how does "fast glass" make sense for landscapes?

<blockquote>

<p>If you have a cropped sensor Canon DSLR the 17-40 L should be one of your first purchases.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I strongly disagree.<br>

<br>

I have used the 17-40 on full frame bodies for something like 7 years, where it serves admirably when stopped down for tripod-based, small aperture shooting. For this purpose I would most certainly choose it over the also-excellent 16-35*, since the strength of the 16-35 is its performance wide open at f/2.8... which isn't necessary for me.<br>

<br>

* As you point out, the 16-35 is not "better" optically except at the very largest apertures. Some testing suggests that the 17-40 could be a bit better in the center of the frame at smaller apertures, but that is arguable and probably inconsequential in any case.<br>

<br>

However, the performance of the 17-40 on a cropped sensor body is OK but hardly outstanding. I used it on my first digital SLR, which was a cropped sensor model. There are several issues.</p>

<ul>

<li>The Achilles heel of the 17-40 is corner performance wide open at f/4, where corners can be a bit soft and (a lesser concern) vignetting can be an issue. On cropped sensor cameras, diffraction blur becomes a concern sooner as you stop down. While you can stop this lens down to f/16 (or so) on full frame and get fine results, you won't likely want to stop down much past f/8 on cropped sensor cameras due to the earlier onset of diffraction. This leaves one with very few good aperture choices when using his lens on crop - basically f/5.6 and f/8 should be pretty good.</li>

<li>Fortunately, there is a better alternative. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is a better optical performer on cropped sensor camera, goes to f/2.8 with aplomb (providing 2 additional stops of good performance), covers a wider focal length range, <em>and</em> includes image-stabilization. If Canon added a red ring and embossed a letter "L" on it, virtually no cropped sensor shooters would get the 17-40 instead. </li>

</ul>

<p>To make a some useful generalizations about the options in this range:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>EFS 18-55 IS kit lens</strong> - A generally fine performer and a great lens to start with if you are new to DSLR shooting and start (as is usually the best option) with a cropped sensor camera. The lens is actually quite decent optically. Large apertures are very limited, so aperture choice is not extensive. The focal length range covers wide to short-telephoto range, the core that most new users and many other shooters need to cover. For many people buying DSLRs, this may be all the lens they need. For most starting out, it the best option - the cost is low, the image quality is fine, and it is a great lens to use while you get up to speed and learn... before investing in more expensive lenses.</li>

<li><strong>EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS </strong>- This is an excellent lens, and as good a performer as any of the vaunted Canon L series lenses. Lack of image quality is not why it does not get the L designation. The focal length range is slightly larger, going just a bit wider. Image quality is excellent at all apertures, including wide open at f/2.8. The inclusion of image-stabilization (IS) gives it something that none of the L lens alternatives provide, and it is useful in many handheld shooting situations. It is not inexpensive - it costs more than the 17-40 but less than the 16-35x</li>

<li><strong>17-40mm f/4 L</strong> - This lens is an excellent performer for <em>full-frame camera</em> shooters who are primarily interested in smaller aperture performance. It is prone to some corner softness at f/4, along with a bit of vignetting - both most apparent at 17mm. Stopped down on full frame, none of these issues are relevant. It is not an ideal choice on cropped sensor cameras, especially when better alternatives are available, due to its limited number of useable apertures.</li>

<li><strong>16.35mm f/2.8 L</strong> (either version) - This lens is also an excellent performer <em>on full frame cameras and cropped sensor cameras</em>. On full frame it is a likely choice for photographers who need to shoot handheld ultra-wide shots in low light, since its chief virtue is its performance at the largest apertures. While it performs well on cropped sensor cameras, <em>it does not stand up well in performance terms when compared to the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS</em> - since it has a smaller focal length range, no better image quality, and it lacks IS.</li>

</ul>

<p>I have no personal familiarity with the non-Canon options.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>This has been an interesting discussion. I prefer "fine" lenses not "fast" lenses for landscape work. And I always use a tripod and cable release and Live View (with mirror lock up) if the camera has this feature. And I make sure that for the lens I am using with the camera's sensor, I know when diffraction is likely to rear its ugly face. Diffraction can impact digital images at f11 so you have to be careful with using those small f stops. One of my favorite landscape lenses is an old manual focus Nikon 55mm f2.8 flat field macro lens I bought used for less than $100. It is one of the sharpest lenses that I own and takes great landscape images on my D 700 and D 300s. I also use a Nikon 20mm f 2.8 AF-D lens for wide angle shots. F stops used are around f8-f11 with both lenses. Joe Smith</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS </strong>- This is an excellent lens, and as good a performer as any of the vaunted Canon L series lenses. Lack of image quality is not why it does not get the L designation. The focal length range is slightly larger, going just a bit wider. Image quality is excellent at all apertures, including wide open at f/2.8. The inclusion of image-stabilization (IS) gives it something that none of the L lens alternatives provide, and it is useful in many handheld shooting situations. It is not inexpensive - it costs more than the 17-40 but less than the 16-35x</p>

</blockquote>

<p>G Dan, the 17-40mm 4 L will set you back over $700. The EFs 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is $300 more. It is a non L lens ie no weather sealing. I have no idea about it's build quality compared to the L. The other huge thing is it is an EFS lens. Which means you can't use it on your film cameras or FF digital cameras. The 17-40 mm 4 L is backwards compatible and future proof. That is not to say the EFs 17-55mm f/2.8 doesn't have any merit. I just don't really use large apertures and IS that much in those focal lengths. And when I do I reach for something like the 50mm 1.4 prime. I guess I'm an extremist. My 17-40mm L camps out at 5.6-8 with a trip to f/11 or f/16 when the scene requires it. I do use f/4 sometimes if light dictates it but usual under those circumstances I just use a prime. Going through my pictures f/4 on the 17-40mm L is a rare event.</p>

<p>Jeff, are you shooting with a <em>sealed body DSLR</em>? If so, a sealed lens might make some sense if you frequently shoot in very risky environments. If <em>you don't have a sealed body</em>, your sealed lens isn't going to do you much good, as the camera body is at least a vulnerable to environmental intrusions from things like water, and with far more dire consequences.</p>

<p>I question - a lot - the idea of avoiding an excellent EFS lens that provides better image quality, larger focal length range, f/2.8 aperture, and image stabilization because one <em>imagines</em> that <em>maybe</em>, <em>someday</em>, it just could turn out that you might get a camera that it won't work on. To my way of thinking this is a little bit like putting truck tires on your Honda Civic because you might get a truck someday. ;-)</p>

<p>The lens you need is the lens for the camera and the shooting you do now. On top of that, if you do move to full frame in a year or three, all is not lost. You can still sell the EFS lens, separately or with your cropped sensor body. Or you can do as quite a few folks do, keep the cropped sensor body as a second/backup camera. So, not only do you get the benefit of using a lens that is more appropriate and more versatile and optically better for your current camera, but the cost is merely the differential between what you pay for it and what you sell it for, amortized over a few years. It hardly adds up t;-)o fraction of what lots of people spend at Starbucks each week! </p>

<p>(If you <em>currently</em> own and <em>regularly use</em> a 35mm Canon film camera that takes the EF lenses, this might make a difference - but I'll bet that a tiny sliver of cropped sensor camera shooters fall into that category. If you <em>are absolutely certain </em>that you will get a full frame camera <em>in a month or two</em> it makes some sense to consider the use of the lens on that camera.)</p>

<p>You are correct about the pricing differential - the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS price lies between that of the 17-40 and the 16-35. </p>

<p>"Non-L lens" is not exactly the prime differentiator of non-weather-sealed lenses. Not all L lenses are weather sealed either. And not all great lenses are L lenses, so it is good to be cautious about reading too much into the letter L and the red ring. Sometimes the L is the best choice, and sometimes the non-L is the right choice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I may not have read every word posted here but I am fairly sure I have not seen any reference to hyperfocal distance. While not required for every shot, an understanding of it can help to avoid refraction from unnecesarily small apertures (thus wasting investment in superior glass). I am also surprised at the lack of mention of lenses with much shorter focal lengths.</p>

care to help educate us Harold? Particularly with regard to hyperfocal and shorter focal lengths than the

12mm's that's already been mentioned. . . Looking forward to your thoughts . ..

<blockquote>

<p>refraction</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean diffraction. In my opinion, most of the time, hyperfocal focussing is a recipe for not having anything useful in the image in true focus. A better option usually is to ensure that you are accurately focussed on the object of interest in the picture and then decide what depth of field you want and set the aperture accordingly.</p>

<p>Yes, diffraction, a typo not a misuse. There may be a 12mm in that mass of other focal lengths.<br>

The phrase "true focus" represents a myth. All degees of focus are a compromise. I would have difficulty is determining what is understood by "landscape" from the drift of some ideas here. (I have been shooting landscapes for several decades and have used hyperfocal distance when it was useful).</p>

Harold, why not add something to what is otherwise a useful discussion? If you are as prophetic as you

claim, why not join the discussion and tell us more about how the thoughts from an expert landscape

photographer?

<p>I made no claim to be prophetic.</p>

<p>At the risk of stepping on people's toes. My understanding is that fast glass is significant at longer focal lengths, where every bit of light counts... the common example that comes to mind being wildlife subjects that move around a lot in dim light... hence the advantage of a 300mm f2.8 lens for birds, for instance. VR wouldn't help with making freezing thee bird's movements, a fast shutter speed is crucial (unless one makes a virtue of it and produces blurred-motion compositions). The faster glass also makes viewing and focusing at open aperture that much easier and pleasanter, and enables us to isolate the subject against a pleasingly blurred background (where the publisher can add a caption and text)..<br /> It would seem that the corollary of this is that fast glass isn't that much of a necessity for scenes with little movement, where a great depth of field is the objective (pun intended)... landscapes, for instance. Fast wide-angles are best for dark hand-held moving subjects, like dancers or kids in closed rooms...<br /> Much of this, incidentally, is from John Shaw's "The virtuous nature photographer's Bible" available off-line at leading used-book outlets....:)</p>

<p>But hey... looking through a 2.8 lens with ED or LD glass is just so gratifying, but carrying them is such a bore...so I purchase faster (used, even defective) lenses to play with, and the slower ones to carry into the field and take pictures with :). I believe Canon has a better set of slower lenses with the better glass (L lenses), while in Nikon one may have to get the faster lenses to get ED glass...but I may be mistaken. If Nikon had a iull line up of f4 lenses with ED glass, those would be the ones to build up a practical kit for the field...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At the risk of stepping on people's toes. My understanding is that fast glass is significant at longer focal lengths, where every bit of light counts... the common example that comes to mind being wildlife subjects that move around a lot in dim light... hence the advantage of a 300mm f2.8 lens for birds, for instance. VR wouldn't help with making freezing thee bird's movements, a fast shutter speed is crucial (unless one makes a virtue of it and produces blurred-motion compositions). The faster glass also makes viewing and focusing at open aperture that much easier and pleasanter, and enables us to isolate the subject against a pleasingly blurred background (where the publisher can add a caption and text)..<br />It would seem that the corollary of this is that fast glass isn't that much of a necessity for scenes with little movement, where a great depth of field is the objective (pun intended)... landscapes, for instance. Fast wide-angles are best for dark hand-held moving subjects, like dancers or kids in closed rooms...<br />Much of this, incidentally, is from John Shaw's "The virtuous nature photographer's Bible" available off-line at leading used-book outlets....:)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you notice that the actual question was about <em>landscape photography?</em> Just wondering... ;-)</p>

<p>Hi Dan... that's OK... :) first time I got a pull-out in quotes!<br>

I'm thinking that if you've travelled far for a landscape, as a nature photographer you're going to be tempted to record near subjects as well :) </p>

<p> My camera is a manual focus camera. So I find fast glass useful in viewfinder brightness to help compose the scene and to focus. Also fast glass tends to be of high quality.. For my own purposes if shooting a landscape I may decide to use f2.8 instead of f16 to render the background out of focus. I use prime lenses myself most of the time but I do have a 70-200 f2.8 that is a very nice lens. I would not carry that lens while hiking myself unless I was really motivated. At Pinnacles National Park it is possible to get Condor photos with a large tele lens and a robust hike up to the High Peaks. I have hiked up there several times and have not seen a Condor as yet but others have. </p>

<p>Most landscape images don't need fast lenses to be good, sharp, well composed images. I've hardly taken any "landscape" images at f2.8 but that doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't; just depends on what it is that you are trying to do. The only rule in photography is that there are no rules; if something works, try it, don't let others dictate their views onto you.</p>

<p>A lot of the wide angle zooms are in and around f4 wide open which is fine for most purposes. A few are f2.8 and you will pay a lot more for them financially and weight wise but they are probably amongst the more modern designs. Personally I prefer prime lenses which Canon have a good choice of in fast or slow versions and sadly Nikon have a much poorer range to choose from of modern lenses that are not f1.4 bang up to date, very expensive and nano coated or f2.8 and ancient. I bought the new Nikon 28mm f1.8g lens and it is great on my D800, I didn't need f1.8 and will probably hardly ever use it at that aperture. Just waiting now for some other wide angle non f1.4 affordable primes to appear from Nikon, I would like the Nikon 24mm f1.4 but it is very expensive for an aperture that I don't actually want but better designed than the older Nikon 24mm f2.8 which is still in production. </p>

<p>Speaking very generally you can take most landscape images between f5.6 and f11. It isn't always needed or advisable to stop down to f16 or f22 as you can get enough depth of field in and around f8/ f11 for many subjects. If you want a slower shutter speed, ND filters would probably give you a better result than stopping down to f22. Cameras like the D800 are diffraction limited after around f5.6, which means that shooting at f22 for better depth of field will actually cost you in image quality. Wider angled lenses tend to have more depth of field than standard lenses anyway and ultra wide angled lenses can get virtually everything from near to far, pin sharp without much effort or thought. When I used my Pentax 67II on medium format its lenses were at their best around f11 most of the time. Scale that back a bit for the smaller format and f8 is a happy medium for many scenes. I've found that the D800 is very happy at f8 with the 28mm f1.8 lens. DX cameras can stop down a bit further than that before being diffraction limited. Using a tripod and cable release will greatly help in getting things sharp in the right part of the image. The old way of doing things was to use Hyperfocal focusing techniques to get maximum depth of field but Live View is probably easier for really looking into a scene these days.</p>

<p>With modern digital SLR cameras you might want to try your camera on a tripod, get your composition just the way that you want it and experiment with images at f5.6, f8 and f11. Try some shots with autofocus, then zoom in and out of your actual taken images on your camera screen to check for critical sharpness. If the camera has focused slightly off from where you would prefer it to be pin sharp you can adjust that by using Live View and just tweaking it manually until it is perfect. Some lenses need to be fine tuned to individual camera bodies to make sure that autofocus is accurate.</p>

<p>This thread is a little old, but I thought I'd add my thoughts anyway.<br>

<br />The OP is, in essence, correct. You don't need fast glass for landscapes. All of the reasons for getting fast glass are, of course, perfectly valid, but IMO are irrelevant. <br>

If you want to get the biggest bang for your buck in improving your landscapes, take your camera and your kit lens (whatever it is) with you, and put every other dollar you have available into the highest quality and lightest tripod you can get your hands on. Remember that it's worthless if you don't carry it, so if packing a heavy tripod on the trail is too much, then skip adding lenses entirely and spend the extra money on carbon-fiber legs that may break the bank, but not your back. </p>

<p>Here is an example of where a fast lens makes sense for landscape photography, photography at night where you do not want the star field to move. Canon 5D II with 17-35mm f:2.8 L lens, at 17mm, f:2.8, ISO 2,500, 20s exposure. Longer exposures show visible star motion, although at 700 pixels wide in the attached image, it is hard to tell that the stars look like points in the original image. </p><div></div>