| POLL: "which lens for landscape?" |
 17-40 f4l USM | 41 75.9% |
| 17-55 F2.8 IS USM | 13 24.1% |
Aug 06, 2006 15:03 | #1 Well, now I have my 70-200 f4, and have decided on the 400 5.6 as my zoom. My next lens will be for landscape. It will definatley be a zoom, and I have narrowed it down to the 17-55 f2.8IS USM or the 17-40 f4L USM. Sean
LOG IN TO REPLY |
20D_Newbie Senior Member 643 posts Joined Oct 2005 Location: Memphis, TN More info | Aug 06, 2006 15:12 | #2 I think either would be fine. I voted for the 17-40mm F4L based on price. Canon EOS 7D with BG-E7 battery grip, EOS 40D with BG-E2 battery grip, Canon 20D, Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS, Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8[COLOR=#ff0000]L, EF 300mm F4L IS, EF 400mm F5.6L, EF-S 17-40mm F4.0L, Canon Speedlite 580EX
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nitsch Goldmember 2,393 posts Likes: 2 Joined Feb 2005 More info | Aug 06, 2006 15:14 | #3 IMHO you should go for the 17-40 as the 2.8 aperture of the 17-55 won't be any real advantage to you for landscapes. Stopped down to landscape apertures their optical performance is virtually identical. The 17-40 is a good bit cheaper especially if you take into account the current £70 rebate available. Have fun!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
condyk Africa's #1 Tour Guide  20,887 posts Likes: 22 Joined Mar 2005 Location: Birmingham, UK More info | nitsch wrote: IMHO you should go for the 17-40 as the 2.8 aperture of the 17-55 won't be any real advantage to you for landscapes. Stopped down to landscape apertures their optical performance is virtually identical. The 17-40 is a good bit cheaper especially if you take into account the current £70 rebate available. Have fun!  What Nick said ... and truth is I have seem few shots from the IS lens to convince me it is anything ohter than an average £300 lens, but trouble is it costs a lot more than that. The L ... well I have seen plenty of great shots from it and it is better built and cheaper. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php?t=1203740
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tsmith Formerly known as Bluedog_XT  10,429 posts Likes: 26 Joined Jul 2005 Location: South_the 601 More info | Aug 06, 2006 15:21 | #5 Considering for most landscape opportunities using the 30D, f/8 ~ f/11 are gonna be your best apertures to use so its a no brainier to go with the 17-40.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Billginthekeys Billy the kid  7,359 posts Likes: 2 Joined Nov 2005 Location: Islamorada, FL More info | Aug 06, 2006 15:23 | #6 i got the 17-40 for the same reason as you. it is a terrific landscape lens. no reason to pay twice as much when you wont really get your money out of it. with the money you save you could also get a lowlight prime and a nice tripod for your work. Mr. the Kid.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dorman Goldmember  4,661 posts Joined Feb 2006 Location: Halifax, NS More info | Billginthekeys wrote: i got the 17-40 for the same reason as you. it is a terrific landscape lens. no reason to pay twice as much when you wont really get your money out of it. with the money you save you could also get a lowlight prime and a nice tripod for your work. That's the smartest thing I've heard all day.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 06, 2006 15:45 | #8 Well thats sorted, you lot all take sense. Thanks all Sean
LOG IN TO REPLY |
steved110 Cream of the Crop  5,776 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2005 Location: East Sussex UK More info | The 17-40 is a great landscape lens, you don't need IS or f/2.8 to take great landscapes. Canon 6D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Rubberhead Goldmember  1,899 posts Likes: 1 Joined Feb 2006 Location: South Carolina's Lowcountry More info | Aug 06, 2006 16:09 | #10 The MTFs for the 17-55 EFS are better than the 17-40mm L. EQUIPMENT: 40D | Rebel XT | EF 70-200mm f/4L IS | EF-S 10-22mm | EF 28-135mm IS | EF-S 18-55mm IS | EF 50mm 1.8 - flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nitsch Goldmember 2,393 posts Likes: 2 Joined Feb 2005 More info | Rubberhead wrote: The MTFs for the 17-55 EFS are better than the 17-40mm L. The problem is that Canon's MTF's are theoretical. Check the real world results at Photozone and you'll see that they are pretty much identical performers at your typical landscape settings.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mfunnell Senior Member  375 posts Likes: 11 Joined Jul 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia More info | Aug 07, 2006 11:51 | #12 I have the 17-55 and don't have the 17-40. But if landscapes were my primary interest, and money were important (which it always is) I'd go with the 17-40. At f/2.8 you just get blurry landscapes. And IS doesn't help much if at all for that application. If you need the 17-55 then you need it for something else. Some digital cameras, some film cameras, some lenses & other kit.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1047 guests, 103 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
