Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

    In this thread LINK AndyA was wondering if his landscapes would benefit from using a 17-40 to gain additional width to the scene. That is a greater width than he gets with his 24-105.

    The attached images (record shots really and not well processed) will give some idea of how much more width the 17-40 gives a photographer. I though I had the 17-40 set at 17mm but the exif in LR is showing it at set at 19mm! but you can still see the additional width available.

    With both images I had the camera resting on a fence post, not very technical but ...it allowed my to captuure similar composition. Notice in the first image you can see the shadow of the next fence post to my right. In the second image with the 17-40 as well as the first fence post to my right you can also see the "Brides" shadow!

    The other width indicator is the tree line on the RHS see how much more is in shot to the right of the sheep. Aye Lad tha knows about sheep in Yorkshire

    #1 24-105 @ 24mm



    #2 17-40 @19mm

    Peter

    Feel free to browse my
    Website : www.peterstockton-photography.co.uk
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_original_st/

    #2
    Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

    Hi Peter, thanks very much indeed for showing me the lens comparison. That's quite a substantial difference!
    Canon EOS 5D Mark III, EF 135mm F/2 L, EF 16-35mm F/4 L, EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 28mm f/2.8
    http://www.aveyardphotography.co.uk
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/aveyardphotography
    https://www.facebook.com/AveyardPhotography

    Comment


      #3
      Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

      I think that is a very interesting and helpful comparison. Interestingly, I think that I rarely shoot landscape at the widest angle. There is usually something I want to make the key part of the image. Now I may be fooling myself, but I believe that to be the case. I also have an 8-15, which at the 8mm end gives a total fisheye view on a FF, but at 15 gives an almost panoramic view (basically the same as above I guess). It rarely goes on walks with me, and I tend to save it for days when I want to do something completely different, or perhaps when I am out with two bodies (is that an out of body experience???)

      Richard
      Richard Anderson Photography at www.raphoto.me

      Comment


        #4
        Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

        One thing I found frustrating with a ultra wide angle was that you always need a foreground subject. If not your lens squashes everything down and makes even the tallest of mountains look small. This means you end up getting closer resulting in a quite distorted view of the scene. A very odd thing to get used to but the application of wide angle lenses seems to me to be quite limited, unless there's a lot to fill the frame.

        Hard to explain...
        Fuji X-T1 | 1D IV
        www.campsie.photography

        Comment


          #5
          Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

          Originally posted by Paulstw View Post
          One thing I found frustrating with a ultra wide angle was that you always need a foreground subject.
          That's a good point, Paul, I think I read that somewhere else too .... unless it was you that mentioned it on FB or somewhere?
          Canon EOS 5D Mark III, EF 135mm F/2 L, EF 16-35mm F/4 L, EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 28mm f/2.8
          http://www.aveyardphotography.co.uk
          https://www.flickr.com/photos/aveyardphotography
          https://www.facebook.com/AveyardPhotography

          Comment


            #6
            Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

            Originally posted by Paulstw View Post
            One thing I found frustrating with a ultra wide angle was that you always need a foreground subject. If not your lens squashes everything down and makes even the tallest of mountains look small. This means you end up getting closer resulting in a quite distorted view of the scene. A very odd thing to get used to but the application of wide angle lenses seems to me to be quite limited, unless there's a lot to fill the frame.

            Hard to explain...
            I actually find that a lot of the reason why I love wideangles - they make me work that little bit harder.

            Incidentally, I ALWAYS carry the 8-15 these days. Often don't use it, but with the right subject, wonderful.
            Please don't ask about my kit, it's embarrassing!

            Comment


              #7
              Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

              One thing I found frustrating with a ultra wide angle was that you always need a foreground subject.
              Mental note to self: Look for new camera bag to take all my kit ................ and a 2 ton limestone boulder!
              Colin

              Comment


                #8
                Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                Originally posted by colin C View Post
                Mental note to self: Look for new camera bag to take all my kit ................ and a 2 ton limestone boulder!
                Lighter than some of those big lenses...

                Richard
                Richard Anderson Photography at www.raphoto.me

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                  Originally posted by AndyA View Post
                  That's a good point, Paul, I think I read that somewhere else too .... unless it was you that mentioned it on FB or somewhere?
                  Might have been me that said that. Been saying it since I went to 11mm.

                  Originally posted by colin C View Post
                  Mental note to self: Look for new camera bag to take all my kit ................ and a 2 ton limestone boulder!
                  That's where I've been going wrong Colin. lol
                  Fuji X-T1 | 1D IV
                  www.campsie.photography

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                    What's needed is a 15-150 f/2.8 L ... that should set some design challenges.

                    Originally posted by colin C View Post
                    Mental note to self: Look for new camera bag to take all my kit ................ and a 2 ton limestone boulder!
                    Actually you would need a range of boulders for the geology to be correct well there are pedants about! It may have been a wind up but I recall reading that some film makers do carry a range of foreground subjects like boulders about with them ... however these are inflatable ... urban legend I guess.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                      It's no problem in Glasgow. There's usually the odd drunken ned lying about that you can use.
                      Fuji X-T1 | 1D IV
                      www.campsie.photography

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                        For any landscape image to work, it needs a beginning, middle and end, something to invite you in, lead you through the scene, and an element(s) to hold it together (anchor).

                        Therefore a 17-40 L or 16-35mm F2.8L are often the lenses of choice for dedicated landscape photographers.

                        To use a 17-40 lens you need to be able to think & see at 17mm, like a dedicated bird photographer has 500mm eyes, the ability to put all the elements in a scene together that makes sense.

                        If I'm out and about and I know I'll be taking landscapes exclusively, then my 17-40L is the lens of choice, most of my landscape shots over the years have been with this lens. If I'm uncertain what I'll be shooting, it's a 24-70 F2.8 L

                        And previously if I wanted something really wackily wide, it would be a Sigma 12-24mm (on a FF body).
                        Last edited by Les McLean; 23-01-2014, 08:27.
                        Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colours and your images will stir the soul. - Jack Dykinga
                        Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography- George Eastman

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                          Know exactly what you mean Les. I've got to the point where I can look at a scene and know if it will fit. It's a weird sense.
                          Fuji X-T1 | 1D IV
                          www.campsie.photography

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                            The trick is to buy a pack of assorted inflatable boulders... plus the better quality type of inflatable boulder securing pegs...

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: 17-40 v 24-105 width comparison

                              I'm friends with someone on Facebook who shoots a lot of beach shots, he carries an old Lobster trap and regularly uses as his foreground interest. Quite clever really.
                              Canon EOS 5D Mark III, EF 135mm F/2 L, EF 16-35mm F/4 L, EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 28mm f/2.8
                              http://www.aveyardphotography.co.uk
                              https://www.flickr.com/photos/aveyardphotography
                              https://www.facebook.com/AveyardPhotography

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X