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

[vanheden]

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.

[vanheden]

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[vanheden]

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[MacManUS]

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

[Richard Lane]

.... 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)






Good Luck with your decision,


Rich

[neuroanatomist]

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>

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

[Richard Lane]

Although it's not ultrawide

...Not only is that not ultrawide..

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


Rich

[Fast Glass]

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.