Testing out new lens

[Blazer88]

So I finally bucked up and bought the Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS lens. I mainly wanted it for traveling with since my 24-105 F/4L was a bit limiting on the 24mm end. The build quality isn't quite up to L quality but the optics are better than my previous L glass. I figured this lens would do pretty well with tank shots since it's got a fast aperture and IS for hand-holding if I don't want to get out the tripod. I may actually sell my 60mm F/2.8 macro now since I think this lens performs awesome at the 55mm end @ F/2.8, easily comparable sharpness and IQ with my macro primes. All shots were taken hand-held and at ISO 1000. Enjoy!

F/2.8, 1/160th, -1/3 EV. The 100% crop on this shot was tack sharp, I was very impressed.

F/5.6, 1/160th, -1/3 EV

F/4, 1/160th, -2/3 EV

F/4, 1/125th, -1/3 EV

Side tank shot:

 

[swjim]

These pics are really nice, but you also have some great ones on your site. Are you sure you wouldn't miss the shorter working distance that the 60mm offers? It looks like you've taken advantage of it in the past.

 

[edwing206]

Awesome pics. Looks like a real good lens.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am very impressed with the photos. As usual your photos are very crisp.

 

[Blazer88]

Thanks for the comments guys, I appreciate it. swjim, many of the macro pics on my site were taken with either my Sigma 150mm or Canon 100mm macro lenses, I generally save the 60mm for fish shots. I kind of think the 60mm overlaps now with my 17-55 since they have the same aperture and sharpness (based on messing with it for a few hours). I'll have to play around with the 17-55 some more and be sure the quality is above the 60mm before I sell off my baby macro lens.

 

[ReefTank1]

Off topic, but how is the 24-105 F4L? I am considering this for a new general purpose lens.

Thanks

 

[GuOD]

I chose the 24-70 over the 24-105. mainly because 70-200, and also because 2.8 > 4

i don't really see the need for the 60 macro if you have the 100. the 100 works fine when i use it to take my shots. i can't wait to get my new tank setup and get some real shots

 

[awd2k]

nice pictures Blazer!
as usual your fish shots are awsome :thumbsup:

just two questions for ya!
what's the camera body you're using?
do you play with the "levels" when "processing" your pictures?

if you don't mind, and if you are interested, i will post later on a "personal version" of the first picture ... just to have your opinion
let me know how you feel about it!

once again, great job!


awd2k

 

[chica83]

like i always say ..... very kewl pictures dood .

 

[Blazer88]

awd2k, I don't play with levels that much as I generally use curves. Please feel free to post your own version, curious minds must know

 

[awd2k]

bonjour Blazer!
6.00 am on a sunday morning and i am on RC!

glad to read you have a curious mind. so here is a different version of your picture and i am very interested in what you think

so, here it is ... i find (just my opinion) that you have less dark areas and high lights areas ... getting back more details on the front live rock ... what do you think?
oh! and i was wrong about levels! i meant curves ... too quick of a translation!


awd2k

 

[Blazer88]

I appreciate the effort but it just doesn't look natural to me. The Acan in the background is different shades of orange and over saturated (I'm guessing from the shadows/highlight tool). That also seems to bring out a halo around the Tangs face which is distracting and the overall image is too light (my monitor may be different of course). Lightening the image also brought out a few artifacts from the shadows which would need to be cloned out. If I were to photoshop it more I would probably lighten the tang a bit more and maybe use a 50% gray later set to soft light to darken the rest of the image just a touch to bring out some more detail. But eh, I just don't like to spend too much time for every image I do. Here is a quick re-edit. Your version is on top and mine is on bottom.

 

[awd2k]

hi Blazer,

thank you for answering back with so much information and detail!
i agree with most of what you wrote (like the halo around the head of the fish) and i "disagree" (not completely) on some specific points.
like you said, our monitors may not be equaly calibrated and as a result i don't see the artefacts you are taking about...
doing some editing without seing the tank is close to impossible ... so there is not much i can say about the different oranges and the color saturation of this beautifull acan ... and you are more than likely the one who knows what it "looks like".
anyway, talking about photography is always a pleasure and a new experience as long as people are curious about others point of view, respectfull and dont get offended too easely!

thank you for answering me Blazer, and please ... keep posting!


awd2k

 

[Jeff]

Impressive. Very sharp and the colors look great

 

[jeffbrig]

Re: Testing out new lens

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10058060#post10058060 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Blazer88
So I finally bucked up and bought the Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS lens. I mainly wanted it for traveling with since my 24-105 F/4L was a bit limiting on the 24mm end.

Wow, I'm a little surprised you didn't just pick up a 10-22 (or similar) to complement the 24-105.

 

[Blazer88]

Re: Re: Testing out new lens

Re: Re: Testing out new lens

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10075930#post10075930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jeffbrig
Wow, I'm a little surprised you didn't just pick up a 10-22 (or similar) to complement the 24-105.

I actually have the Sigma 10-20mm EX. I guess I just wasn't that impressed with the 24-105 F/4L overall, especially for a $1K lens. It isn't really known to be all that sharp wide open and I felt the F/4 to be limiting. I considered the 24-70 F/2.8L since that's know to be sharp @ F/2.8 but I really wanted the IS of the 17-55mm. My Sigma UWA is a great lens to partner with any of the 24mm L series but I don't like to switch lenses that often. I mostly keep my Sigma 10-20mm for dedicated landscape and interior (real estate) photography. The 17-55 is amazingly sharp at any aperture and the range is especially useful on a crop camera.

 

[jeffbrig]

I agree that the 17-55 is a nice feature package, but I hate that it's an EF-S and didn't get L build quality. Now, if Canon wanted to make an EF 17-70L, I'll give them my credit card number today.

BTW, my 10-22 and 24-105 combo just arrived today. Unfortunately, they're rentals, not keepers.

 

[GuOD]

I love my canon 10-22/24-70L combo! The 10-22 is L quality but plastic on the outside.

The only problem is that all WA glass is so crappy compared to longer stuff that I'm never all that happy

 

[Blazer88]

UWA glass is crappy? I've never experienced that, I've been extremely pleased with my Sigma UWA and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Jeff, I wouldn't let the EF-s designation stand in your way. I think the lens is still plenty durable and the image is L quality (and that's what matters to me). I don't really care if I drop it and it shatters, that's what insurace is for Plus the resale value is still plenty high as many people want that lens.

 

[GuOD]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10081405#post10081405 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Blazer88
UWA glass is crappy? I've never experienced that, I've been extremely pleased with my Sigma UWA and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Jeff, I wouldn't let the EF-s designation stand in your way. I think the lens is still plenty durable and the image is L quality (and that's what matters to me). I don't really care if I drop it and it shatters, that's what insurace is for Plus the resale value is still plenty high as many people want that lens.

I just find that taking shots WA don't really seem to be as sharp as telephoto shots. Even when I use my tripod and stop down, it just doesn't have the same effect. I've never tried correcting for lens distortion though (don't know how to do it automatically).