17-55 f2.8 IS v 17-40 f4 L for landscapes

From a pure landscape perspective, how do these lenses compare? If you could only choose one for landscapes - which would it be? Forget price, ef-s v ef etc. It will go on a 30D.

for me the choice was the 17-55 2.8 IS, I also have the 30D and no plan @ present to go FF. Longer reach, Faster and IS..

Naturally the 17-55 IS is more versital (IS,f2.8,better focal range) but the 17-40 can go FF and no vigneting for 1.6 sensors.There is another thing that is a big plus for the L,quality and naturally price.I am waiting for the 17-40 f4 to come home and check with my own eyes the picture quality.

The 17-55 can't be beat

i love my 17-55... and use them as my everyday lens.

Haven't used the EF-S but have the 17-40 f/4L extensively and can tell first hand its a work horse for landscapes. Build quality will surpass the EF-S with internal zoom and focusing so no dust penetration in this L zoom.

I constantly use mine for landscapes on my 30D and your welcome to browse my PBase Gallery in my sig below for lots of results.

10-20?

How important is speed when it comes to landscape? I would think resolution, color, etc is more important than speed.

This is true and the 17-55 meets these demands. It has L quality optics. Great lens

There is no doubt that the 17-55 is more versatile. I am almost certain that I will choose the 17-55 over the 17-40. But I would like to know what and if I am compromising from a landscape point of view. I would hate to think that after buying the 17-55 I would down the track require a better landscape lens.

Both fine lenses and both will "do the job" in terms of landscapes. Maybe this test will help decide http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/fourpoundsho​wdown .

10-20 !!

The 17-55 is a great lens and works well for landscapes, however the 17-40 has a few advantages for hiking/landscapes: lighter, weather sealed (with filter), slightly warmer colors (preference), probably less prone to flare, oh yes, it also comes with a hood

However, the 17-55 is sharper, more versatile, and the IS will allow you to get shots handheld that would otherwise require a mono/tripod. While the 17-55 is my favoured walkaround I also got a 10-20 for even wider shots.

Malcolm

I'd say the 17-40 would be fine, for landscapes you won't need a very fast lens as you'll more than likely have it on a tripod, IS would be less useful as like before you'd probably be using a tripod. There is no doubting that the 17-55 is better in many respects and if you want to use the lens for other things it would be the better choice, but if your primary concern is landscapes the 17-40 has been proven to be more than capable. With the money you save you could get some other kit, ND grad filters, tripod or anyting really (i'm just assuming you don't have these things)

I use the 17-40L quite a bit for landscapes and it's a great lens. I usually have it stopped down to f/8, and for the money it's a great performer. I took it to Europe this summer as a walkaround lens and got many good group shots.