What might be a consideration is that the 28mm F1.8 shares the same filter size (58mm) as the 50mm F1.4 and the 100mm F2.8 macro. That's what tipped me in that direction.
A plus and a minus!
My understanding of architecture photography is quite different I guess.
The last two one is somehow good, but could be much better, if it wasn't about that rotten stuff. You see, I don't like that abandoned thing, so my opinion doesn't count.
Which objective did you use? It just "says" 17mm.
Of course it spawns a wide bow of what could be named that way, but I prefer modern architecture and there I would try to "pull out" sights, one may not recognize with the bare eye or at least without the photographers eye. In other words: some kind of abstraction. I'm not an architecture photographer, but I do some photos of buildings from time to time and as I wrote, I prefer "living" buildings, not the abandoned ones. But I often end up in just documenting not even modern, but old architecture too.
Of course it spawns a wide bow of what could be named that way, but I prefer modern architecture and there I would try to "pull out" sights, one may not recognize with the bare eye or at least without the photographers eye. In other words: some kind of abstraction. I'm not an architecture photographer, but I do some photos of buildings from time to time and as I wrote, I prefer "living" buildings, not the abandoned ones. But I often end up in just documenting not even modern, but old architecture too.
Flickr shows pretty everything, what's written correctly in the Exif part and even if the objective wouldn't be known by the 5D, there would something like 17-40 mm be written below the name of the camera body.
For the equipment: Any equipment is useful. If you don't own a Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L you will not be able to do the stuff that (expensive) part is famous for, but you can do many other things, even with a 200 mm lens.
Hi there, love these images. I'm pretty sure I've been here also in the past, let me guess......situated about 20 miles from Dubrovnik, a bombed out hotel close to the sea if I'm right..?
It may not seem, but I tried to retain the highlights as much as possible, mainly in the sky. I even used a polarizer in order to better achieve this. But I wanted to capture and show as much detail as possible of the interior (or whatever remains) of the building (like the ceiling, for instance) and that lend me to completely blow the highlights in the sky.
I enjoyed the ambience it gave to the photos, though.
Would a better camera helped regarding this?
Newer cameras have better DR, right?
Thanks
Luis
Spring
Canon
Foxgloves
