RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Good Night time L glass (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13175)

Chase55671 12-01-2010 05:36 PM

Good Night time L glass
 
Group,

While my 24-105L does perform pretty nicely at night, I'm looking into a new piece of L glass to use just for night photography. The 18-55mm range on my original kit lens was perfect for most night time compositions and right now, in order to capture that, I have to switch between the 10-22 and the 24-105 and they produce two different kinds of night shots (star effect is slightly different even when using the same aperture) and the color is a bit different.

Does anyone have a good recommendation for a decent L glass that performs very well in lowlight or no light? I was thinking about the 16-35L or 17-40L, but I do have a lot of that range covered.

Thanks in Advance,
Chase

JRMDC 12-01-2010 05:48 PM

Come back to the dark side (EF-S), go with the excellent but not L-designated 17-55 IS.

Chase55671 12-01-2010 06:32 PM

J,

It's an USM lens.. Almost as good as L!

Will look into it.. F2.8 would be nice.

Chase

JimThias 12-01-2010 07:32 PM

17-40L is a nice lens. That was my first purchase beyond the kit lens and I've always been happy with it.

Some 17-40 night shots (wish I had more):

[photoid=219536]
[photoid=252340]


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...497no-pole.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...works-3351.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...7772-12096.jpg

http://railroadfan.com/gallery/album...meExp-8874.jpg

trainboysd40 12-01-2010 07:32 PM

I use my 35L for a lot of night photography.

Walter S 12-01-2010 08:28 PM

Im looking into the 16-35 myself. Canon has a $100 instant rebate on it until Jan 8.

The 17-55 IS also has a rebate of $70.

What exactly is wrong with having to change between two lenses? Do you not like the results of what the 10-22 and 24-105 are producing?

troy12n 12-01-2010 08:40 PM

I would think faster glass would perform better, but I am no night expert by any means. what little night photography I have done has been with the 24/2.8, 17-40L or 70-200L

travsirocz 12-01-2010 09:00 PM

Jim, your lighthouse photo rocks.

railfanzone 12-01-2010 09:16 PM

No L glass here, but don't discount off-brand lenses (nothing wrong with L glass if money isn't an object). With a tight family budget I had to make the choice to go Sigma for my glass, and I'm very happy with their performance (I actually sold my Canon 70-200 f/4L to get a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and don't regret it one iota). Right now I use a 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 18-50mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. I do own two Canon lenses - 28-135 IS and 50mm f/1.8 - neither of which gets any appreciable use. In fact, they usually stay home.

I've used the wide zoom (18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC) in all conditions - light, dark, rain, snow, hot, cold - and it works well. My only complaint is the focus motor is the older type and slow, but I see the newer version uses Sigma's HSM motor (same as Canon's USM). And at half the price of the 16-35 f/2.8...

Anyways, here's some low/no light examples with this lens:

[photoid=343884]
[photoid=340397]
[photoid=326902]
[photoid=303595]
[photoid=290994]
[photoid=288338]
[photoid=276122]
[photoid=262381]

On top of that, a good chunk of my published work (both to publishers and prints sold) have been taken with that 18-50 Sigma.

Just wanted to throw an "L" alternate out there... :-)

-Tom

jnohallman 12-01-2010 09:36 PM

I've gotta agree with Travis. Jim, that lighthouse picture is awesome!

Jon

crazytiger 12-01-2010 10:11 PM

I'll agree with the rest on the Grand Haven pier. It rocks.

JRMDC 12-01-2010 10:14 PM

Not a site for people to contribute to, but I found it amusing that there is a

http://www.lighthousepictures.net/

troy12n 12-01-2010 10:21 PM

Im sure there is a ____pictures.net for every hobby, interest, fetish, obsession.

crazytiger 12-01-2010 10:28 PM

J, the lighthouse that is right smack dab in the middle of that page when you open it up, is the same one.

John Craft 12-01-2010 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 125865)
Does anyone have a good recommendation for a decent L glass that performs very well in lowlight or no light?

For no light, I recommend using the body cap. Easy to focus, but metering is a bit of a pain.

JimThias 12-01-2010 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S (Post 125877)
What exactly is wrong with having to change between two lenses? Do you not like the results of what the 10-22 and 24-105 are producing?

The only issue I have with it is excessive dust on the sensor. I've been lazy and haven't cleaned the sensor in my 5D in a while, so I usually have to spend a little time cloning spots when I'm processing my pics. From what I understand, though, the 5D has a greater issue with sensor dust spots than most of the other Canon cameras. I try to keep my lens swapping to a minimum, but when I do I always try to cover up the opening as well as point it downward while the lens is off the body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz (Post 125881)
Jim, your lighthouse photo rocks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 125883)
I've gotta agree with Travis. Jim, that lighthouse picture is awesome!
Jon

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger (Post 125884)
I'll agree with the rest on the Grand Haven pier. It rocks.

Thanks. :smile: I kind of gave up landscape photography when I started obsessing with photographing trains. Maybe I should go back to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 125886)
Im sure there is a ____pictures.net for every hobby, interest, fetish, obsession.

:lol: Remember usenet newsgroups?

jnohallman 12-02-2010 03:05 AM

How about this oldie?

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-...09030269N?r=FE

Jon

Chase55671 12-02-2010 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S (Post 125877)
Im looking into the 16-35 myself. Canon has a $100 instant rebate on it until Jan 8.

The 17-55 IS also has a rebate of $70.

What exactly is wrong with having to change between two lenses? Do you not like the results of what the 10-22 and 24-105 are producing?

Walter,

Honestly, I slightly prefer the results more with the 10-22mm. Color and quality is better on the 24-105, though. I'm hoping to get something with the results of the 10-22 without the distortion, but the quality and color of an L.

Chase

trainboysd40 12-02-2010 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnohallman (Post 125914)

Meh, look into the Tamron 20-40 (at least, I think that's what it was - it was a 2.8-something at any rate)
Spectacularly sharp lens even wide open, and corner to corner. It's Quite old, but a friend of mine has one and it's spectacular at the wide end.

milwman 12-02-2010 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trainboysd40 (Post 125924)
Meh, look into the Tamron 20-40 (at least, I think that's what it was - it was a 2.8-something at any rate)
Spectacularly sharp lens even wide open, and corner to corner. It's Quite old, but a friend of mine has one and it's spectacular at the wide end.

Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD IF 17-35 2.8-4 Full frame. I have one and is a nice lens. If one can find it.

trainboysd40 12-02-2010 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman (Post 125925)
Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD IF 17-35 2.8-4 Full frame. I have one and is a nice lens. If one can find it.

Not the one I'm thinking of, but if it's nice, that works too.
I found the Nikon version on keh, but I assure you, the Canon is great.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Auto...99006805J?r=FE

troy12n 12-02-2010 02:40 PM

It's not constant aperture or as wide as you may want, but I have heard great things of the older Canon 28-80L 2.8-4.0. It is 2.8 from 28-65 and 4.0 from 65-80. Supposedly sharper than either the 28-70L or 24-70L. And around ~$550. There are some pretty good threads regarding it on fredmiranda forums and at least 1 for sale right now if I dont end up buying it...

TAMR159 12-02-2010 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 125929)
It's not constant aperture or as wide as you may want, but I have heard great things of the older Canon 28-80L 2.8-4.0. It is 2.8 from 28-65 and 4.0 from 65-80. Supposedly sharper than either the 28-70L or 24-70L. And around ~$550. There are some pretty good threads regarding it on fredmiranda forums and at least 1 for sale right now if I dont end up buying it...

I suppose I technically can't say for sure having never used the 28-80L, but my 24-70 is razor sharp even at f/2.8. I'm sure the 28-80L is a good buy for the money, but I have yet to try any glass other than a few Canon L primes that can touch what my 24-70 can do (even the 24-105 isn't quite on par, and I've used 3 different 24-105s to test with). Of course, it's probably not as big a deal if you're using a cropped sensor body; for a full frame body, however...

Holloran Grade 12-02-2010 06:00 PM

16-35L or 17-40L?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 125865)
I was thinking about the 16-35L or 17-40L, but I do have a lot of that range covered.

The biggest difference between these two lenses other than the price is chromatic distortion.

The 17-40 will give more of a fish eye look while the 16-35 has extra elements and is designed to avoid the distortion - hence the extra cost.

As I stated before, I am not a big fish eye fan so the extra cost to avoid that type of look was what was important for me in addition to needing a lens that was shorter than the 24-105.

I did not want a set of primes and I wanted the versatility of the zoom.

I like the 16-35 and I it use for low light and wide angles quite often.

I also find that it is the lens I use most often at birthday parties, civic events and indoors where normal people would use a point and shoot.

Some examples of images with the 16-35L:

[photoid=344528]

[photoid=328390]

[photoid=325091]

[photoid=324322]

[photoid=324016]

[photoid=301175]

[photoid=299701]

[photoid=291513]

and most recently

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36722129@N06/5217418598/" title="Sun Rise on Mt. Baldy by Holloran Grade (El Roco Photography), on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5217418598_88bf5605ed.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Sun Rise on Mt. Baldy" /></a>


The 17-40 looks like this:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/szoksnaps/4715105234/" title="Train 589 under the Moon by Szoksnapshots, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4715105234_5a827ab1d5.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Train 589 under the Moon" /></a>2010, Ken Szok All rights reserved

and

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/szoksnaps/5217117320/" title="Three in the Sadow of the Sunrise by Szoksnapshots, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/5217117320_095772b991.jpg" width="500" height="477" alt="Three in the Sadow of the Sunrise" /></a>2010, Ken Szok All rights reserved

http://www.flickr.com/photos/szoksna...7616175440614/


While the 16-35 has a little flatter look to the image:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36722129@N06/3594788694/" title="Sittin on a Clear by Holloran Grade (El Roco Photography), on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/3594788694_de9377cac0.jpg" width="500" height="380" alt="Sittin on a Clear" /></a>

Walter S 12-02-2010 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holloran grade (Post 125936)

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/szoksnaps/5217117320/" title="three in the sadow of the sunrise by szoksnapshots, on flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/5217117320_095772b991.jpg" width="500" height="477" alt="three in the sadow of the sunrise" /></a>2010, ken szok all rights reserved

Its another missile launch!!!!! :-d


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.