Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk
Thread started 09 Mar 2013 (Saturday) 19:34
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

17-40 on FF wide enough?

 
Mr. ­ Bill
Senior Member
Mr. Bill's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
Southwest USA
Mar 09, 2013 19:34 |  #1

Planning on taking a spring trip to Grand Canyon, Horseshoe Bend & Antelope Canyon. Was wondering if the 17-40 on my 5Dc would be wide enough? Should I look into renting something else instead?



Link to my Picturesexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Joined Nov 2010
Hong Kong
Mar 09, 2013 19:44 |  #2

It should be wide enough. If not, you can always do a stitched panorama.


-Tom
Flickr
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,504 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Mar 09, 2013 19:50 |  #3

When you start getting wider, you start getting a whole lot of distortion as well. If that's the look you're going for then go wider but as mentioned, if you are looking to that panorama, stitching is a good option.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
nowakchr
Member
68 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Mar 09, 2013 20:11 |  #4

I shoot solely landscape and I exclusively use a 17-40mm and have shot in the Southwest quite a few times. I actually tend to use it around 22-28mm and it seems to be its sweet spot.




LOG IN TO REPLY
yeahi
Member
Joined Oct 2006
Mar 09, 2013 21:55 |  #5

I did most of Arizona with a 5dc and 17-40 with no real problems. Very few times, if at all, did I wish I had a wider lense.




LOG IN TO REPLY
stmichael
Member
48 posts
Joined May 2006
Mitcham, Surrey
Mar 13, 2013 08:08 |  #6

This is the combo I use and it's great - not a huge deal of diference in the FOV between this and say the mega expensive Canon 14mm.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Phrasikleia
Goldmember
Phrasikleia's Avatar
1,826 posts
Joined May 2008
Based in California and Slovenia
Mar 13, 2013 10:42 |  #7

It really depends on your style. A lot of people have trouble working at 17mm on FF because they aren't used to composing with such a wide field of view. If you tend to see your compositions with massive amounts of depth and expansion, and are able to 'organize' that much of a scene in the frame, then you'll make great use of focal lengths that are 17mm or wider. Otherwise, you might have better success with more compressed, normal or telephoto lengths.


Photography by Erin Babnik (external link) | Newsletter (external link) | Photo Cascadia Team Member (external link) | Facebook (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
archer1960's Avatar
Joined Jul 2010
Mar 18, 2013 14:01 |  #8

17 on FF is really wide.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Bill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Mr. Bill's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
Southwest USA
Mar 18, 2013 19:37 |  #9

I appreciate everyone's feedback. I am just trying to decide if I should use the 17-40 or the 24-105 IS when I go to Antelope Canyon & Horseshoe Bend, etc.



Link to my Picturesexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DLitton
Senior Member
DLitton's Avatar
855 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Atlanta, Georgia
Mar 18, 2013 22:44 |  #10

I have both now (recently upgraded, havent had time with work to go shoot much). I would say both are nice... the 17-40 is really nice for landscapes... but if you want anything besides a 'wide' shot then I wouldn't suggest it.... cause you cant get zoomed in too far with only 40mm... so really comes to what you plan on shooting. take both if you can ;)


David

LOG IN TO REPLY
Geonerd
Senior Member
Geonerd's Avatar
541 posts
Joined May 2009
Aridzona
Mar 19, 2013 01:03 |  #11

Assuming you're going to shoot the 'standard' view of HS, 17 is enough.

I'd take the longer zoom into Jackalope.


"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk!" - E. Weston

LOG IN TO REPLY
Superdaantje
Senior Member
Superdaantje's Avatar
557 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Netherlands
Mar 19, 2013 02:04 |  #12

Mr. Bill wrote in post #15729919external link
I appreciate everyone's feedback. I am just trying to decide if I should use the 17-40 or the 24-105 IS when I go to Antelope Canyon & Horseshoe Bend, etc.

I use a 16-35 II and 24-70 II. Most of the times I use the 24-70 II for landscape photos. I would bring the 24-105 if you only want to bring one lens.
I would bring both ;-)a


Wagner.photography -  (external link) Workshops photography in the Netherlands & Indonesia -_-
Gear list (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Apr 02, 2013 15:14 |  #13

I shot at Antelope Canyon last year with 24-105mm and I think most of my pictures were in 30-50mm range.

Here are some pics - Antelope Canyon Picturesexternal link


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mr. ­ Bill
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Mr. Bill's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
Southwest USA
Apr 02, 2013 21:11 |  #14

dkizzle wrote in post #15783739external link
I shot at Antelope Canyon last year with 24-105mm and I think most of my pictures were in 30-50mm range.

Here are some pics - Antelope Canyon Picturesexternal link

Very nice shots you have there. Would you be willing to share with me some of the exif data from those shots?



Link to my Picturesexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Naturalist's Avatar
Joined May 2007
Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
Apr 02, 2013 21:20 |  #15

Mr. Bill
When I shot 35mm film years ago (aka "Full Frame" in today's digital world) I used a 24 and 28mm wide angle lenses and they were plenty wide. I've seen the 17-40 on a 5D in Best Buy and that was crazy wide. Either way you'll be happy, but I do not know how often you would really use anything wider than 24mm as that may be your style, or not.

My .02 cents.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/128037573@N07/ (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,964 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40 on FF wide enough?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00222 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is ruby55
785 guests, 380 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017