which lens ?

[duncan_twentytwo]

<p>Have recently upgraded from the 400D to the 50D and what a fantastic camera.<br>

I Mainly take landscape photographs and wish to purchase a suitable lens.<br>

My choice is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM OR the EF 17-40mm f4 L USM<br>

The f2.8 + IS are a major appeal to me as I could forget about a tripod but equally you can't improve on L glass<br>

The 17-55mm lens is the more expensive of the 2 (on amazon) but which one would you advise me to go for ?<br>

I would be specially interested in hearing from anyone who has used both of these lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Consider a 10-22 or the new 15-85. You may appreciate the extra wide view for landscape. </p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I love my 17-40 L on my 50D for general landscape and outdoor use. I use it also for indoor events, where the zoom range is very useful and because I'm shooting w/ flash, the f/4 speed doesn't hurt.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[smuncy]

<p>I owned a EF-S 10-22/mm and swapped it for the 17-40 when I got a 5D. I loved my 10-22 on my crop camera and I love the 17-40 on my 5D. If you stick with a crop camera, I don't think you can go wrong with the 10-22 - but if you plan on moving to full frame, the 17-40 is a more logical choice. I like to shoot landscapes, and (1) I would NEVER forget about the tripod in shooting landscapes (so IS is turned off), and (2) I'd never use 2.8 in shooting landscapes since I'm at or always above F/8 in shooting landscapes. I'd think that 2.8+IS certainly has its uses, but in my opinion not in landscapes.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Between those two lenses definitely the 17-40 for it's image quality.</p>

<p>Unfortunately if your interest in landscape photography continues to grow you will find the focal length range of this lens on the wide side quite limiting. The 5D with 17-40 would have been a more appropriate choice, but what is done is done. I don't like the 10-22 since it is an EF-S lens and therefore useless if you do go full frame in a few years. Have a look at a lens like the Sigma 12-24 that can be used on either system. </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p> Why is it that one has to have either a crop or full frame? There are not to many wide non ep-s lens out there for crop (16-35 and 17-40 which is at least 16 + 9.6 = 25.6 mm wide on a crop), all one needs is one good ep-s wide lens to keep just for a crop camera.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Since you have a 50D, and list your choices as Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS or the EF 17-40mm f4 L, get the 17-55mm f2.8 IS. The image quality is slightly better in most regards, the lens is faster, has a longer range, and has IS.</p>

<p>The main reason to prefer the 17-40 the fact that it can be used on a full frame camera and the 17-55 can't. If you are planning on upgrading to a full frame body any time soon, you don't want to have EF-S lenses that wont fit.</p>

[hugophoto]

<p>Duncan,</p>

<p>While I don't have any specific experience with either lens, I can say that in my experience L series lenses are usually much better in terms of sharpness (maybe it's just me but colors seem to reproduce better with my L's as well). Since you are going to be shooting mostly landscapes, high sharpness would be the feature I would be most concerned about.</p>

<p>The IS is a nice feature to have for general work, however, in my opinion, the effects of the feature on such a wide lens will not be that noticable. Landscapes often require either such a slow shutter speed that a tripod will be necessary anyway, or a higher shutter speed where IS is not needed. The 2.8 would be nice for those higher shutter speeds or lower ISO's, however again... landscape shots traditionally require higher F-stops to allow for a wider depth of field.</p>

<p>Now you may still want to consider the 17-55 f2.8 IS if you plan to use it in a variety of other situations as well. It is a versitle lens that is geared more towards landscapes but meant to be used as general purpose. On the other hand, I would go for the 17-40 f4L if you are looking for a great lens for specifically landscapes.</p>

<p>I hope this was helpful... :)</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is sharper than the Canon 17-40 f/4L, although the difference is not very significant. And it is still very sharp at f/2.8. It's not an L lens, and it's not built like one, but optically it is very, very good.</p>

<p>17-55 on a crop camera is like 28-90 on a full frame. That is not particularly wide, and the IS feature is eminently valuable in many situations with this lens. More so on the long end, but still occasionally useful on the wide end. The 17-55 does suffer from some veiling flare in contra light, and a lens hood is recommended. Unfortunately, since this is not an L lens, Canon charges extra for their hood. A low cost third party version is available.</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>17-40: focusses closer, better build, more contrast.<br>

17-55: better sharpness, way better low light, slightly longer.</p>

<p>Another to consider might be the new 15-85 but there are no reviews to be found yet.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The 17-40 is very flare resistant, unlike the 17-55 where flare can be abit of a monster so if you are looking for a specialist landscape lens the 17-40 may well be the better bet. As has been said, IS for landscapes is not a huge benefit but I got the 17-40 and then added the 17-55 because the longer top end, the constant f2.8 and the IS made it a much beter walkabout lens. I still haven't sold the 17-40 because I have an aversion to selling quality gear (hifi or camera) 'just in case'.<br>

What other lenses do you have? What sort of gap in focal ranges would you be willing to accept? I think in part will inform your final choice.</p>

<p>I don't buy the 'get the 10-22 because the 17mm is not particularly wide on APS-C' argument. 28mm on 35mm film was plenty enough for many a magazine spread and 17mm on 50D gives you that same FOV. OK, 10-22 gets you <em>more </em>width and some pretty amazing shots but that is not the same as saying that 17mm <em>isn't wide enough</em>. I have not used the 10-22 but the recurring themes seems to be that it is a more specialist lens and you need to compose carefully with strong foreground interest to make it interesting. On balance with limited money I would say the 17-40 is would offer sterling service and much more use.</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>I did use the 10-22, shot a few very nice pictures with it and gave it back to the friend I borrowed it from without any remorse.</p>

<p>That wide is an acquired taste and needs a certain eye and skill. Be sure to borrow or rent that wide a lens before spending money on it. You might not like what you get.</p>

<p>(Although Ken Rockwell disagrees with me.)</p>

[duncan_twentytwo]

<p>Many thanks for your responses. I think it likely I will go with the 17-55. Most of the photographs I take are Landscape but there will be a number of occasion such as holidays when the f2.8 & IS will come in handy.<br>

Most of the reviews are very positive about the 17-55 and I was surprised to see matthijs claessens comment that he thought the 17-55 was sharper.<br>

It is unlikely I will ever upgrade to a full frame camera so the ef-s lens is not an issue for me.<br>

There is just one other point about Lenses that I will raise in a separate topic on the forum</p>