing as a lens that's "ideal for landscape" ... and also, there is no such thing as a lens that's unsuitable for landscape. So the answer can't be yes and can't be no. You can use any lens for landscape work, from fish-eye to super-telephoto. However the more extreme the lens—be it super-wide or super-long—the harder it is to make good and thoughtful use of it.
As Policar pointed out, mine was a valid question; yours was the nonsense answer.
To begin with I never asked if an ultra-wide lens was "for" landscape (nor did I ask what lens was "for" Acapulco or Venice), so you're making things up as you go along. I asked if most pros felt that ultra-wides were ideal for landscape (meaning generally produce the best results, in most landscape settings).
I understand that ultra-wides do have landscape applications ... thanks for pointing out the obvious ... but more and more I am finding most landscape photographers do not consider ultra-wides as a first-choice for landscapes. And, ironically, by you yourself stating that, "the more extreme the lens—be it super-wide or super-long—the harder it is to make good and thoughtful use of it," you're essentially admitting that ultra-wides are not ideal in your own view as well.
UWs can provide unique images to be sure, but as such are not really a mainstay but more for special effect.
Jack
.
-
... the Nikon 14-24, the bulbous front element … can't use filters...
Lee Filters apparently has a solution:
"LEE Filters have developed a new Holder System specifically designed for use on super wide angle lenses.The SW150 Filter Holder has been designed to initially fit the Nikon 14-24mm lens, but will also be adapted to fit on other super wide lenses after its initial launch…"
The rest (and a picture) here (http://www.leefilters.com/camera/products/finder/ref:C4BA0B2B8A73D1/)
-
Lee Filters apparently has a solution:
This has been announced quite a while ago now but went not yet in production as far as I know. The price is a nightmare, the filters itself are 50% more expensive compared to the already not-that-cheap Lee 100 mm filters. Currently it only fits the Nikon 14-24, so you always need a second filter holder for all your other lenses which adds weight and volume.
-
… The price is a nightmare… adds weight and volume.
Well, this thread is apparently about "the quest for the best", not the cheapest and most practical. Anyone considering the monstrosity the 14-24 is has long abandoned any concerns about size, weight and wallet impact anyway. And anyone interested what real photographers, and not armchair experts and posers, tend to use, should check what was in Galen Rowell's pockets and fanny packs, for instance.
-
The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 full-frame lens is almost completely free of distortion, but it is soft at the edges (on full-frame) wide open. I haven't noticed chromatic aberration but apparently it has more than some other lenses. It is the widest available (though the same as a Cosina Voigtlander rangefinder prime lens that can be shoehorned into some DSLRs with great loss of features), and, by zooming in, probably gives better results at less-wide apertures than cropping from a single prime lens on which one spent all of one's money. Since it is so wide, it leaves open the possibility of keeping the camera level and cropping as a cheap substitute for a shift lens. A significant weakness for some purposes is that it can't take a protective filter, except with a front filter / flat lens cap holder that cuts off the edges except when zoomed in a bit and using a crop-sensor camera.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/310-sigma-af-12-24mm-f45-56-ex-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review
There is an 8-16mm version for crop sensor cameras only that seems to be similar.
-
i certainly would not recommend the 12-24 for landscapes, some have tested many copies of this lens and found a "good" one, from various comments it seems that mine is about average -- which is not very good, and certainly not good at the edges. i bought it before crop-frame wide angles were available and have not used it much -- only for interiors where a pano won't work. wouldn't consider making a large print with this lens
distortion of the 12-24 is about half that of the Canon 17-24 (at 17mm), but so is the resolution
-
Since it is so wide, it leaves open the possibility of keeping the camera level and cropping as a cheap substitute for a shift lens.
The problem with the Sigma 12-24 is that the resolution just isn't there, at least not to make large prints. The fine details just get smudged, and in landscape photos this is a killer. Cropping only magnifies the lack of fine detail.
I personally find the 12-24 more useful in tight urban settings where the content of an image deals more with large structures as opposed to small details. I have occasionally used it on landscapes where I want an exaggerated perpective with something prominent in the foreground...but I'd never use it in place of a shift lens. If someone wanted a cheaper alternative to a shift lens, I would recommend investing in some pano gear instead. Or even a used 24TSE Mk I would be better.
-
I'm just a landscape dabbler but I had some fun with the 12-24mm at a lighthouse in Maine. I tried to keep a fence out of the picture by raising the angle out of level with the horizon and thereby distorted the photo but it was still an interesting capture because of how wide it is. Next time I'll crop out the unwanted items and get a less distorted look.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g54/jfirneno/DSC08052.jpg
-
i certainly would not recommend the 12-24 for landscapes, some have tested many copies of this lens and found a "good" one, from various comments it seems that mine is about average -- which is not very good, and certainly not good at the edges. i bought it before crop-frame wide angles were available and have not used it much -- only for interiors where a pano won't work. wouldn't consider making a large print with this lens
distortion of the 12-24 is about half that of the Canon 17-24 (at 17mm), but so is the resolution
I agree and dealing with distortion is easier than dealing with smudged details.
-
I shoot landscapes regularly with the 21mm ZE and I must say it is a wonderful lens. The 21mm has essentially replaced my 16-35mm f2.8.
The only real weakness the lens has is a bit of wave distortion which has never been a problem for me shooting landscapes.
The lens isn't cheap, but if you want the best, well you gotta pay for it.
I would also say that the new Canon 24mm TSE would be a good landscape choice. For me however the Zeiss has a better colour rendition.
-
Using a 85mm f1.8 Nikkor lens with my D200 and a spherical Pano head, employing multiple rows and multiple columns has produced stunning image's that depending on the number of images used can easily be printed up 40x60 if needed.
I use Autopano pro to stitch the images, I often use this with HDR as well.
That said, its not going to work for every image, but its relatively inexpensive compared some of the glass mentioned here, of course it helps if one already has said lens in there kit. I made my own pano head, but there are many inexpensive models out there that will do the job.
I'm surprised that so little was said about stitching, also, there something about the look I get with a 85mm lens when stitching, I'm at a loss trying to explaine it.
-
Thank you for taking the time.
It really seems to be a toss-up between the Zeiss 21 and the Canon TS.
Almost unanimously, across many different forums and opinions, the 16-35 can't really stand up the the Zeiss 21, while the T/S does compare favorably in most areas, eclipsing it in others (namely distortion-free).
I would say though, for landscapes, color rendition would be more important consideration than a slight (fixable) wave.
How great a difference in color rendering would you say there is between the Canon T/S and the Zeiss 21? I am also curious about the "3D effect" of the Zeiss that so many seem to talk about.
I suppose I should just rent them both and see which one I like best ...
Jack
.
-
How great a difference in color rendering would you say there is between the Canon T/S and the Zeiss 21?
Hi John,
I wonder how much of that difference is going to remain after white balancing, and especially when one uses a custom profile or color recipe ... Most of us are not shooting film anymore so we have enough control over our color rendering to not need a lens characteristic for that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi John,
I wonder how much of that difference is going to remain after white balancing, and especially when one uses a custom profile or color recipe ... Most of us are not shooting film anymore so we have enough control over our color rendering to not need a lens characteristic for that.
Cheers,
Bart
I honestly don't know Bart. But I do understand what you're saying.
And yet, haven't you taken shots for which no amount of post-processing will help you get a pleasing result? And haven't you taken other shots where the colors are simply magical, perfect--simply because everything is just right?
For this basic reason, if I have the choice of two lenses at the same general price point, I would rather select the lens which is renowned for capturing absolutely perfect color rendition right from the start, because all the post-processing in the world is a poor substitute for perfection right out of the gate.
Jack
.
-
I shoot landscapes regularly with the 21mm ZE and I must say it is a wonderful lens. The 21mm has essentially replaced my 16-35mm f2.8.
The only real weakness the lens has is a bit of wave distortion which has never been a problem for me shooting landscapes.
The lens isn't cheap, but if you want the best, well you gotta pay for it.
I would also say that the new Canon 24mm TSE would be a good landscape choice. For me however the Zeiss has a better colour rendition.
16-35 II is a zoom and ZE 21 is a prime....there should be no comparison because they aren't the same. can a ZE 21 shoot at 16mm?
-
I bought a little landscape lens last year (the Canon EF-S 10-22mm zoom), and it seems to have nice color rendition and focus, but the distortion it has at the wider end is pretty pronounced. I guess my question is, if one really wants to purchase the best single lens for landscape work on a Canon, which wide-angle lens is the ideal choice for
1. Low distortion?
2. Sharpness?
3. Color rendition?
For that matter, is a wide-angle lens even ideal for landscape? Would a more moderate lens (say 24mm) be better? Is taking the time to stitch a pano with a non-distorted lens preferable to taking a "wide-angle" shot with one ultra-wide lens--only to have it come out distorted?
I have been looking to upgrade from the 10-22mm (which I just sold on Ebay), but it seems all of the Canon ultra-wides essentially suck. In reading many reviews on lenses such as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, the 17-40 f/4, the 24mm f/1.4L II, etc. ... at best these seem to be average lenses.
I was wondering how many Canon people have actually tried the Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens for landscapes and such, on their own Canons, and compared this lens to the Canon offerings? In many of the reviews, several people said they actually "cringed" when comparing the shots they got from the Canon 16-35 (et al) to the Zeiss. From color rendition, corner-to-corner sharpness, etc., it seems the vote is unanimous that the Zeiss is the better lens. People also keep talking about "that 3D-look" with the Zeiss.
In short, for a Canon body, is there any wide-angle lens that can touch the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? In the research I've been conducting over the last few weeks, it sure doesn't seem so, but I'd like to hear some live feedback.
Thanks for any replies,
Jack
.
Either PS or TS. ;D I recommend TS-E 17. ;)
-
16-35 II is a zoom and ZE 21 is a prime....there should be no comparison because they aren't the same. can a ZE 21 shoot at 16mm?
That's a very illogical statement. You can stitch or crop to match any FOV for any focal length. You can even shoot from the same perspective if you want the comparison to be meaningful.
-
That's a very illogical statement. You can stitch or crop to match any FOV for any focal length. You can even shoot from the same perspective if you want the comparison to be meaningful.
thats great. so all you have is one lens yea?
-
???