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

Seems to me that purely for landscapes there's little in it, plus you're making a substantial saving with the 17-40mm.

That is defenitly my feeling also.

That's what I was thinking even though I love a blazing fast lens. Landscapes don't run away, and for long exposures you would want to be tripod-mounted anyway. In fact when I use my 17-40 for landscapes I'm usually stopped down to f/8!

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. I want to compare these lenses purely from a landscape view (IQ, colour, sharpness etc). I understand that I dont need faster glass or IS for landscape and that the 17-40 is cheaper and is an L after all. As I said in my original post, I will probably be getting the 17-55 because of all the other benfits it has over the 17-40. But, since landscape is important to me, I would like to know what I will be compromising getting the 17-55 over the 17-40 - from a landscape perspective. If you did 70% landscape and 30% other - which would you choose? - forgetting price.

i chose the 17-40. costs half as much as the 17-55, is an L lens which means it's built like a tank, doesn't suck dust and will hold its value.

the 17-40 also controls flare very well and the 17-55 reportedly does not. when you are shooting landscapes @ f8 - f11 controlling flare is a much bigger deal than f2.8 and IS, imo.

the only way i'd consider buying the 17-55 is if it covered my primary shooting range, which it does not.

i need to be able to do a head shot with my main lens without shoving up it up someone's nose .

the 17-40 is a superb landscape lens and quality tools are always a joy to use .

ed rader

so. At f8, how does the 17-40 compare to the kit? I imagine they're pretty darn close. So save even more money and just by that one.

LOL Have you been checking pictures of the two? Center sharpness, corner sharpness, colour... please...

like i said in another thread if you can't tell the difference save your money. i know for me the only great landscapes i've gotten are with the high quality lenses, and the 17-40 has been the best.

ed rader

Exactly. If we looked at everything from a cost/benefit analysis, we'd all be holding P&S. Remember: the first 80% of the quality costs 20% to achieve. The remaining 20% costs 80% to achieve. So the argument that "it should deliver 3X the quality for 3X the price" is fatally flawed.. life itself doesn't work that way.

Besides (not for you, Ed), the EF-S 18-55 won't fit on my 5D... why does *EVERYBODY* (almost) assume I am shooting on a crop camera? Using the 17-40 on my 350D when I have a 17-85 to do that job is complete anathema to me!