# 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?



## Mick (Sep 22, 2013)

Just wondered if anyone out there had the 16-35 which I use and bought the 14mm and loved/hated the prime? Im doing a lot of landscapes just now, love the zoom but im always shooting 16mm and wondered if you noticed any difference with the extra 2mm and any sharpness differences. I love my 16-35 but its a zoom, an excellent zoom, but as im always wide open that extra 2mm is tempting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2013)

I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 23, 2013)

I had the 16-35 II for a few yrs ...and rented the 14L II twice..
finally I bought it...
I love it...

kept the 16-35...but use it less...

with the 14L II, sigma 35 and Canon 85L II ...I find that I like those primes....
even though the zoom is still nice....and usefull

14 has more CA/fringing, not as good bokeh qual (IMO) but 14 is sharper all over ...especially edges... and very low distortion... 2mm is a LOT....

I doubt I can sell the 16-35 unless I decide to get down to 3 lenses or so...

...I keep the 24-105 for a very good general purpose walkaround....

I find I am not using my 70-200 II much... but my activity is changed lately...good optic

so for ME the 14L is the wide extension of a kit ...or the 135L is the long extension of a kit (leaving out the 70-200

again I love my 14L and walk around with just this ...or maybe a 35 sig or a 100macro as a second lens...

TOM


----------



## dave (Sep 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.



Totally agree with this.


----------



## pwp (Sep 23, 2013)

If landscapes are your main priority, the 17 TS-E would deliver in spades. If you need the flexibility to take on a range of subjects, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will have it's rewards too. Make no mistake, this is a fine lens.

The 14mm f/2.8II has an awesome reputation, but of course is limited in the sort of subjects you can tackle with it. 14 mm is _very _ wide and may leave you feeling a bit restricted as a general purpose ultrawide. It needs to be used with great care. Definitely rent before you buy. And don't be tempted by a 14 mm f/2.8 MkI...most of them were shockers and are best avoided.

The 17 TS-E can give you a 10mm equivalent spread if you don't mind stitching you landscapes. On a good tripod, just using the lateral shift, you do one exposure in the centre, shift left and shoot, shift right and shoot and you'll have three frames that will stitch perfectly. The 17 TS-E is the landscape shooters new best friend. There is plenty to read if you're willing to search.

-pw


----------



## Viggo (Sep 23, 2013)

I loved my 14, plain and simple. Awesome color and contrast, very straight and great AF even at mfd.

But for landscapes filter use will always be an issue with the 14 and the TS17. While IMO the 17 is by far the best uwa I have ever owned, it's not easy like the 1635 when it comes to filter use.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 23, 2013)

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?


----------



## eli452 (Sep 23, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I loved my 14, plain and simple. Awesome color and contrast, very straight and great AF even at mfd.
> 
> But for landscapes filter use will always be an issue with the 14 and the TS17. While IMO the 17 is by far the best uwa I have ever owned, it's not easy like the 1635 when it comes to filter use.



Actually there is a new LEE Adaptor Ring for Canon 17mm TS-E Lens
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#tse-adaptor


----------



## pwp (Sep 23, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?


For wedding reportage work I wouldn't be without the flexibility that a zoom offers. 
So vs the 14mm f/2.8II and the 17 TS-E being discussed on this thread, it's got to be the 16-35 f/2.8II all the way.

-pw


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2013)

pwp said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?
> ...



I agree, as I look through my LightRoom catalogue, over my last 10 weddings...I've used my 16-35IIL for an average of 250 shots per wedding (ie 2.5K shots taken) against 27 shots over the same period in total for my TS-e 17L. I've used my fisheye 8-15L for around 10 shots per wedding, so that's three times as much...not bad for an affects lens. my TS-e 17L is a very low use lens for me, I use it for very specific reasons. While I take it to every wedding, it only comes out in very specific circumstances. I use it more far for my Landscape work, but I stil prefer to use my 16-35IIL if I can, it's a lot more versatile and field flexible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?



As the others have said the 16-35 no question. I always take the 15mm fisheye to weddings too, this gives a unique looking shot but also defished is wider than the 16-35 and, in my experience, better than the 14mm L. Unless you are using film, in which case colours are a non issue, colours are a non issue, that is what camera profiles and the vibrance slider are for.


eli452 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I loved my 14, plain and simple. Awesome color and contrast, very straight and great AF even at mfd.
> ...



And the Fotodiox WonderPana 145

http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/wonderpana-145-essentials-kit-system-holder-lens-cap-and-cpl-filter.html
http://www.amazon.com/WonderPana-145-Essentials-Kit-Aspherical/dp/B00AUK945M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1378870716&sr=8-2&keywords=fotodiox+TS-E

After a thread last week I have ordered one.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16813.15


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Sep 23, 2013)

Why don't you pick up the samyang/rokinon 14mm 2.8 which is only a few hundred $$ and try that one out. I think the optics in it are generally considered to be similar to the canon in IQ.


----------



## RGF (Sep 23, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?



I have had all 3 -no question the 17 TS-e is sharper but when you need to go wide the 14 is the way to go. Find 14 prints hold up 16x24 and 20x30. Have not tried bigger - have not tried much stitching with the 17 TS-e , bm ajar drawback is size of the lens. Often will go with w 24-70 and find a place place to squeeze the 14 into my pack.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 23, 2013)

pwp said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?
> ...


Thank you for your input 

I primarily use the widest available setting on my current 17-40, so it's 14mm vs. 16mm on the corresponding lenses 

Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..



Colour and contrast are non issues, they just don't factor into even a semi competent digital workflow.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 23, 2013)

I was going to go for the 16-35mmL, but a GREAT deal on a used 17-40L presented itself and I got that.

I'd been looking for something wider and I read great reviews on and ended up getting an excellent deal (I think it was like $199 or so?) for a new Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

I LOVE this little lens. Yes, it is fully manual, but when shooting with something this wide, I'm finding that I have no problems with focus, most of my shots seem to end up set to infinity.

I did a lot of video shooting with it too this past weekend it worked like a champ for that. You might read up on this one and look into it as a very economical choice for WA. This is pretty much my only non-L glass I have (aside from the Canon 85mm f/1.8)...and I've been VERY happy with it.

Here's a link to one of them at the Amazon site:

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379964156&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+14mm

They can be found for under $300, I can't remember the deal I got...I think it was a special Groupon purchase, but I've really enjoyed this little lens.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## AudioGlenn (Sep 23, 2013)

I like the 14mm but I think I want the flexibility of the 16-35 II.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 23, 2013)

I have the 16-35 II, but I rarely use it. I find the distortion beyond 24mm to be unacceptable. It can be OK on lanscapes, but not with people. I borrowed the 14mm once, but returned it with no urge to use it again.
If possible I prefer to shoot 35-50mm portrait shots and stich, rather than use the ultra wides. That is of course not possible with people though.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 23, 2013)

Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much. Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?

Thanks.

sek

quote author=cayenne link=topic=17120.msg316920#msg316920 date=1379964235]
I was going to go for the 16-35mmL, but a GREAT deal on a used 17-40L presented itself and I got that.

I'd been looking for something wider and I read great reviews on and ended up getting an excellent deal (I think it was like $199 or so?) for a new Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

I LOVE this little lens. Yes, it is fully manual, but when shooting with something this wide, I'm finding that I have no problems with focus, most of my shots seem to end up set to infinity.

I did a lot of video shooting with it too this past weekend it worked like a champ for that. You might read up on this one and look into it as a very economical choice for WA. This is pretty much my only non-L glass I have (aside from the Canon 85mm f/1.8)...and I've been VERY happy with it.

Here's a link to one of them at the Amazon site:

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379964156&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+14mm

They can be found for under $300, I can't remember the deal I got...I think it was a special Groupon purchase, but I've really enjoyed this little lens.

HTH,

cayenne
[/quote]


----------



## Frodo (Sep 23, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much. Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?



Two photos attached:
Strong points
- Sharpness (especially no coma (important for star shots) and little CA) - apparently best in class
- Silky focusing

Weak points:
- Manual everything (but you knew that)
- Not sure how robust it is, e.g. mount attached by just three screws. My focusing ring partially seized on me during a trip to Europe, effectively making the lens unusuable other than at infinity. I don'tknow what happened, i.e. I didn't drop it. It was replaced under warranty.

Non-point:
- Distortion. Quite a few gripes about distortion but I find that LR correction to be excellent with little loss of image area.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..
> ...


Really? ??? Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?
I feel that what you say doesn't work for me. 17-40 and its "semi-competent" colors is an example


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



I am surprised that a photographer of your caliber is still hooked up on such irrelevancies. A competent digital workflow has made it easy to normalise output across not only lenses but manufacturers too. Wedding shooters who do still prioritise the consistency of the dress colour throughout an album (a rarity now it seems) can easily have second shooters using different manufacturers now, that used to cause all sorts of problems.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying gear doesn't matter, that is a stupid and naive position to take, but specifically with regards lens colour and contrast, they are so easily adjusted and normalised nowadays I stand by my comments. 

As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 30, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.


I'm a seasoned photographer. From my point of view images that don't have middle shadows (I have looked through their portfolio) do not conform the "semi-competent" workflow expected results


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.
> ...



You are joking right?

Brooke Shaden's images look _exactly_ how *she* wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy (she is one of only two women photographers to work for Playboy) and with a client list like this http://loufreeman.com/about/ I respect their collective opinion of her work a bit more than yours. Sure you have some great images, you are not an industry recognised authority with a client list like that, neither am I. 

I do know that I can get my second shooters Nikon D3 with his 50 f1.8 (or even his POS 70-300!) to shoot images with indistinguishable colour and contrast characteristics to my 1Ds MkIII and 100 L Macro.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 30, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Brooke Shaden's images look _exactly_ how *she* wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy...


I understand this. But I don't feel that recognition and artwork are tightly connected. And again — this is how I feel, not what people would say.

It seems there's a gap between two of us that makes understanding more complex. Let me exaggerate what I feel to make things clear:

I don't like this photo...





... because of:
- flat light;
- boring color harmony;
- lack of expression/emphasis;
- lack of veracity (I don't believe these people really do whatever they do, i.e. I see that they pose).

And the opposite to what we've just looked at is:




Why?
- good light;
- colors touch my feelings;
- readable emphasis;
- I 100% believe that girl; I don't even need to see her face, my imagination tells the story eyes can't see.

Another example. I don't like this photo...




... because of artificiality (lack of uniformity in lighting, shades, colors... you can even find duplicated sticks and see clouds from a sunny day) - my perception detects these things automatically without even noticing what exactly is wrong. 

And the opposite is...




... because of consistency in what my eyes see. 

My confidence is supported by my experience. The photos you have referenced to are similar to what I did one-two-three years before. And they suffered from the same issues mentioned above (and many-many others, by the way).

So the point is... *photography* (for me) is a mix of who you are and what you have (equipment, skills, story, etc.), so every small thing counts. It's all about content and the way you reproduce it. That's why, with all the small things floating in my mind, I have asked about color and contrast, because it works in conjunction with my current "equipment, skills, story..." mix


----------



## Vossie (Sep 30, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> ..



Nice examples and well underbuilt explanation; I fully agree with your analysis.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2013)

Not liking something is completely different from not being able to replicate it.

Being able to replicate something with exactly the same equipment is different from being able to create the same image with different equipment.

Being able to distinguish between images based solely on equipment used specifically with regards lens colour and contrast is something entirely different again, it is not connected to artist interpretation, likes or dislikes, they are empirically measurable metrics. 

Anybody with a competent digital workflow can virtually eliminate individual lens "colour and contrast" as decision making factors in their photography process.

I only linked to those two photographers as examples to counter your comment _"Really? ??? Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?"_ There are thousands of people creating professional looking images with modest equipment, whether you, or I, like or dislike their output is not material.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 30, 2013)

I should've been more specific when saying "professional"  It seems I still cannot find a proper word to describe that kind of quality. I wanted to define somebody who's at the highest possible rung of every photography aspect.

For example, I have experienced a lot of different shooting environments and conditions. And sometimes a very similar set of equipment (same lens, flash, settings and subject; camera body is the only variable) gives different picture (i.e. lack of color variability).

Do know that each color `lives` in a specific to that color lightness levels? Sample showing yellow color specificity is attached, variability and saturation are the most interesting characteristics. So when it comes to post-processing and there's something you don't have in your original file, it won't magically appear there.

A theoretic example (straight out of my head): due to cheap electronics used in a camera it adds green tint to light green colors (by making them greener) and purple tint to dark green colors (by making them opposite to green). So the question is: would you even try making your colors look different from what your camera could achieve? What if we compare different camera manufacturers? Different sensor formats? Different lenses?..


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 30, 2013)

For the money, to me the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 looks hard to beat...especially a slightly used copy for under $1k. Obviously it's only a manual focus lens, but at least it can set aperture and confirm focus.

If I were about to travel to all the beautiful parks I want to visit (unfortunately I'm not doing that yet...), it seems to me that the best camera and lens...would be the above Zeiss mounted to a Nikon D800E. Am I wrong to think this? Just seems 18mm is the ideal wide angle focal length, because it still doesn't have a huge amount of rectilinear projection "distortion", as have the lenses around 15mm and wider. Of course the future high megapixel Canon body will very likely be as good or better re/IQ than the D800E, but I bet that Canon will cost quite a bit more than the Nikon. The color and contrast of that 18mm Zeiss glass, just cannot be denied...and that one is extremely affordable. It might be slightly softer than the 21mm Distagon and the 15mm, but not enough to avoid using it...from the sample shots I've seen. At 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the other two Zeiss (and the Canon 14mm f/2.8 ii), seems like an awesome value to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2013)

Nightbreath,

You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow. 

CarlTN,

I would say you are wrong, I would say a 6D and a TS-E 24 MkII would serve you much better than a D800E and an 18mm Ziess, if you really didn't want to stitch, and there is no reason not to in parks photography, the 6D and TS-E 17 probably actually resolve very similar amounts as the D800 and Ziess but the TS-E gives you much more landscape functionality.


----------



## eml58 (Oct 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.



Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus), and I just added the Wonderpana Filter Holder from Fotodiox to it, so now I can use my Lee Filters, so it's become even more usable.

Only real issue with the Zeiss is it cant be used with Filters, at least I cant work out how it could be done, but it has excellent IQ. I mostly now use the Canon 14 & 16-35 for my Underwater Imaging where I find the small issues that both Lenses seem to have are not so prominent.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Nightbreath,
> 
> You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the advice. The reason not to "always stitch", is because it takes extra time. I find myself always short on time when I'm doing landscape photography, visiting parks. Why? Because it's hours of driving and a few minutes of shooting (unless I camp in one park...but then, that means less time visiting other parts of the park, or other parks). Of course I would also want to do some pano stitches, but seems like the combo I mention would be a handy thing.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 1, 2013)

Frodo said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much. Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?
> ...



Nice shots! The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 I recently bought, has coma in the outer third of the field at wide aperture, but I find it only shows strongly on the brightest stars. Would be simple enough to clone the coma out.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.


We definitely speak different languages. It seems that your vision and my vision are different. And even taking into account all you said, it doesn't work for me. I would pay twice for 10% win in initial IQ.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.
> ...



Just because you choose not to learn something doesn't mean it is difficult. Saying _"it doesn't work for [you ]"_ doesn't mean it doesn't work. This is not about "vision", as in an artistic idea, this is about vision, as in what you actually see with regards colour, tone and brightness.

Colour, tone and contrast are not intrinsic IQ characteristics in a digital workflow, contrast, tone and colour response curves are 100% adjustable in a RAW file with zero negative effects, and normalising can be done automatically. Telling a display to show a pixel at 187,35,211 rather than display that same pixel at 183,35,207 has no detrimental effect on image quality. That is all profiling is doing, telling pixels how to be displayed when compared to a reference, if you do that with different brands of camera or lens they all display the same.

I paid $3,500 for a 300mm f2.8 lens instead of $1,200 for an f4 version because to me that one stop, an intrinsic characteristic of the lens, is worth the money. Light gathering capability can not be changed in post, neither can shutter speed. That is not true of colour, tone and contrast, they are easily changed, easily profiled, and easily normailised in a competent digital workflow.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 1, 2013)

I don't understand the argument for ignoring differences in color rendering. It should be obvious that different quality lenses do render color differently.

If someone always heavily post-processes whatever has been shot, that may be a negligible difference as that photographer might risk losing some tonal quality anyway, but whenever you go for a specific look and its just gone, if your lens isn't able to capture all the nuances out there, you won't easily get that back in post processing. Wouldn't this be wasting your time?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> I don't understand the argument for ignoring differences in color rendering. It should be obvious that different quality lenses do render color differently.
> 
> If someone always heavily post-processes whatever has been shot, that may be a negligible difference as that photographer might risk losing some tonal quality anyway, but whenever you go for a specific look and its just gone, if your lens isn't able to capture all the nuances out there, you won't easily get that back in post processing. Wouldn't this be wasting your time?



The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions. 

When I used to shoot weddings on film colour correcting was out of my hands, lens colour was much more important and having a second shooter using a different camera and lens system was fraught with best colour management practice issues, it was a nightmare if you strove for consistent dress colour throughout an album.

Now, with a solid and competent digital workflow all camera and lens colour and contrast variability is so easily normalised with zero hit in IQ that it should play zero roll in choosing lenses.

Every lens out there, certainly any that natively fit on an EF mount, is more than capable of catching tone and colour nuances, due to the coatings used the effects on those nuances can be large or small, but normalising is one test image and one click away. 

Flower photography is well known to have severe colour issues, try doing any kind of serious flower photography without camera profiles and you will see, it isn't the quality of the lens you use, it is the quality of your workflow that maintains accurate colour and tonality (again, not an artistic point but a measurable technical point).

Now we all know we can have technically sound but very boring images, that goes without saying, we can also have striking images without technical knowledge; but if we are to master our craft we need a good balance of the two.

I have listened to so many instructors preach on about "lens compression" I die a little inside each time I hear it, there is no such thing as lens compression, the effect they are talking about is perspective, plain and simple. They shouldn't be teaching that subject. Same with lens colour and contrast, nowadays those two are complete non issues.

Obviously there are important differences between lenses and software can't overcome things like lower resolution, slower AF, no AF, no IS, less light gathering (slower apertures), heavy distortion and very strong aberrations (small adjustments are easy but larger ones increase any IQ hit) so I am not advocating that any lens can do any job. All I am saying is the oft touted colour and contrast characteristics of a lens are practically immaterial now.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 1, 2013)

eml58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.
> ...


+1 
I had the 14 and sold it. I have kept the 16-35 II, but I hardly ever use it. Last week I bought the 17 TS-E and played with it over the weekend. What a lens!! I have not looked at the filter solutions yet, but it seems there are alternatives that´s working.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2013)

Eldar said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Eldar, like eml58 I recently got the Fotodiox Wonderpana. It is very well made and the perfect solution for round filter use, I only got the CPL as that was all I really missed. The complimentary additional 66 "ears" for grad filter use are not a good design, you can't rotate them on the Wonderpana so have limited functionality. BUT Fotodiox just, within the last couple of days, announced a rotation monut for the 66 ears, if you need grad filter use I'd hold off until they also bring those to market for the 17, at the moment they only make them for the Nikon 14-24.

The big advantage of the Wonderpana over the much touted Lee system and home made work arounds is the Wonderpana allows full movements without vignetting.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.


It seems we're still on different pages. I have mentioned "vision", because I see difference in the original file. I have attached an example. Let me attach a sample photo later 

It would be great if you could add sample photos too.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



I used to use lee grad filters heavily. My thoughts were, if Digital has a simular DR to slide, then slide methodologies were the way forward. I had hard, medium and soft grads, plus most of the stripe set and coloured grads. Then I learnt that I could use solid ND's to take two shots, one exposed for the sky and one exposed for the foreground. On a tripod naturally, with no movment between shots. I could decouple the need to shoot everything in one frame and then combine them in Photoshop later using layers and a soft brush. It totally revolutionised my landscape work and now I can shoot with less gear and better results. If I need a curved ND grad or a wobbly line grad....it's just a matter of post prod. Generally, it's a better technique and takes a lot less time over all to get great results. 
I sold all my Lee gear (for a profit!) and bought a 16-35IIL out of the cash I accumulated. A double win in my books.
When I sourced potential filters for the TS-e 17L, a polariser and ND filters were my priority.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 4, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.
> ...



Ok, here is what I am talking about. I just did these images quickly for this thread, I used complete auto settings if I wanted more accuracy I could go into the calibration software and customise it to my hearts content.

I took two pictures of the same colour card in the same place, one with an EOS-M and compact fluorescent light bulb, the second with a 1Ds MkIII, 24-70 and a 600EX-RT. Those are the two left hand images, I then calibrated them and white balanced them and those two pictures are the two on the right. I think you will agree the two on the left are vastly dissimilar with very different colour characteristics, but the two on the right are very similar. This is not just a WB adjustment, the colour swatches change in relation to each other too.

I did not touch exposure, obviously the two images have a slightly different exposure as well.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 4, 2013)

Lovely!

Thank you.
I got mine today, and took a couple of test shots to be sure I didn't get a "lemon", given reports of quality control issues. I can't wait to try it out this weekend.

sek



Frodo said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much. Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 4, 2013)

Nightbreath- where may I see your pics?



nightbreath said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.
> ...


----------



## Deva (Oct 4, 2013)

Since the idea of stitching 2 or more photos from a 17mm TS-E to create a landscape picture of 11mm FOV has come up several times in this thread, I have a question for those of you who have done this.

Obviously, it is better to clamp the lens to the tripod, so the camera, not the lens, physically moves when the lens is shifted - but for landscape work, is this necessary? Is there a dividing distance where you'd start to see an improvement if you clamped the lens?

Thanks in advance for any advice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 4, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Nightbreath- where may I see your pics?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His site is here свадебный фотограф днепропетровск http://luxuryphoto.com.ua/


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2013)

Deva said:


> Since the idea of stitching 2 or more photos from a 17mm TS-E to create a landscape picture of 11mm FOV has come up several times in this thread, I have a question for those of you who have done this.
> 
> Obviously, it is better to clamp the lens to the tripod, so the camera, not the lens, physically moves when the lens is shifted - but for landscape work, is this necessary? Is there a dividing distance where you'd start to see an improvement if you clamped the lens?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any advice.



Hi Deva,

The value of clamping the lens and not the camera is vastly overstated, in my experience parallax is not an issue. But, it is much easier to shift the camera on a rail or plate to counteract the lens shift than to try to clamp the lens if parallax became an issue. Just a normal Arca Swiss style body plate gives you the 24mm max needed to do this. Method 2 at this link.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_58/essay.html

I would point out that the illustration of parallax error they give in this article was not created using that setup and in my experience parallax just isn't an issue with the TS-E17 and modern software, it doesn't blend as much as choose one or the other, but anyway, if you want to parallax is entirely avoidable very easily.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


As I said before, it's not about calibration. It's all about how far you can go from your initial state.

Below is a sample comparison (2 old images taken with 2 different high-end equipment sets):
- left-hand side image is worse for me, because I cannot push the colors further than they are (e.g., I can't make the whites whiter on the dress, because specific areas are burnt out due to initial color corrections);
- right-hand side image looks nicer to me as it gives a feeling of richer tonal gradations; those cyan and orange colors add some kind of luminance to the image, and the whites look whiter without being burnt out.






I understand that in this case the difference is minuscule. But if I don't have the first image limiting me, I would be able to go further with the second one. On the left side the main image lacks additional colors from the right image (cyan and orange). Let me demonstrate how pushing specific colors to a ppleasible end point works on both images:






This difference is not something I've noticed once, equipment is one of three variables in the equation we all having troubles with (IQ = photographer + environment + equipment). In the end I get a cheap-looking left image compared to something I want to get on the right-hand side. Needless to say, the workflow for achieving these looks differs – image on the right is something that is much easier to get than the left-hand image that ends up being worse to my eye (because of the interfering colors).

Color calibration was something I did when I opened photography for myself, a few years after I figured out that it's meaningless for me.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 6, 2013)

P.S. I hope you have a good screen


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2013)

First let me tell you what I see in your two images. 

Most glaringly they have different exposures (not camera exposures, actual illuminant exposures); the dress on the left has bad magenta and purple fringing, indicative of a lens issue, it isn't traditional CA but I suspect you have an element alignment issue. Further, his suit is a completely different colour in both images.

Looking at the two images from an analytical eye I'd say they give the symptoms of a misfiring flash, one light has thrown a different colour temp light on the subject.

Anyway, I have removed the magenta and purple fringing, I have adjusted the tone curve to maintain contrast but get the dresses to the same level, there are no more blown pixels in either image, and I have made his suit the same colour, but as it doesn't have the same light from the top it doesn't have the contrast, neither does het arm because in the left image it is in her shade and in the right image it isn't.

All in all very workable for somebody with a competent digital workflow, I have made good corrections for a small jpeg, had I had the RAW files I could nail it in very little time.

Most importantly from your perspective the dresses are now the same colour and illumination, you can play with your tone curve as much as you want to get contrast and detail in either now. 

My point is all the information is in the files, you are just reassigning values, that is all calibration does, had you used camera calibration in your workflow then at the very least hios suit would have been the same colour in both frames.

First image is my rework, second image is a gif alternating between yours and mine to illustrate the differences. Because of the way our eyes work yours looks way to magenta and mine looks way to yellow in the gif.


----------



## ME (Oct 8, 2013)

Nightbreath, I went to your website to view your photography, and I really like your photographs and style. I am staying out of the debate between you and privatebydesign, but did want to say I admire your photography.


----------



## ME (Oct 8, 2013)

eml58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.
> ...



emi58, I am envious of your 15/2.8 Zeiss. I have seen many wonderful photos taken with this lens. At $3000 it is a little beyond my budget at this time, but maybe one day. I have the Samyang 14mm and it is a pretty good lens, but the Zeiss is in my wish list.


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 8, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Because of the way our eyes work yours looks way to magenta and mine looks way to yellow in the gif.


My personal feeling is that you can achieve either magenta or yellow result with the left RAW file, but not the orange I have achieved with the right file. Do you want me to send you the RAW files over to play with?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Because of the way our eyes work yours looks way to magenta and mine looks way to yellow in the gif.
> ...



No need for the RAW file, and thanks for continuing in a civil manner, too often these discussions descend into insults. I appreciate a true conversation 

Anyway, here I have pushed the yellow to orange, way further than your right image, just to make a point you don't have to choose yellow or magenta, you can have orange if you want. I did this in the ACR Camera Calibration panel only, just hue and saturation on the three channels. I believe your discontent between the two capture systems could be mitigated to effectively nothing if you readopt a robust calibration inclusive workflow.


----------

