Re: Why choose 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
- From: "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:51:51 GMT
brett wrote:
> I'm confused as to why some one would choose a 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
> Seems as though the 24-105mm offers the best range.
Best for what? I love wide angle. It is great for a lot of uses,
especially people inside landscapes, buildings etc. You might find it
worthless. Do you ever find yourself telling people to move around so you
can get them all in the same photo? If so you want wider angle.
> However, it is
> more expensive.
It is that "L" in the name that makes it more expensive. The "L" series
is really their professional line and in general they are truly better
quality lenses. It may also be harder to make a good quality wide angle
than a good quality less wide angle.
What if there was a 17-105mm of high quality? Would
> that be the best choice?
>
> Then consider the Canon EF 28-90 mm f/4-5.6 II USM Zoom Lens for only
> $129. That seems to be the best of the two mentioned below.
>
> Canon 17-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Zoom Lens for $589
>
> Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Zoom Lens for $1249
>
> I understand some will have motors and that will cause the price to
> increase. However, if you have two lenses that the only differences
> are one is a 17-85mm and the other a 24mm-105mm, why choose one over
> the other?
>
> On the subject of lenses and focal length, my landscape photos often
> do not match at all what I see. For example, let's say I take a
> photo of a mountain face or downtown skyline. I'm very close to the
> subject and can see rich detail. However, in the photo, the subject
> seems far away, small and lacking of detail. There is no 3D to the
> photo.
Well I find that the use of a wide angle lens tends to add the
appearance of depth, but that is only one part. Composition is really an
art form and you can not just tell someone how to accomplish it. It comes
with a lots of practice, observation training, skill and talent. Sorry to
say, I come up short on the last item.
Detail is a matter of sharpness, but in real life, the apparent detail
is more a matter of composition, exposure lighting etc. Back to that old
problem, photography is an art form.
You can't expect equipment to make art. The photographer makes art.
Study what you like and figure out why you like it. Then go and practice
often.
For example, there is much details in these photos:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/aijuswanaseing/45136076/ (lens unknown)
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323928/ (17-40mm)
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323929/ (17-40mm)
>
> On the first photo, I'm only referring to the tower details. Those
> photos make you feel as though you are standing right there. I can
> frame everything exactly the same on my camera but never get that type
> of perspective. I'd some suggestions as to why that may be. I have
> some ideas below.
>
> The 20D is my target camera and I keep posting questions relating to
> its abilities. Here's another. My Olympus c2100z has a 38-380 mm
> f2.8-3.5/8.0 lens. I'd imagine it isn't of very good quality being
> built in (non interchangable). Could this camera/lens be the reason I
> get such lacking photos? Will the 20D be any better? For the above
> photos, which lens would work best?
>
> Why did the photographer choose a 17-40mm lens for the above photos?
> Why not a 17-80mm or 38-380mm?
With out knowing where he had the zoom set, I can only suggest he might
have been able to use any of those lenses. He also may know that one lens
has a little more contrast than another. We are back to the art issue
again. He is using his tools to create art, it is not the tool that creates
it.
>
> With a high quality 38-380mm lens, why would some one spend more money
> to buy a 38-105mm and 105mm - 380mm (assuming both exist)? It seems
> the one lens does everything you need in one package. Or is that
> illogical thinking?
The lens may be heavier than desired, it may look too imposing to the
subjects, it may have a smaller aperture, or it may not be as sharp or it
may be more contrasty than desired. There is a lot more to a lens than just
the zoom range. In fact some of the best lenses ever made are not even
zooms.
My suggestion is to join a local camera club. Work with the people
there to get input on your work. Do lots of photography. Work towards the
results you want. Try to lean to use the tools you have, whatever they
maybe.
I suspect that any of the great photographers of the world could produce
far better results with a cheap box camera, than I could with the best
equipment money can buy.
Think talent and skill first and equipment last.
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
.
- References:
- Why choose 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
- From: brett
- Why choose 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
- Prev by Date: Re: Seeking advice on Canon lenses
- Next by Date: Re: I need photo xmas cards with printing on both inside sides
- Previous by thread: Re: Why choose 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
- Next by thread: Re: Why choose 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
