17-40mm question - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/16/2008 10:56:47 PM · #1

hey could anyone tell me whether 17mm on a cropped sensor is wide enough to use on landscapes and nature shots? i have a feeling i might be cutting it a lil close. if so any sudjestions? thanxs

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/16/2008 11:03:17 PM · #2

Yes, it will likely be wide enough. I thought the 17mm was just fine on a crop sensor.

strew

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/16/2008 11:04:17 PM · #3

I have a 18-70mm and I use the 18mm on landscapes and nature all the time. A 17mm lens on a 23mm sensor does not pose any problems, if the lens is for a dx (23mm x 15mm sensor). find a dealer that will allow you to try out the lens before you buy.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/16/2008 11:05:48 PM · #4

Depends on the indiviadule scene you are taking. I find that when using mine for nature lanscapes it rarely poses a problem for me, so I would say that it probably wouldn't be an issue for you. Architecture shots are where I start wishing for a wider lens, actually I start wishing for a full frame so my 16-35mm would be plenty wide. Trevor~

Message edited by author 2008-02-16 23:06:36.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

02/16/2008 11:37:54 PM · #5

I have found in my experience that the 18-70mm seems to cover most of the range that I ever need for open landscape, and it seems just right for sunsets at or near the wide end in most cases. I also have 15 and 16 mm fisheyes, which are nice, but they sometimes tend to put too much detail into the picture by squeezing in the whole world.
The 18-70 is not wide enough for shooting landscapes in deep woods,and tall buildings in urban settings, as there is no place there to get back far enough to cover much of it at 18mm without tilting the camera up.
I would try to get one to try out, and see if it suits what you want to do with it before making the jump. I was thrilled to get the 18-70 because it was the widest that I had at the time, but I soon began to want even wider.

fotomann_forever

02/17/2008 12:01:53 AM · #6

I'm no landscape photog, but 17mm is plenty wide for most applications.

Quasimojo

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/17/2008 12:24:56 AM · #7

I've lived with the 17-40 since my old Eos 3 (film, full frame) and then on my 300D (1.6x) and now 30D and it's fine for landscapes - in fact it's better than fine, it's great. I rarely want the whole landscape and most times will be cropping slightly.

If you really want wider, I'd recommend the 15mm Fisheye. I love mine and use it all the time - but might not be ideal for landscapes because of the wicked distortion. However, if you do end up going for the ever popular 10-22mm EF-S lens you might be in trouble if you have plans for a 5D (and that's the real trick - if you want width upgrade the body first imho..that's my next move).

N

02/17/2008 12:29:31 AM · #8

ya im now debateing whether to get the 17-40 or save 200$ and get the tamron 17-50 n get 10mm along with a full stop faster. its just im kinda sketch about going with third party lens's for obvious reasons and i have the cash to spend but dont know if its worth it to just get the L imprinted on the lens. n plus, i personally hate slow/loud af and the extending barrels that tamron have. but im just ocd bout those things.

fotomann_forever

02/17/2008 12:34:47 AM · #9

The Tamron 17-50 is an awesome lens, but it does have it's drawbacks.

It's not a USM lens. The focus isn't super loud, but it's not silent.
It's not full-frame compatible. If you go 5D the lens will have to be replaced, unlike the17-40 L.
I've noticed some blue fringing around backlit trees. I can't say it's a pretty thing. I can deal with it, but would definitely like to see that improved.

Obviously I recommend the lens. I love it! But, it's not perfect.

02/17/2008 12:41:01 AM · #10

im definatly not going to upgrade to a 5d anytime soon, but with that out of the way, would u say the 200$'s should be spent on another lens instead of the 17-40? cause i could just either save it for my 70-200 f/2.8 or put it in another lens like a good ol 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 .

Message edited by author 2008-02-17 00:41:19.

fotomann_forever

02/17/2008 12:46:40 AM · #11

I almost bought the 17-40 L. But, I chose the extra stop and 10mm over the red stripe. Almost all the reviews I read on the lens compared it very highly with L lenses. My own tests compared it favorably with very good Canon prime lenses.

So, yes.. I (bolded I) would save the $200 for other lenses.