Hi, I was thinking of getting a new lens and wondered what your opinion was on the canon 17-40mm lens as a good one for landscape photography. Maybe there's a better alternative, I just don't know, so any advice would be great.
thanks
Simon
Printable View
Hi, I was thinking of getting a new lens and wondered what your opinion was on the canon 17-40mm lens as a good one for landscape photography. Maybe there's a better alternative, I just don't know, so any advice would be great.
thanks
Simon
Hi Simon, check the following:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/can...anon_17-40_4p0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../dw0508-1.html - everything written by Darwin is worth reading.
Cheers,
PS: from what I know today I would have bought the 17-40 instead of the 16-35.
Hi Simon
I have a Zeiss 18mm Distagon manual lens that I think is absolutely fantastic... Might be an alternative for you to consider also...
DON
Simon,
I have it and use it and it works great. I purchased that over the 16-35 after much research. That said, I have been considering the Zeiss lens that Don recommends as my next landscape lens. That said, most of my work now is at the beach and I prefer one of my three Canon tilt shift lens (older versions) for that as I can use the shift function to place the horizon where I want it w.o tilting the lens and introducing distortion.
That said, I think you would be happy with the 17-40mm.
Bob, I am seriously considering the 24mm TSE; would love all of your thoughts and how you use it!
Jay,
Which one, the new one or an used series 1? The new one (along with the 17mm version) allow you to rotate the lens barrel so the T/S functions work in either horizontal or vertical positioning of the camera. The older version T/S, the shift works in horizontal and the tilt in vertical which makes sense since most vertical images are done to accommodate tall structures or close FG to distance BG where the tilt function is best suited. That works AOK for me as I use the shift to align the horizon with the position I want in the image. Leveling camera, I use a panning base to horizontally align/fine-tune the comp and then use shift to position FG and/or horizon.
The older version T/S have four screws that can be removed and the barrel rotated to reverse the T/S alignment with the horizontal/vertical formats. Not something you can do in the field but do allow you to get best use out of the lens.
I am very happy with the IQ on all three I have (24mm, 45mm and 90mm).
Bob, I have the 24-105, I am considering selling the 16-35, and buying the 17-40 and the 24 TSE. I am a big fan of Darwin Wigget and he is a big fan of TSEs. As an avid amateur I have to justify the expense!
I hope you have a section in your upcoming beach eBook explaining/showing in detail how you use the TSE.
I enjoyed the 17-40 when I had it (stolen in August last year). It was light, compact and the price is right. It is not the sharpest lens wide open but stopped down a little and it works great. I ended up replacing it with the 24-70/2.8 and for super-wide I have a Nikon 14-24/2.8 adapted to Canon EF with a Novoflex adapter.
I tried the 24 TSE II on a CPS loan and borrowed a Zeiss 21. I ended up buying the Zeiss just because I didn't know if I would have
the patience to set up the TSE everytime I went to shoot. Having said that, the TSE was wonderful and pretty intuitive to
use.
For those of you who are avid Canon shooters, the Gold CPS program for $100 is the greatest value in photography. You get some
free stuff, 2 free clean and checks, 30% off repairs and use of Canon loaners at no charge.
Good luck in your decision.
GG
The 17-40 is a great little lens for the price but it does have three issues one is vignetting especially on full frame cameras and the other is distortion this lens is incapable of producing straight horizon at 20mm or below and it is also soft in the corners. On a crop camera the softness and vignetting is eliminated and the the distortion can be corrected in ACR with the lens profile tab on a full frame camera you would have to worry about the corner softness. Here is a great review of the lens http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...0_4_5d?start=1
Unfortunately, CPS in Australia has significantly more requirements. I will qualify when I buy the 5D3 and keep both my 7D and 5D2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Gibson
Simon, I have 17-40 and I like it on my 40D. Dan summed it up nice above. distortion is an issue...but otherwise, its nice. built very very well. comes with hood. I think its worth the pricetag.
you use 7D, correct? then you should also consider the ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS. costs a little more but has IS, a little extra reach and the f/2.8. I've heard the IQ is as good as a L lens. you check but if my memory serves me right, it does not come with hood.
The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens used one a few times and it is sharper then the 17-40 and has less distortion but it also cost 600.00 more then the 17-40 unless you need the 2.8 I do not think the better IQ is worth the extra price.Quote:
you use 7D, correct? then you should also consider the ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS. costs a little more but has IS, a little extra reach and the f/2.8. I've heard the IQ is as good as a L lens. you check but if my memory serves me right, it does not come with hood.
Don, the 17-55 f/2.8 costs around US$1050 and the 17-40 f/4 around $750 I think. not sure abt UK prices. from a resale standpoint, 17-40 might have a slight edge.
I did not give the 17-55 a serious thought I wanted a lens for landscapes and city scapes in good light. didn't think the extra stop, reach and IS were that important.
Sorry miss read the B&H page the price of this lens has dropped since it was introduce to a level that I would now consider it if I was still shooting an APS-C camera both lenses do a good job and with the new lens profile tab in ACR their short comings are easily overcome.Quote:
Don, the 17-55 f/2.8 costs around US$1050
Thanks to everyone for all the replies and information. It's certainly made things a lot clearer for me. As mentioned, I am using a 7D so will likely go for the 17-40mm option. I'll let you know once I've made my purchase. Thanks
Simon if you are not in a hurry you may like to wait, as Canon have just revealed three new EF lenses. This is the intro from Canon's press (there is a lot more info available) release I had yesterday so there maybe other stuff coming out, but then, who knows how long it will take to get onto the market.
Quote:
Canon has expanded its EF lens range with the addition of three new lenses – the EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM L-series standard zoom and the EF24mm f/2.8 IS USM and EF28mm f/2.8 IS USM lenses, which are the first ever wide-angle prime lenses to incorporate Canon’s Image Stabilization (IS) technology.
Simon- I hadn't realised you were using the 7D. The crop factor of the camera means that you are throwing a lot of the image away that the 17-40 is capable of projecting onto a sensor. On the 7D the 17-40 has a field of view equivalent to a 27-64mm lens on FF. You are paying for all that glass in an EF lens for no reason unless you have aspirations to own a full-frame camera. For crop sensors, a wide angle to look seriously at is Canon's EF-S 10-22mm, which by all accounts has L-series optics and is very well-built. That lens would give you 16-35mm equivalent field of view on the 7D which is a very useful wide-angle range. The 10-22 is a bit more expensive but it's worth a look. I have also heard very good things about the Sigma 10-20mm lens. Sorry to throw a spanner into the works!
All true.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Chardine
However I use a 17-40 on a 7D because the smaller image circle of the 7D uses only the sweet spot of the lens. This eliminates the very soft corners/edges of the 17-40 on a full frame sensor. The smaller circle also reduces the amount of distortion that this lens produces on a full frame sensor. In addition the CA and color fringing that can be produced along the corners/edges of the image, in high contrast situations, is greatly reduced. Another plus for me is that the 17-40 also uses a 77mm filter which is the same as many of my other lenses. Just another way to look at the situation.
Finally took the plunge and bought the canon 17-40mm, so thanks for all the advice. I'm off to Scotland in a few weeks mainly to photograph birds and wildlife, but I'd hope to capture some of the Scottish landscapes. Can anyone tell me what essential filters I should have with me to capture landscapes. I'm thinking ND and graduated filters but to be honest, I don't know where to start. All I know is I want the drop in type. Can you advise?
Thanks a lot.
