First the lens itself is an excellent wide angle prime. Very sharp edge to edge even wide open. Virtually no flare. But it should not be bought for that purpose. The 14mm f2.8 is cheaper (at $2,000!) and faster. The 16 to 35mm f2.8 zoom is even cheaper and much more versatile. Also, this lens does not auto focus and has a big unprotected bulb in front that requires special care in handling.
What the lens does is produce wide angle shots that cannot be obtained from any other lens. In a normal wide angle, tilting the camera so it is not parallel to the ground makes the vertical lines tilt strongly open or closed. The more you tilt the camera, the stronger the effect. Sometimes you want that effect. It can enhance the height of things. But other times you don't. This lens offers the ability to control line tilt or eliminate it altogether. Set the camera so lines are all straight or tilted to the extent you want then shift the lens itself up, down or sideways to capture the desired field of view. The effect is amazing.
But that is not all. Because lines can be kept straight, shooting two or more shots by shifting the lens instead of the camera facilitates stitching multiple shots into very wide angle images. It is possible to get a shot wider than a fish eye lens with no linear distortion.
And that is still not all. The ability to tilt the lens helps depth of field. I won't try to explain the principle (there are plenty of sites on the internet that describe it) but with the camera on a tripod, it is possible to set the basic shot, shift the lens to the desired point, tilt the lens until everything is in focus up to within a very short distance from the lens, take that shot, then shift the lens the other direction with no or the opposite tilt and take a second shot, then stitch the two shots to get an image wider than a fish eye in focus from inches to infinity even with the lens wide open.
This lens is mostly useful for architectural and landscape photography. You will not use it to photograph the kids or carry around town on vacation (unless you take photographic vacations). It takes a lot of work. Basically, the shot has to be set up in manual exposure and focus before the lens is shifted. A tripod is not absolutely necessary but will be useful for most shots, especially if you plan to stitch multiple shots. It takes those of us old enough to remember back to the days when everything had to be set manually. For those not that old, it will be a shock to have to make so many settings. But for certain shots, there is no substitute for this lens.
It is probably a professional only lens. The cost, effort and basic photographic knowledge required means this lens will never hit the mass market. But for those who like to take landscape panoramas, it is almost a necessity.
UPDATE
I recently had a chance to photograph a slot canyon. It was narrow and tall and I thought a perfect place to try out this lens. I did get some good shots but I was much more impressed with the 16 to 35mm f2.8 II. It was a sharp as the 17mm, easier to use and a lot more versatile. Part of the problem with the 17mm was the work required to set up a shot. It took forever and the results were uneven. This was not a place where tilting lines were a problem so I had the highest hope for shooting multiple shots shifting from side to side to create very wide angles. I found that the 17mm would produce a shot that appeared to be wider angle because I could get closer but the 16mm would get the same shot just not as elongated. The 16mm shot was the more impressive for that particular place. At another site I was shooting an arch and found I could easily get the whole span in the 16mm. A two shot stitch with the 17mm was no more impressive and had a problem with darkening at each end.
Bottom line, the 17mm is no substitute for other lenses. It is a highly specialized lens useful when you have to stitch multiple shots or keep vertical lines straight. The 16mm to 35mm zoom and the 15mm fisheye will be better choices for 95% of all the landscape panoramas and canyon shots.
SECOND UPDATE
I recently tested this lens agains the 14mm II and 16-35 II zoom in a simple landscape panorama with the sun in the upper left quarter of the frame. The 16-35 flared the most, to the point the photo was ruined. It had a high quality filter that may have added to the effect but I was surprised with the amount of flare, which was mostly thick uneven rays emanating from the sun and not multi colored shapes across the frame. The 14mm also flared badly around the sun but less than the zoom. It had no filter. The biggest surprise was the 17mm. It had virtually no flare. Slight rays around the sun but a nice effect. Shifting the lens to both sides then stitching the shots together produced a stunning shot, very wide and clear. This will be my choice for that kind of shot in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment