[Itsed65]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Are you sure they're not big ducks? I don't know of a goose like that.

They very well could be. Their bills just look like geese to me, but I am certainly no expert.

Originally Posted by dcstep

Classic shot Ed. That's a gallery shot in a very large size. Wall hanger...

Thanks Dave. That was my new 5d3 with the 100-400. I may very well get that one printed. Biggest I can do at home is 13X19.

[ddk632]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Not a lot. What little CA is left, any lens/body error, the slight barrel and pincushion still left.

Dave

Interesting.

I noticed LR5 now has CA correction, not sure if it works as well as the one in Photoshop.

With lens/body error, what's that exactly? My understanding was usually there's micro-adjustment in the camera for specific lenses, but it has to do with calibrating autofocus, which the TS-E 17 doesn't have.

The barrel distortion and pincushion can be useful, but again, very little with this lens. Especially compared to the 24-105L, which has horrible, visibly noticeable curvature of straight horizontal lines before correction. I notice it in my seascapes where the horizon is curved!

Seriously, the TS-E 17 is as close to perfect as a lens can get. I may be biased, but I really love this lens, even if mastering tilt is taking me a long time compared to shift.

Part of me wants a 14L for the wider non-fisheye capability, but the tilt-shift is so useful that I fear it may be too limited, except the big sky type of shots you posted earlier. Anything with buildings, architecture, or any noticeable verticals is hands down TS-E 17 territory.

[IRide]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

They very well could be. Their bills just look like geese to me, but I am certainly no expert. .

Could they be either of these?

http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/lesser-scaup

http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/greater-scaup

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by ddk632

Interesting.

I noticed LR5 now has CA correction, not sure if it works as well as the one in Photoshop.

With lens/body error, what's that exactly? My understanding was usually there's micro-adjustment in the camera for specific lenses, but it has to do with calibrating autofocus, which the TS-E 17 doesn't have.

The barrel distortion and pincushion can be useful, but again, very little with this lens. Especially compared to the 24-105L, which has horrible, visibly noticeable curvature of straight horizontal lines before correction. I notice it in my seascapes where the horizon is curved!

Seriously, the TS-E 17 is as close to perfect as a lens can get. I may be biased, but I really love this lens, even if mastering tilt is taking me a long time compared to shift.

Part of me wants a 14L for the wider non-fisheye capability, but the tilt-shift is so useful that I fear it may be too limited, except the big sky type of shots you posted earlier. Anything with buildings, architecture, or any noticeable verticals is hands down TS-E 17 territory.

Going from very little to none is always nice. You'll see it.

About the body/lens correction. Each body has a different sensor/filter/processor combination. Unlike film, you don't start with a sharp image and try to preserve it. The digital image is often filter first and then reconstructed in the camera. With the same lens, some bodies will show purple fringing and moire' in certain situation, that would never happen with film or even another digital body. The 5D MkII had a bad purple fringing problem when first introduced and Canon fixed that with a firmware update.

The bodies are getting more and more sophisticated and many actually make corrections in the JPEG files that are lens-dependent, rather than applying the same corrections to all lenses. Taking a Raw file outside the camera, it will not have those same corrections applie. The uninformed may say, "My JPEGs look better than my Raw files" and they'd be right, because they're not processing their Raw files correctly.

I think that Digital Photo Professional has correction for both your 17mm and you 8-15mm. I'd suggest checking to see if they do and trying it to see what differences it makes. With the 8-15mm the differences should be substantial and with the 17mm they'll still be visible. If you still have the 24-105mm, you'll be totally blown away by the improvement you get from applying DLO.

I too was torn between the 14mm rectilinear and the 15mm fisheye. I went with the 15 because I was happy with my de-fishing software results. I predict that with the 17mm in your bag, you'll hardly touch the 14mm.

Dave

[ddk632]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Going from very little to none is always nice. You'll see it.

About the body/lens correction. Each body has a different sensor/filter/processor combination. Unlike film, you don't start with a sharp image and try to preserve it. The digital image is often filter first and then reconstructed in the camera. With the same lens, some bodies will show purple fringing and moire' in certain situation, that would never happen with film or even another digital body. The 5D MkII had a bad purple fringing problem when first introduced and Canon fixed that with a firmware update.

The bodies are getting more and more sophisticated and many actually make corrections in the JPEG files that are lens-dependent, rather than applying the same corrections to all lenses. Taking a Raw file outside the camera, it will not have those same corrections applie. The uninformed may say, "My JPEGs look better than my Raw files" and they'd be right, because they're not processing their Raw files correctly.

I think that Digital Photo Professional has correction for both your 17mm and you 8-15mm. I'd suggest checking to see if they do and trying it to see what differences it makes. With the 8-15mm the differences should be substantial and with the 17mm they'll still be visible. If you still have the 24-105mm, you'll be totally blown away by the improvement you get from applying DLO.

I too was torn between the 14mm rectilinear and the 15mm fisheye. I went with the 15 because I was happy with my de-fishing software results. I predict that with the 17mm in your bag, you'll hardly touch the 14mm.

Dave

Agreed improved quality is worth it even if a little bit.

I am going to look into DPP. I've gotten lazy since I have been using Lightroom; don't like to venture out of it unless I have to (like for merging layers in Photoshop). So I'm likely not getting the most out of my files.

I do still have the 24-105mm; the distortion is surmountable with basic correction in LR5, so if DPP makes even more out of it I'll be happy. One thing that annoys me to heck with this lens is it vignettes at the wide end if I slap a CPL on it (or if I stack 2 filters it's worse). It is also the lens I use with my Lee system, which I used to be able to stick on top of a CPL with the 10-22 and not vignette; with the 24-105 that's impossible without going to 30mm or so, or not using the CPL. Although one of my all time best/favorite landscape shots was with the 24-105 and GND filters, so I can't complain. Note that I posted that shot completely unedited straight from the 6D, and you can see the curvature in the horizon. Need to go back and fix that.

I think you're right about the 14. Partly why I went with the 8-15 fisheye this time around, as it was different enough vs. the 14mm. The 17mm comes with me no matter what type of shooting I plan on doing - landscape, architecture, the motorcycle stuff (for the pits)...

One more fisheye from last night for the snapshot:


Skyball by ddk632, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Nice star pattern for the sun. My 15mm also does that well. (This is the Sigma, not my Canon, but the Canon's good also):


Starburst by dcstep, on Flickr

[ddk632]

Actually it's a street light

[remmib]

A snapshot of the car for once.
Was on a ferry and it had some cool blue light, and since there were no other cars parked next to mine, I grabbed a quick shot.

[ddk632]

Nice shot, and really nice looking F10!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by remmib

A snapshot of the car for once.
Was on a ferry and it had some cool blue light, and since there were no other cars parked next to mine, I grabbed a quick shot.

White-on-white looks great.

What wheels are those?

[remmib]

Originally Posted by dcstep

White-on-white looks great.

What wheels are those?

They're 20" HRE P43SC.

[Icy J]

Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 by - Icy J -, on Flickr

[ddk632]

Nice work on the panning, I need to practice this skill! My attempts don't look like that yet

[e90Mark]

Chicago Riverwalk

DSC_1439 by Mark Geezy, on Flickr

[Itsed65]

Originally Posted by IRide

Could they be either of these?

http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/lesser-scaup

http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/greater-scaup

Close but I don't think so. Some other people on a different forum are saying they could be pintails, which would make more sense for where I was. I'm not gonna worry to much about it

Originally Posted by remmib

A snapshot of the car for once.
Was on a ferry and it had some cool blue light, and since there were no other cars parked next to mine, I grabbed a quick shot.

Very nice! Great looking car.

[M_Six]

Love the ferry shot, Rem. You might touch up the mud just behind the front wheel well before you print up the calendar, though.

[Itsed65]

Pt Reyes Beach South by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[ddk632]

^^

I like that B&W beach shot, Ed. Well done.

[dcstep]

Big buck silhouette by dcstep, on Flickr

Shot with the 7D at ISO 6400, so it's a little noisy in the sky. I hit it with NR a good bit, since I didn't need to worry a lot about detail, but the luminescence noise in the sky wash huge when I started.

Dave

[Itsed65]

That is a really nice one Dave!

I just got the word that my rented 500 is waiting for me at fedex, so I can't wait to hit the wildlife refuges this weekend. I'm bringing my buddy with me and we have a 1d4, 7d, 5d3 and a 5d2. The 24-105 will be on the 2, and between the others will be the 500,my 400 5.6, 100-400 and 300 2.8 along with both 1.4 and 2x tc's. Should be an interesting weekend!

[dcstep]

Sounds like a blast Ed.

With the 2X, I predict that the 1D4 will be the champ, but with everything else, I think you'll like the 5D3 best. The 2x will work on both the 1D4 and 5D3, but the higher voltage of the 1D4 makes a huge difference in its ability to manhandle the big lens plus TC. The 1D X is even better.

Happy hunting.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

...

I just got the word that my rented 500 is waiting for me at fedex,

Oh, I forgot, the IS on the Series II is simply incredible, so give it a good test. Put it and the 2X on the 5D3 or 1D4 and hand hold some shots of the moon at under 1/100-sec. It'll blow you away.

Here's hand held at f/8 and 1/40-sec. with 500mm S-II and 2x TC-III:




Waxing Crescent Moon by dcstep, on Flickr