Tag Archives: 17-40

Deals and Sales, Equipment

Lens For Sale — Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II

Leave a comment

UPDATE — November 3, 2014:

Three of the four lenses that I’m selling have now found new homes, but the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II prime is still available.

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L IICanon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II – This is the newest version of Canon’s wide-angle, large-aperture 24mm prime lens know for its excellent image quality and performance at large apertures. This lens is in essentially “like new” condition — no scratches or blemishes, as it was purchased for a particular project and only used minimally for that purpose. Lens, caps, hood, pouch, original box. Reduced to $1300.

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L – The Canon 135mm f/2 is classic Canon lens and highly regarded for image quality and its ability to produce narrow depth of field and smooth bokeh.  This lens is in excellent “near mint” condition — no scratches or blemishes. Lens, caps, hood, pouch, original box. $875. – SOLD

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 – This is one of Canon’s best non-L lenses, and many regard it as a worthy (and much less expensive!) alternative to the excellent 85mm L. It is in excellent condition — no scratches or blemishes. Lens, caps, 3rd party hood*, original box. $300. (Canon does not include a hood with this lens.) – SOLD

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 LCanon EF 17-40mm f/4 L – This is a fine workhorse landscape lens, and it is a core lens in the kit of many Canon landscape photographers. The lens is in excellent condition, with some cosmetic blemishes on the lens hood. Lens, caps, hood, original box. $610. –  SOLD

I prefer an in-person sale to someone in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I may consider other arrangements. Email dan@gdanmitchell.com.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment

Updated Thoughts on Canon Ultrawide Zoom Lenses

2 Comments

I have updated my blog post: “Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Lens.” It might seem a bit strange to update an article on that subject on the heels of Canon’s introduction of a new lens that may be more interesting for many photographers, but read on…

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L

For quite a while, photographers shooting Canon full frame systems have basically had two options when it comes to Canon ultra wide zoom lenses, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. (Those using cropped sensor cameras have also had the option of the excellent Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens.) As of mid-2014 there is a new option to consider, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS.

I have ordered a copy of the new 16-35mm f/4 lens and I’ll report on that once I have had a chance to use it a bit. But given the altered terrain for those considering the purchase of a Canon ultra wide zoom, I thought that updating the review of the 17-40 was important. This lens is still a viable option for lots of photographers, especially those who are price-sensitive or who want smallest and lightest possible Canon ultra wide zoom for full frame cameras.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment, Ideas, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I)

33 Comments

(NOTES: This article has been updated periodically since its original publication, including a more significant update in 2019. And, yes, there is a Part II.)

A recent discussion got me thinking once again about another “myth” of landscape photography, namely that [i]some lenses are appropriate for landscape photography and other lenses are not[/i]. There are several such myths, including but not limited to the following aspects: focal lengths, zooms versus primes, maximum apertures, expense, etc. While I could have a lot of fun (or not!) starting with the zoom/prime question, I have saved that for Part II. (Short preview: I think that “zooms or primes?” may be the wrong question, the image quality implications are not as simple as you might think, and I use both… but tend more and more to rely on zooms.)

Instead, I’ll start with…

Focal Length

The trigger for this was a discussion of the suitability of a certain type of lens for landscape photography. I had made a point concerning a 85mm prime that I sometimes used, and the other party disagreed with my perspective. Several rebuttals to my thinking were offered, but the one offered as a sort of trump card was that using a 85mm lens for landscape is an inappropriate choice, and one should use a wide-angle zoom like a 16-35mm lens.

While many landscape photographers know better, especially those who have done this for a while, it is surprising how many folks assume it to be accepted wisdom that proper landscape photography is done with ultra-wide to perhaps normal focal length lenses, and that the first and perhaps only lens that a landscape photographer would want would be such a lens. (Again, I’m not getting into the prime v. zoom question here – I’ll save that fun topic for a later post. :-)

In my view, the best answer to the “what focal length is best for landscape?” question is the focal length that works best for the photograph I am making right now. My current kit, based on full frame DSLR bodies, covers focal lengths from 16mm to 400mm — technically 560mm if I add a 1.4x TC. While I frequently work with less than the full kit (when backpacking, for example), when I’m not constrained by weight or other limitations I carry lenses to cover this full range and typically use most or all of them. What follows is an overview of some of the lenses I use, accompanied by some photographic examples and a bit of explanation. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I) →

Equipment, Tests

Corner Sharpness of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L Lens on Full Frame

Leave a comment

Since the question of how the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L performs across the frame for landscape photography comes up periodically, I have posted an older test photo I made last year (2007) – updated here to include a comparison corner and center sharpness.

Canon5D17_40f16CornerVsCenter.jpg

Technical data: Canon 5D. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens. Focal length: 17mm. Aperture: f/16. Shutter speed: 1/60 second. Shot on the tripod with MLU and remote release. If the full image were reproduced at this resolution the print would be about five feet wide. (Not that I’d do that – it is a really boring photograph! :-) In a more typical size print the corners would like very good, indeed.

A 100% crop would not be expected to be “razor sharp” – and we see typical results here. It is impressive to see how well the corner image quality holds up – despite the fact that grass is one of the most challenging subjects for a digital sensor and the fact that this part of the scene was much closer to the camera than the focus point in the center of the scene – i.e. the corner section showing the grass is only a few feet from the camera, and the camera is focused hundreds of feet away on the objects in the center of the frame. (On that subject, I’m convinced that a good number of the reports of “poor corner performance” in ultra wide lenses are actually due to the subjects in the corner being much closer to the camera position than the subjects in the center of the frame, especially when the “tests” are done by shooting actual landscape subjects.)

BOTTOM LINE: What does this tell us, how do we view this in the context of reports of soft corners on the EF 17-40mm f/4 lens, and what does this mean for anyone trying to choose a wide (or ultra-wide in the case of full-frame cameras) Canon zoom lens?

While this lens is soft in the corners when shot wide open, the lens is not particularly soft in the corners when stopped down. If your primary use for such a lens is, for example, shooting very low light handheld wide angle photographs the 17-40 is perhaps not your best choice. (The EF 16-35mm f/2.8 on full frame or the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a cropped sensor body could be more appropriate zooms.) On the other hand, if you are primarily interested in subjects that are usually shot at smaller apertures (urban/wild landscapes, architecture, etc.) then the 17-40 can be an outstanding lens – though this is more true on a full frame body than on a crop body, given that you are unlikely to use the smaller apertures on a crop sensor body given the diffraction blur issues there. So, to state it very succinctly…

… the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 lens is an excellent lens for shooting deep DOF small-aperture photography on a full-frame camera. (It is OK but not necessarily ideal for use with cropped sensor bodies, where I would prefer the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.)

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.