Random Photos : Part 3

[DibblyDobbler]

Another from my York trip


York Minster by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr

[2slo]

DibblyDobbler said:

Another from my York trip


York Minster by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr

Good shot especially at 10mm. Did you have to do much correction for distortion to get those towers vertical?

I know you were asking Rob about the 17-40 and whether it is soft at the wide end. Well, FWIW, I don't think so. Here's two wide shots with it. The first is at 17mm albiet on a 1.3 crop (1D mk IV) and a close up:



This next one is at 17mm on FF (5D3) distant landscape. Very slight crop here just to allow for rotation adjustment:



I think the 17-40 might need slight ma on my 5D3. I've only taken half a dozen shots with it so I'll need to test it properly. I certainly don't think it's soft though.

[DibblyDobbler]

2slo said:

Good shot especially at 10mm. Did you have to do much correction for distortion to get those towers vertical?

I know you were asking Rob about the 17-40 and whether it is soft at the wide end. Well, FWIW, I don't think so. Here's two wide shots with it. The first is at 17mm albiet on a 1.3 crop (1D mk IV) and a close up:



This next one is at 17mm on FF (5D3) distant landscape. Very slight crop here just to allow for rotation adjustment:



I think the 17-40 might need slight ma on my 5D3. I've only taken half a dozen shots with it so I'll need to test it properly. I certainly don't think it's soft though.

Cheers - yes, extensive correction required! If only I had a tilt shift

Thanks for the info on the 17-40 - these shots certainly sharp enough to me

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

Cheers - yes, extensive correction required! If only I had a tilt shift

Thanks for the info on the 17-40 - these shots certainly sharp enough to me

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=2

So far I have found the conclusion here to be in line with what I have seen ferom the lenses I have used, though I don't have FF (nor a 17-40) so there is scope for alternative conclusions.

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_174...

So far I have found the conclusion here to be in line with what I have seen ferom the lenses I have used, though I don't have FF (nor a 17-40) so there is scope for alternative conclusions.

Thanks LQ

The verdict is quite enlightening don't you think:

The Article said:

Verdict

It's not exactly easy to design a flawless full format lens and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L shows its part of the struggles here. The lens is not overly fast but it has a comparatively broad range for a lens in this class and it seems as if Canon has overstretched things a little with respect to the 17mm setting. The lens is able to deliver a very high resolution for most of the image field but the corner performance is poor thus spoiling the game here - this is like cappuccino without the cream for a ultra-wide lens where corner to corner sharpness is simply more critical than for a tele lens for instance. High vignetting and heavy distortions on top don't make things any better here. However, these rather critical comments apply to the 17mm setting only and from 20mm onwards it's actually a good to very good lens without any major weakness. The mechanical quality is on an exceptionally high level as is the AF performance. If you're aware of its limitations it's still a desirable lens especially considering its very fair pricing.

So it seems that wider than 20mm it might be a bit weaker

[GetCarter]

2slo said:

Seven Stuff

Is that exhaust a DPR? (It just looks familiar as I had to buy and pack one of them tight to get my first R500 onto track). I got thrown off several times for being up to 106db, so had to muffle the brute.

Also... Up for an R600??

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

So it seems that wider than 20mm it might be a bit weaker

Yup, but then you have to take that in conjunction with finding anything that is better AND a decision about whether your sort of shots really only work ever at wider than 20mm (FF) with corner criticality. Or, same criteria, how often such limitations at wider than 20mm (FF) would be a frame killer as opposed to a slight annoyance that you don't vignette away (to some extent) anyway.

I don't know. It's not an area in which I am anywhere near immersed. I suspect there will be the trade off between absolute quality and cost. Your call of course. The usual observation would be that if you buy the lens 'right' and find you don't like it the investment loss may not be so great (if any) and could be thought of as a good learning return. (Wouldn't work for me - I never get rid of anything, or so it seems.)

[2slo]

GetCarter said:

2slo said:

Seven Stuff

Is that exhaust a DPR? (It just looks familiar as I had to buy and pack one of them tight to get my first R500 onto track). I got thrown off several times for being up to 106db, so had to muffle the brute.

Also... Up for an R600??

Std Caterham can, decat pipe fitted. I haven't had a drive by noise test but I doubt mine is less then 100db (throttle bodies fitted) and I'd guess a bit higher. No chance of getting on at Croft.
The R600 looks intruiging, as I understand it they take an R300 and add forced induction to take the power output up to around 275 BHP. Should be available as an upgrade pretty soon I believe. I wont say never but, for now, I'm happy with mine. New one on the horizon for you?

[GetCarter]

2slo said:

GetCarter said:

2slo said:

Seven Stuff

Is that exhaust a DPR? (It just looks familiar as I had to buy and pack one of them tight to get my first R500 onto track). I got thrown off several times for being up to 106db, so had to muffle the brute.

Also... Up for an R600??

Std Caterham can, decat pipe fitted. I haven't had a drive by noise test but I doubt mine is less then 100db (throttle bodies fitted) and I'd guess a bit higher. No chance of getting on at Croft.
The R600 looks intruiging, as I understand it they take an R300 and add forced induction to take the power output up to around 275 BHP. Should be available as an upgrade pretty soon I believe. I wont say never but, for now, I'm happy with mine. New one on the horizon for you?

Latest R500 was mental and stiff as hell, so any more power is almost pointless unless one is on super smooth track. We do have that up here, but it's 25 miles to get there. I'm on a Caterham holiday.... but I seem to buy another every 3 years. It's a bug.

I was in the R8 today with the Mrs and asked her to tell me what speed I was going. She got it wrong (by a lot) as it seems SO slow compared to being in a Seven (even though we were at the same speed). 'Tis the greatest and the worst thing about Caterfields, you feel every inch of it. Love the R8 but it's like sunbathing compared to skydiving. Just depends how much one wants to grit ones teeth I guess. (Esp. with no windscreen)

[RobDickinson]

DibblyDobbler said:

So it seems that wider than 20mm it might be a bit weaker

Its fine at 17mm for 95% of the frame and to be honest if you want better you would need the 17tse

17mm, f10, ISO 100, 1/320 tripod and mlu, this is via dpp/dlo and no sharpening applied


100% crop of the centre


lower right:

[14-7]

RobDickinson said:

Its fine at 17mm for 95% of the frame and to be honest if you want better you would need the 17tse

17mm, f10, ISO 100, 1/320 tripod and mlu, this is via dpp/dlo and no sharpening applied

Is it wrong to say out loud I hate you?

Absolutely fantastic shot Rob .

[DibblyDobbler]

RobDickinson said:

DibblyDobbler said:

So it seems that wider than 20mm it might be a bit weaker

Its fine at 17mm for 95% of the frame and to be honest if you want better you would need the 17tse

17mm, f10, ISO 100, 1/320 tripod and mlu, this is via dpp/dlo and no sharpening applied


100% crop of the centre


lower right:

Thanks Rob. Fab shot that! I guess the key points are that it's only the corners that suffer the softness and basically it's the best available (short of the tse which is too clever by half!). Good enough for me

Just need to wait for the 6D now...

[RobDickinson]

Theres always the 16-35L but not sure thats any better in the absolute corners.

Most landscapers who want corner/corner sharpness are shooting with primes (tse's, cz 21, 24L, 14L etc).

[baz7175]

Stunning view Rob!


Scotland Sept 2012 - Image 306 by www.bazpics.com, on Flickr

[baz7175]

There's always one joker in the family portrait...


Scotland Sept 2012 - Image 370 by www.bazpics.com, on Flickr

[driverrob]

[GFWilliams]

[JSS 911]

Ventured out to the Forest again this morning.


Red deer stag stands watchful as his harem of hinds graze by sinky 911, on Flickr

[markmullen]

Late Afternoon Sun Over Rosedale by mark_mullen, on Flickr

[johnbaz]

I'm not too good with a camera but here goes..
























John