Friday, July 25, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
|16MM AT F11|
|17MM AT F11|
Both of these images were taken from the exact same position on my tripod just a minute apart. It is not my intention to claim to be a lens reviewer, but I am posting them in case anyone that reads this blog has an interest it either of these lenses.
On my outing Sunday morning, I primarily shot with the new 16-35, and throughly enjoyed myself. What I did discover (not surprisingly), is that the 16-35 does not replace the 17 when it comes to architectural photography. The 16-35 will work in almost any situation where I can keep the lens/camera level. The top photograph from my post of yesterday was taken with the 16-35, the lens/camera was level, and the results were very satisfactory. There were situations during that shoot where to properly portray a taller building, that the 17 was the only logical choice.
I prefer to not use perspective adjustments in post production to straighten out converging lines, but in a pinch it could be done since the quality of the photographs from the 16-35 are so high. However, I always prefer to start with the highest quality imagery that I can, so using the right lens for the task is my rule. I just know that there will be times when I am walking around and photographing where time and convenience will dictate that I use the lens that is attached to the camera. Therefore, as a do anything lens, the 16-35 will serve very well with its image stabilization for these shaky hands.