17-50 & 11-16

Do you think it would be worth having both. I do 99% landscapes. Nobody around where I live sells the 11-16 so I cannot go and see what the difference is between 17mm and 11mm. I shoot on a 50D.

The difference between 11mm and 17mm is astonishing...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Thank you!

Yes definitely. There's a massive difference between UWA and WA.

i agree, especially if you shoot landscapes a UWA is a must. i'm sure you've felt the restrictions of the 17mm from time to time...it's not wide enough.

It is worth it to have both. I use the Sigma 10-20 and Canon 17-55 all the time.

This first shot is with a 50D & Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm. It is set up on a tripod with an ND filter.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12376211
i agree, especially if you shoot landscapes a UWA is a must. i'm sure you've felt the restrictions of the 17mm from time to time...it's not wide enough.

I hear this all the time and it is just not true. Wide angle landscapes are just one way of doing it, and depending on what you shoot, can be just the opposite of what you want to use. Wide angle shots of mountains can make them look depressingly tiny, for example. Many of us actually prefer telephoto lenses for landscape shots.

Thank you all for your input. The images posted make answer the question that I had. Yes there is a big difference between 11mm and 17mm.

jtack wrote in post #12376488
Thank you all for your input. The images posted make answer the question that I had. Yes there is a big difference between 11mm and 17mm.

The real question is if you can make good use of the wider lens. Sure it is wider, but wider is only better if you have a subject that can make good use of it.

True, true.

If you go to this site you can see the difference between 10mm and 17mm, which is pretty close to what you're asking about.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Something quick and dirty from the Viera Wetlands this morning.

17mm

There is definitely a great deal of difference between the 11mm and 17mm...

However, IMO, UWA lenses are both over used and badly used when shooting landscapes.

Using an UWA focal length just to increase the left to right coverage results in some pretty mundane images with lots of uninteresting sky and foreground and usually a tiny strip of interest somewhere along the center or so of the frame.

Using an UWA lens with a significant foreground object (such as the above city-scape with the bench in the foreground) results in an interesting picture.

Unfortunately many, if not most, photographers automatically reach for UWA lenses when they are confronted with a landscape. That is why, IMO, most landscape images are boring as heck...