About Wide angle and landscape photography

[miscellanea]

I have Canon 5D with Leica 19mm Elmarit (second version) and Contax Vario

Sonnar 28-85 f3.3-4 (and other lenses not so wide).

The question is : for landscape photography it is enough or it is better to

buy Canon 17-40 f4 ?

I know that 17-40 is a more versatile lens and that I furthemore may work not

only in manual mode , but the question is not about this but about focal .

Between 20mm and 28mm (I have also Contax prime 28 f2.8 )I am not "covered" :

is this so important to justify 17-40 ?

[stephen sullivan]

The Canon EF 17~40 f/4 L USM is a great lens. If you can afford, go with the new (updated)

EF 16~35 f/2.8L USM MK II

 

When paired with the 5D, look at what the EF 17~40 covers, in the means for a wide angle

lens for Landscape Photography. 20mm - 24mm - 28mm - 35mm

 

You've got it all in one affordable " L Series " lens. Go with the EF 17~40 f/4L USM

[mark u]

The focal lengths you need depend on your photographic style. You may be interested in these reviews of wider angle lenses:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

 

I'm not sure that on either cost or quality grounds I would be looking at a 17-40 f/4 to complement what you have.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>I like the 17-40 a LOT for landscape work on the 5D.

 

<p>By the way, for typical <i>landscape photography</i> there is little reason to spend more on the 16-35mm

f/2.8 II lens. The advantages of the more expensive lens are the f/2.8 maximum aperture and better corner quality

<i>at f/2.8</i>. However, unless you are a somewhat unusual wide angle landscape photographer you are more

likely to be working at apertures of f/8-f/16 on the 5D, and here the 16-35mm lens provides no image quality

advantage. In fact, there is some thought that the 17-40 may actually be a bit sharper in the center, to whatever

extent that this may or may not matter.

 

<p>The 16-35 sounds like a great lens for other types of wide angle photography, particularly for hand held wide

angle photography in low light, where it likely will outperform the 17-40 is some ways. (Though I've had some good

luck doing street and even indoor work with the 17-40 shot wide open - for this type of work I'm willing to accept

some corner softness that I wouldn't accept in landscape.)

 

<p>YMMV. :-)

 

<p>Dan

[christopher hartt dallas]

The 17-40 L is Canon's best "L" bargain IMO. But if your question is purely about the added 3mm focal length (min 20 v min 17), I don't think it's worth the cost. Below 20mm, you begin to have vignette issues if you use anything but a "slim" lens filter (with FF body) and depending upon the brand of filter, even a slim filter can give you some vignette. I personally won't subject my lenses to landscape photography conditions without a filter although I know some pros who insist the 'sans filter' is the only way to shoot landscapes. Also, even if you shoot without a filter (no vignette) the 17-40 isn't the best lens for edge sharpness. I'd agree with the comment about going with the new 16-35 L, but even with the instant rebate it's about 2x the cost ($1300) of the 17-40.

[William Michael]

>>> Between 20mm and 28mm (I have also Contax prime 28 f2.8 )I am not "covered" : is this so important to justify 17-40 ? <<<

 

and

 

>>> I'm not sure that on either cost or quality grounds I would be looking at a 17-40 f/4 to complement what you have. <<< (MU)

 

I agree.

 

The only criterion to buy the 17 to 40 specifically for landscape work, I can imagine, is the convenience of taking only one lens.

 

I find it hard to envisage the 17 to 40 working between 20mm to 27mm being better than the 19mm cropped a bit, or the 28mm F2.8 with the scene slightly recomposed.

 

 

WW

[dogbert]

There difference between these lesnes will be minimal at f8-f16, which is where most landscapes are shot. For a really noticeable quality improvement you would better off going to medium or large format. It would probably be cheaper too.

[gdanmitchell]

Geoff wrote: "There difference between these lesnes will be minimal at f8-f16, which is

where most landscapes are shot."

 

Gotta' agree with you on that.

 

"For a really noticeable quality improvement you would better off going to medium or

large format."

 

Sort of agree with you there. Actually, MF or LF would, indeed, be capable of producing a

better result, but the 5D with these lenses can do quite well up to some fairly large print

sizes. If you need to go larger than that, well that's what the other formats are for.

 

"It would probably be cheaper too."

 

I could be wrong, but here I disagree. Certainly the cost of MF digital back setups is way

beyond the cost of almost any DSLR landscape setup of equivalent flexibility that I can

imagine.

 

True, film MF and LF cameras can be less expensive, but there is the cost of that darn

film... and processing... and scanning. It doesn't take too long for those costs to outweigh

any initial lower costs on film equipment.

 

Dan

[colin carron]

To me there is a big gap between 19mm and 28mm. As the focal length gets smaller and the angle of view gets wider the 'stretching' of foreground objects and the perspective distortion of the edges of the shot becomes more and more pronounced. To me the 17-40 L (a very fine lens) provides distinct perspectives at 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm up to the 'wide-normal' 40mm. OK you can crop to get a similar effect but that defeats the object, doesn't it?

 

I have got by with primes of 20mm and 28mm but felt the lack of a 16/17mm and 24mm perspective. But it depends how obsessed you are with wide angles. I love them so I have the 17-40 on my 5D. I would like the 16-35 as I miss that extra mm on the wide end.

[William Michael]

>>> OK you can crop to get a similar effect but that defeats the object, doesn't it? <<< (CC)

 

Your post refers in part to my comments.

 

Re your sentence quoted above: Yes I agree.

 

I should have more fully enunciated my thoughts.

 

I already stated I would not choose the 17 to 40 to compliment the set of lenses mentioned for landscape work, unless it was to satisfy travelling light and only taking ONE lens out.

 

What I didn`t state was I would be looking at getting another prime to fill the gap: a 24mm would be ideal, IMO.

 

And then next up get the 14mm, if that is warranted

 

(kit = 14mm, 19mm, 24mm, 28mm & 28 to 85, a nice sharp landscape kit IMO)

 

WW

[dogbert]

Just getting the new Nikon 14-24 zoom would be cheaper, and by all accounts better image quality too.

[DickArnold]

Look at the Nubble Light House, the one with the breaking surf, in my PN gallery. It was taken, hand held, at a 400th at about f13 at 20mm. It has been blown up to 18x24 and is very sharp. I find the 17-40 a great all purpose lens. The reason I bought it is because I had a 29-70 2.8L that I, in futility, kept twisting to try and make it go wider. I find the 17mm(equivilent to FF 27mm) end very useful. It is a good walk around lens that I find to be quite sharp and easy to carry. The question I always ask myself about buying a lens or other part is will it really make my pictures better? In the case of the 17-40, it was because I really needed a wider lens on a 1.6 crop. At the time I had a Canon 20-35 that, in my opinion, produced some pretty lackluster pictures. I gave it to my sister. She likes it. I don't think that going to a 2.8 lens would produce a significant difference in what I would produce. I like zooms. Its a pain to keep changing lenses IMO. I never would have gotten that lighthouse as I was virually standing in the surf running back and forth to get that picture. It was taken while I was moving toward the surf adjusting the focal length as I moved. Yes, I got wet, the camera caught a few drops.

[brucecyr]

Diego,

 

While the responses are full of good info, the only one who can make that decision is you.

 

If you were located in the US, I'd recommend renting or buying a 17-40 to see if its a good fit for you. If you bought it and didn't like it, you could easily sell it on eBay and recapture enough of your purchase price that you would essentially be "renting" the lens for year for the customary monthly rental rate -- or maybe 2 or 3 months.

 

You could also look for a 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which would neatly span the gap you're lacking and might not be too expensive:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2035_3545/index.htm

[mark u]

I'd get a Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 to fill the gap...

[miscellanea]

Thank to all very much for your advices and suggestions and excuse me if I made many mistakes writing in your language .

I think that "the best" is not always "practical" and is difficult to get to a compromise.

1) to buy a single 24mm. is perhaps better and a 24mm plus 16-35 or

17-40 more better .

2) change Vario Sonnar 28-85 with Canon 24-70 f2.8 may be an

alternative option ...but 28-85 is perhaps more crisp on center.

3) 17-40 is perhaps a good choice during a travel ,together with 70-

200 f4IS and Planar 50 f1.7 : I live in Milano and if

I'll buy it on-line , for example on B&H , I can pay it much less

than here in Italy .