Canon zoom for landscapes at f.8-16, L or go for croplens?

Hi guys!





I found this forum just yesterday, i was looking around for some lens for landscape photos and had my mind set for the 17-40L/4 but then i read some posts about it being rather inferior to others...





My toughts are, i go now with the 50D body, but i still want to keep my options open for the full frame if i ever get the money (student), and i know that if i get the money fpr the body i wont have any left for new lenses. But that might be years away still. Just tought i better be future-safe, so to speak, unless the difference between lenses are like night and day.


For me, beeing in northen scandinavia, the last wilderness of europe (like a Alaska light pretty much), do alright with the 17-40 at f.8-16? It will be mounted on tripod when not snapshoting friends and family :)


Or would it be more wise of me to go for another lens, if there is more "bang for the buck" so to say? A brand new one would be great but i can only afford second hand, the 17-40/4 is about 55-60% on the local market.


Shaprness and colors is my main consern, i realy want to do my "targets" justice as much as possible.





Any toughts and suggestions much apprisiated!


The lineup at the moment is: 70-200/4 L USM, 50/1.8 mk II, a 50d body and a 10D body, planning on either a dedicated macro or some extenders fror semimacro in the future.

forgot to mention the cropfactor. I can work with that still (17-40x1.6) it does not have to be that wide :)

Hi Vanheden-


IMO if you want to do landscape and want to be ff compatible, the 17-40 is a very good choice. It is very sharp at f/8.


If it is inferior to others, then the others are either not ff compatible or are much more expensive.

Thanks for your reply, the 17-40/4 seems to be a great choise for me.


Was looking a bit at the old 20-35/3.5-4.5 usm, it is a lot cheaper (a bit more than half of the L at the local market), but i am afraid it will let me down. I am probaly best of with the 17-40 + coking P filters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

.... I can work with that still (17-40x1.6) it does not have to be that wide :)


I was looking around for some lens for landscape photos and had my mind set for the 17-40L/4 but then i read some posts about it being rather inferior to others.


My toughts are, i go now with the 50D body, but i still want to keep my options open for the full frame.


It will be mounted on tripod when not snapshoting friends and family :)


Or would it be more wise of me to go for another lens, if there is more "bang for the buck" so to say?


Shaprness and colors is my main consern, i realy want to do my "targets" justice as much as possible.


The lineup at the moment is: 70-200/4 L USM, 50/1.8 mk II, a 50d body and a 10D body, planning on either a dedicated macro or some extenders fror semimacro in the future.

---

Another Lens to consider for Landscapes as well as people, would be the 24-70mm f/2.8L. It is a little more expensive though, but it is more versatile than the 17-40mm. I own the 24-70mm lens and I can definitely recommend it if this focal length would work for you. I should mention that I have never used the 17-40mm f/4L and I don't do a lot of landscapes, but I have taken some beautiful photos with this lens.


Although it's not ultrawide, it will take beautiful landscape shots and it is very sharp, and it renders beautiful colors and contrast.


It is also FF compatible, and after looking at your kit above, this lens would make a nice addition to your kit as a walk around lens.


This lens has a fast f/2.8 aperture which also makes it heavy! A less expensive alternative is the 24-105mm f/4L IS, which is lighter and has IS, but I don't own this one.


You also mentioned that you may be interested in some macro. Although they're not true 1:1 macro lenses, both the 24-70mm and 24-105mm lens have a macro mode, and you can always add an extension tube.


Like you, I also have a 70-200mm zoom, and the 24-70mm compliments my kit very well. When I go away, I can just grab these 2 lenses, and a fast prime, and an extender for the 70-200mm, and I feel pretty comfortable.


I took this one below, while on Vacation in Keystone, Colorado.


MK IV: 24-70mm f/2.8L @70mm f/7.1 1/640sec. -2/3 ev ISO 100 Handheld (Click on the photo, and then click again on Flickr for viewer box)



http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/...9e5813fa_b.jpg


Good Luck with your decision,


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

Was looking a bit at the old 20-35/3.5-4.5 usm

---

I've never used that lens and know nothing about it. I think wider would be better, but price may overwhelm the 3mm difference.


Richard is right- the 24-70 is more versatile than the 17-40. But for landscapes on a crop body, I'd want the option to go wider than 24mm.

I do not like the 17-40 on a crop body. The 10-22 EFS, the 15-85, and the 17-55 will all give you more value. The 10-22 is KILLER for landscapes. If your most important desire is towards landscapes, it is the way to go.


The 15-85 finds itself in the sweet spot, with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Although it's not ultrawide

---

24mm on a 1.6x body is equivalent to 38.4mm. Not only is that not ultrawide, it's not even wide angle (≤35mm FF-equivalent). Certainly, you can take great landscape shots with a normal or telephoto lens. But the OP is looking for a "zoom for landscapes" and I really think that should include at least wide angle, if not ultrawide.


The EF-S 10-22mm is an excellent ultrawide zoom - FF equivalent to 16-35mm, the slow/variable aperture doesn't matter for landscapes, and the 10-22mm has a lot less distortion at the wide end than the 16-35mm on FF.



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

A brand new one would be great but i can only afford second hand, the 17-40/4 is about 55-60% on the local market.


Shaprness and colors is my main consern, i realy want to do my "targets" justice as much as possible.

---

</div>



Vanheden, I notice that you don't have a standard zoom in your kit, so rather than the ultrawide 10-22mm, it does make sense to be looking at something in the standard zoom range (which, on a crop body, is a 15/17-xx range).


IMO, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses deliver optical quality equivalent to many L-series lenses, although th build quality is not quite as high. I usually recommend the EF-S 17-55mm as the best general purpose zoom lens for a crop body. For use outdoors (or indoors with a flash), the 15-85mm is an excellent alternative.


However, If you're going to use the new lens only stopped down for landscapes, the 17-40mm will do decently - not too different from the high-quality EF-S lenses (stopped down to f/8, the 17-40, 17-55, and 15-85 deliver similar sharpness). Color and contrast is good on all three lenses. If you plan on a more general purpose use (i.e. you might use the lens at f/4), I'd recommend trying to stretch your budget to get the 15-85mm - the 17-40mm doesn't do very well wide open.


One other argument against the 17-40mm is that if you're happy with it on your current 50D, if you eventually move to FF you may be much less happy with the lens - even stopped down to f/8-f/11, the 17-40mm has very soft corners, which can be a problem for landscape photos (those soft corners are cropped away on the smaller APS-C sensor). So, getting the 17-40mm with an eye to moving to FF may not be the best strategy.


As a side note, you mention stopping down to f/8-f/16 for your landscapes, and also that sharpness is a main concern. On a camera like the 50D, stopping down beyond f/8 results in a loss of sharpness due to diffraction. That's a function of pixel density of the sensor, independent of the lens. You can see the effect in this comparison (with the wickedly sharp and expensive 200mm f/2L IS on the 50D at f/5.6 and f/11). You can adjust the apertures and see that there's a very slight loss of sharpness and contrast as you go from f/5.6 to f/8, noticeable by f/11, and it's getting pretty bad by f/16. So, with your 50D, I'd recommend sticking to f/8 for your landscapes.


Hope that helps, and good luck with your decision!


--John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Although it's not ultrawide

---

...Not only is that not ultrawide..

---

Ah, so we agree on that one! [:P]


Rich

An excellent lens also which is sharper than the 17-40mm is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. That would be in your price range and it has a wide aperture as well, which would be helpfull for lowlight landscape and street photography. Having something wider than 24mm for landscapes is very important IMO.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

One other argument against the 17-40mm is that if you're happy with it on your current 50D, if you eventually move to FF you may be much less happy with the lens - even stopped down to f/8-f/11, the 17-40mm has very soft corners, which can be a problem for landscape photos (those soft corners are cropped away on the smaller APS-C sensor).

---

Compared to what?


Sure, the 17-40 is a bit soft in the ff corners. Is there a ff lens that wide in the price range that is sharper? (I'd like to have one [:)])

+1. You have to compare equivalent focal lengths.


According to Jan's RAW sample pictures that he sent me the Sigma 12-24mm wide open is sharper in the center and corners than the Canon 17-40mm. But Bryan's ISO crops are the other way around, sharper in the center and corners. But the crops don't go into the extreme corners so there could be some leveling room. This sample variation is aggravating!


On a 1.6 the 17-40mm is softer overall than the 18-55mm kit lens, if you had the 18-55mm and wasn't happy with it then you probably want to look at something else.


John.

I was going to suggest the Sigma 12-24mm as well John. It is close in optical quality to the Canon 17-40mm, but is also wider AND compatible with a FF camera if you want to go that route in the future.


Personally I don

Thank you all for the imput!


Sure have to think about it for a while. Good with that comparison to get a feeling for the sharpness of different lenses!


I think the Sigma 12-24 will be hard to come by second hand here, have not seen one on the market yet, same with the EF-s 15-85 USM.


The EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS USM is up for grabs now and then, but at around +60% on the 17-40/4L price, and money is tight at the moment. Great lenses all 3 of them as i understand it.


It is leaning towards the 17-40 still, it is clearly not the best out there but seems to be the best i can afford.


Damn university! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Compared to what?


Sure, the 17-40 is a bit soft in the ff corners. Is there a ff lens that wide in the price range that is sharper?

---

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

You have to compare equivalent focal lengths.

---

Exactly. If the OP is happy with the 17-40mm @ 17mm on a crop body, then s/he won't be looking at a 17mm lens for FF, but a 27mm lens. In that case, the 24-105mm f/4L IS kit lens (which when purchased in the 5DII kit is in the same price range as the 17-40mm), delivers performance equal or superior to the 17-40mm at overlapping focal lengths (and is sharper in the corners wide open).


But to answer your question, Jon - not from Canon. The 16-35mm II has sharper corners (still not sharp corners, but sharper than the 17-40), but at twice the price. However, theTokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 reportedly has sharper corners than the 17-40mm (still soft wide open, but that's a stop wider than the 17-40mm, and by f/4 it's substantially sharper in the corners). That lens sells for the same price as the Canon 17-40mm. TheSamyang 14mm f/2.8 is even wider, faster, much cheaper, and is significantly sharper in the corners compared to the 17-40mm (of course, it's MF only, and has a whole lot of barrel distortion).


Vanheden, I do agree with Ben that the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a fantastic lens (I used one on my 7D prior to going 5DII+16-35mm II) - great for landscapes. If that's really your primary use, it's something to consider. It's very sharp, has less distortion than the 17-40mm (even when the 17-40 is used on a crop body, it still has a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end). The new price of the 10-22mm is the same as the 17-40mm, and locally for me, used copies of the 10-22mm sell for a little less than used copies of the 17-40mm.


Here are a few shots with the 10-22mm on my 7D to tempt you. [;)]
</div>
<div>
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/...595457af_z.jpg
EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 10mm, 0.6 s, f/14, ISO 100</div>
<div></div>
<div>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/...b11ea0c1_z.jpg</div>
<div>EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 13mm, 1/500 s, f/8, ISO 100</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/...c84bd200_z.jpg</div>
<div>EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 18mm, 1/100 s, f/11, ISO 100</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

...
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<span>i still want to keep my options open for the full frame if i ever get the money (student)...But that might be years away still.<span>Just tought i better be future-safe, so to speak, unless the difference between lenses are like night and day.

---

Personally, I buy whatever lens will meet my current needs. Then, when my needs change several years later, I go through all the hassle and inconvenience of selling the lens and buying a more appropriate one (sometimes at a loss of around 20%).


Some people do not like to resell anything because they don't have time to deal with craigslist and hawk wares on e-bay. For them, it's worth it to spend a ton of extra money on lenses now because they don't have time for things like that. If I ever get that rich, my personal shopping assistant will take care of it for me while my other servants peel my grapes, fan me with giant leaves, and carry me on a litter. Until then, it's cheaper for me to do the work myself.


If we made a list of every lens that is sharper than the 17-40 (on your 50D), it would be a mile long. Every standard zoom crop lens that I can think of would be on it. Even the lowly kit lens (18-55 IS) is sharper (and includes I.S. for one third the price). Personally, I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is cheaper, faster, sharper, and longer than the 17-40.


To me, the difference between the 17-40 and a sharp lens like the Canon 15-85 is like night and day, but I may be more picky about contrast/resolution than most photographers. The difference probably wouldn't be noticeable in a 4x6, or at f/16, but it would be noticeable in an 8x10 at f/5.6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Exactly. If the OP is happy with the 17-40mm @ 17mm on a crop body, then s/he won't be looking at a 17mm lens for FF, but a 27mm lens. In that case, the 24-105mm f/4L IS kit lens (which when purchased in the 5DII kit is in the same price range as the 17-40mm), delivers performance equal or superior to the 17-40mm at overlapping focal lengths (and is sharper in the corners wide open).

---

The OP said he wanted to keep his options open for ff, which I took to mean use the 17-40 on ff. So it seems to make sense to compare it to other lenses in the same focal length range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

But to answer your question, Jon - not from Canon. The 16-35mm II has sharper corners (still not sharp corners, but sharper than the 17-40), but at twice the price. However, theTokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 reportedly has sharper corners than the 17-40mm (still soft wide open, but that's a stop wider than the 17-40mm, and by f/4 it's substantially sharper in the corners). That lens sells for the same price as the Canon 17-40mm. TheSamyang 14mm f/2.8 is even wider, faster, much cheaper, and is significantly sharper in the corners compared to the 17-40mm (of course, it's MF only, and has a whole lot of barrel distortion).

---

Thanks, John. I hadn't considered these. The Tonkia does not take a filter, though, and the Samyang is MF only, so they're not for me. But they are both worthy of the OP's consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

...<span>i still want to keep my options open for the full frame if i ever get the money (student)...But that might be years away still.<span>Just tought i better be future-safe, so to speak, unless the difference between lenses are like night and day.

---

Personally, I buy whatever lens will meet my current needs.

---

Vanheden said he wanted a ff capable lens, and assuming this is what he wants, I *still* think the 17-40 is a good way to go. However, I happen agree with you: I think the OP should get one of the superior crop lenses and worry about ff when and if the time comes. Needs change, opinions change, prices change, and available equipment changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Vanheden said he wanted a ff capable lens, and assuming this is what he wants, I *still* think the 17-40 is a good way to go. However, I happen agree with you: I think the OP should get one of the superior crop lenses and worry about ff when and if the time comes. Needs change, opinions change, prices change, and available equipment changes.

---

+1 I think the OP would be very happy with a second hand(or new) Tamron 17-50 f2.8 . Not only would it be a good wide-angle lens. It would also very well line up with his other lenses.


The 17-40 might be nice on a crop camera. I personally didn't like it on FF. And I would rather buy the Sigma 12-24 if I were looking for a wide-angle.


Also if you look at a second hand Tamron, you're looking at a bargain and it also servers very very well as a general lens on a 50D. Plus it has a 2.8 aperture....big plus! And with second hand prices, it's hard to make a bad decision on this one. You might even save some money to put into a dedicated macro lens [;)]


Obviously the 17-40 would benefit of some weathersealing. That's about the only big favor I can think of.


Good luck,


Jan

I am a bit worried how the colors will be on the other lenses, the comparison is sharpness only (from what i seen), and i realy want a good color...


And i must admit it makes me a bit sad so see everyone cracking down ont he 17-40, i always held the L lenses higher that others (since the 35mm film era), but it seems that letter dont stand for anything but a bit of dust and water protection :(

One last note to ponder for the original poster.


A replacement to the 17-40 f/4L to be announced soon? Check out this link to Canon Rumors...


www.canonrumors.com/.../ef-16-40-f4l-is-cr1


It maybe that the month after you buy the 17-40, it will be replaced by a 16-40mm f4 with IS included, and sharper corners.


Indeed, something to ponder...

Very much so! But that must be a hefty pricetag :p

The red L still means top of the line, pro quality. However, ultrawide zooms are very difficult lenses to design. The EF-S lenses simplify the situation, because the smaller image circle removes some technical barriers. The other two L lenses in the same approximate price range (70-200/4 and 200/2.8 II) deliver better IQ than the 17-40, but that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

I am a bit worried how the colors will be on the other lenses, the comparison is sharpness only (from what i seen), and i realy want a good color...

---

This may surprise you, but "sharpness" and "good color" are actually the same thing. When you use a "good color" lens to photograph flowers with bright and bold colors, those colors will come through at full strength. Whereas a lens without good color will record the flowers in a more dull, low-contrast way. (Some photographers actually use such lenses on purpose,particularly older ones,to attain a certain mood for the image. I prefer to capture good colors first and then make it dull in post production -- that's easier than doing it the other way around. [:D])



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />



The color of a lens is so important that all the manufacturers measure it and publish charts on it -- it's called MTF. A perfect "100%" MTF says that the lens will give you the best color possible of what you're photographing. A low MTF, like 20%, means the color is significantly dulled and diminished.


So there are three related factors:

• "Good" Color: this occurs when you have high contrast at low and medium spatial frequencies, especially.
• Sharpness: this is a subjective combination of contrast from various spatial frequencies (usually the highest -- but it depends on who is using the word).
• Resolution: this usually refers only to the absolute highest frequencies, and ignores contrast.

So, the primary factor in what most people consider good color is actually contrast. But there are two other factors as well:

1. Spectral transmissivity
2. Color accuracy
3. Color matching (with other lenses)

The first factor relates to how some lenses have a red cast, or a yellow cast, or some other color filtering effect to them. To me, that's bad. I'd much rather apply whatever color filtering I want in post, but I don't begrudge anyone their preference for doing it in the lens and without needing an extra color filter.


The third factor, color matching, is when you try to get two lenses that achieve the same color -- even if that color is inaccurate and/or has a certain color cast you like or dislike. At least if they are the same, whatever effects you get will apply equally when you switch lenses.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />



The effect of all three of these factorsis very, very minute, and completely overshadowed by things like the white balance setting. That is, you can take two lenses that are completely opposite in their color cast, apply a custom white balance, and to most people the color will be the same. For really critical color, you can use a colorchecker chart and a custom profile to get them closer. It's only the most advanced and difficult situations where you truly have to have lenses with perfectly identical spectral transmissivity in order to achieve identical color reproduction.
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanheden

And i must admit it makes me a bit sad so see everyone cracking down ont he 17-40,

---

</div>


Personally, I love the 17-40 as a full frame landscape lens. I think it produces very good results on my 5D2 at f/8. But that's because the image is enlarged/magnified a lot less, and a narrower f-number can be used to achieve the same DOF and diffraction. The net effect of these is that the flaws don't show nearly as bad and the results are sharper and have better color. But I don't like to use it at f/4 or f/5.6, and I don't like to use it on a crop.


Think of the 17-40 as a large, expensive camping trailer. If all you have is a compact car (e.g. crop camera), trying to pull that trailer will make your camping trip miserable. A small tent (like the 17-50 f/2.8) is more appropriate for your small car and give you better results. When you get a large truck some day, then you can pull the camping trailer and enjoy all the benefits of the expensive camping trailer.

Thanks again for all imput!


Neuro, yes i had that belife aswell, but in this thread even the chapest standard lens seems to outperfom the 17-40 and that realy rocked my world, so to speak.


Sharpness is important, but colors just aswell when it comes to the dramatic landscapes, i just have to look at more pictures from the different lenses i think to make my own opinion on what suits my needs, sharpness vs. colorvise. The 10-22 if appeling for its range i must say, and the 24-70 for its performance, but they are still a bit above what i hoped to budget.


My plan is to fit the lens on the 50d body and use the Cokin P ND system, that will go with both the 50/1.8 MKII and the 70-200/4 (yes i shoot landscapes with that to, not well but i do :)


No dubt that both the canon 17-55 and 15-85 performs well, aswell as the Tokina and Sigma, witch seems to be the most bang fpr the buck when boughtbrand-new, but they are hard to comeby here and when on sale would raise the budget by 60+% (no upper limit at 100% of new-price, you know the market...)


Alot to think about and to compare, i am glad i raised this before my "big" mountain expedition (Just 2 weeks). The FF factor is realy not "that" (the "" meens that it is, learned form a teen..) important, but i like the tought of having a base-set of lenses that will go with any body that i can afford.


If having to scale the impostance of things, i whink i would go like this:


Lifelike Color


against-the-sun-compability (sorry i do npt know the proper word for that)


Sharpness


Taking the Cookin P filter system (The Lee ND

The differance between in color is not huge between any of these lenses, when you are looking at pictures with great colors you are looking at 90% postprocessing.


The correct term is flare. Bryan (owner of this site) also has a flare comparison on this site.


John.