Which is better? Canon 17-40mm f/4L or Canon 17-55 f/2.8mm for landscape photography with 7D

[rikin_shah1]

<p> I am planning to buy either of these two lenses for 7D. Which one would be better for landscapes ?</p>

 

[wgpinc]

<p>I have both and much prefer the Canon 17-55mm on the APS-C sensor because it is a little sharper and much more useful with the extra 15mm and 2.8. I use the 17-40mm on my 5D II and it is a fine lens. Good luck! Canon T2i / 17-55mm 2.8</p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11001375-md.jpg" alt="" /></center>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>For a APS-C, the 17-55/2.8 is better in every single way. I hate to make your life more difficult, but there are a ton of 17ish-50ish/2.8 lenses for APS-C sensors, all of which are cheaper than the Canon 17-55/2.8 and most of which provide similar (or sometimes better) performance. </p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

If you have the money go for the 17-55,

although the 17-40 is no slouch either.

[JohnMWright]

<p>I would actually (and I did) get the 15-85 for landscapes instead. I like the extra range. Optically it is just as good as the 17-55. For landscapes, you don't need the speed. </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Oops, should of read the whole post. For landscapes, any lens is good enough unless you plan on making prints several feet on the side. The kit lens is just as good as anything else at landscape stops. If you do plan on routinely printing large and want the best zoom currently available, the 15-85 is the way to go. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'd pick the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over the 17-40 (which I own, and which I used on crop at one time) on just about all counts. The 17-40 can have sharpness issues at the largest apertures, particularly in the corners... and on crop you probably don't want to stop down past about f/8 due to diffraction blur issues... so you end up being caught between a rock and a hard place with the 17-40. Besides, the EFS lens has better IQ, larger maximum aperture, larger focal length range, image stabilization.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[William Michael]

<p>One day you won't have your tripod with you, Image Stabilization is of benefit.<br>

WW</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>If I have Ultra-wide Angle Lens I'll get 17-55, otherwise definitely 15-85. IS is important plus even for mid-range zoom. On 7D, Canon 10-22 may open new world of possibilities for landscapes.<br /> If you plan to move to Full Frame later, 17-40 maybe also very good option. Also You can pair 17-40 with 70-300 4-5.6 IS or 70-200/4.<br /> Make your choice according to the other lenses you have or you are planning to get - in order to build your whole system better.</p>

<p>Do you plan to shoot other types of photos except landscapes?</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I agree with the suggestions given.<br>

17-55/2.8 IS is more of an indoor lens.<br>

17-40/4 is a landscape lens for full-frame.<br>

15-85/3.5-5.6 IS would be the top choice for landscape on crop.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>For landscapes, I doubt you'll see a whole lot of difference, even on the crop. But, if you <em>ever</em> plan on <em>possibly</em> using it for anything else, the 17-55/2.8 is the way to go. OTOH, if you are considering going FF, which many landscape shooters find themselves doing, than buy either the 17-40/4, or a used 17-55/2.8 (so you can sell it w/ minimal loss when you sell your crop camera).</p>

<p> </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>My preference would be for the 17-40/4 L but I would also suggest looking at a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L as well, for not much more. Check out keh.com </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Before you jump at an L lens option - just because it is an L lens - if you shoot crop, check out lens tests and reports first. I think you may be surprised to see that there is no performance advantage on crop from the 17-40 or the 16-35 when compared to the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[barry_johnson]

<p>Whoa now. On a crop a 17 is hardly a wide angle, maybe the end of the wide spectrum but really what you want on a 7D is a 10-22 EF-s. Best UWA for a crop hands down. Pair it with a 24-70 and a 60-200 and you are set.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Barry picks up on a good point. A 17-xx lens is not considered ultra-wide on an APS-C type sensor. So if it is UWA that you're after, you should consider:<br>

- Canon 10-22mm<br>

- Tokina 11-16mm<br>

- Sigma 12-14mm<br>

(My cash would go to the Tokina by the way ;))</p>

<p>If you <em>still</em> want a lens in the 17-xx range, I would <strong><em>very seriously</em></strong> consider Sigma's 17-50 f/2.8 OS (Optical Stabiliser) which by many accounts is equal to if not, in some aspects, better than the mighty Canon 17-55 lens (approx 33% cheaper, inclusive of lens hood, soft case and 4-yr warranty). See 2 reviews here:</p>

<p>- http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs17-55/</p>

<p>- http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os</p>

<p>In conclusion, I would first decide whether I was looking for an ultra-wide or just a moderate wide angle for APS-C. After that, decide whether you will only ever use the lens on an APS-C sensor (in my case, I always knew I would use it on both, as I had an APS-C camera and a film camera, so I opted for the 17-40mm. Finally, once you have come up with a shortlist, see if you can rent or borrow the "finalists" to test in real-world shooting situations.</p>

<p>All the best with your decision :)</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>I agree with <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1159709">Mark Anthony Kathurima</a> . If I want to get the<strong> best price/quailty ratio</strong> instead of buying new 17-55 IS I would get used in like new condition:<br /> 1/ Tokina 11-16 2.8<br /> 2/ Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC . I like also Sigma 17-70 OS - has excellent macro too.<br /> 3/ Canon 70-200/4 or Tamron 70-300 VC.<br /> If I get used, like new Tamron 70-300 VC I'll give total around 200$ less than the single new lens Canon 17-55 2.8, you also have to buy hood for it.</p>

<p>I also prefer Tamron 70-300 VC over Canon 70-300 IS non L because Canon front lens element rotates (imortant when you use CPL). I've used the Canon lens, photozone.de says even in IQ Tammy to has the edge:<br /> http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc?start=1</p>

<p>For serious landscape work it's invaluable to have<strong> Ultra-wide angle and tele lens</strong>. Also you should have in mind <strong>your other needs and preferences</strong> (for e.g. indoor parties, fast moving kids, portraits). If you have to shoot often in manual mode, having zoom with fixed aperture is a important plus.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Either lens will be fine. For landscapes, once you stop down to f/11 or f/16, no one will be able to tell the difference.</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Yes, for landscapes, once you stop down to f/11 or f/16 the difference are minor. So it's more useful to cover more focal range with the lenses(10(11) - 300mm). I wrote above or the most practical one lens solution: Canon 15-85. Canon 17-55 is of course excellent lens, but you will not gain much for landscapes. It also collects more dust under the front element. Canon 17-55 has important advantages over the other lenses,but not so visible for landscapes.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>when did ultra-wide become synonymous with landscape... did I miss that memo? </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Either lens will be fine. For landscapes, once you stop down to f/11 or f/16, no one will be able to tell the difference.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you stop down to f/16 on crop they won't be "able to tell the difference" because you'll get rather large amounts of diffraction blur that will cost you significant amounts of resolution. In general, you don't want to shoot at f/16 on crop (unless you'll only share small versions of your photographs) and you want to be very cautious about going to f/11.</p>

<p>This is precisely the issue with the 17-40, by the way. It is an excellent landscape lens stopped down on a full frame camera, where you can get excellent overall resolution at f/11 or f/16 an get much improved corner performance. However, on crop if you stop down to improve the corners you end up running into diffraction blur issues.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Being serious for landscapes means having UWA, mid-range zoom and telephoto. Of course for having fun(and going lightweight) one lens like 17-55, 15-85 or 18-135 is enough. 17-55 only used for landscapes is waste of resource and money, which can be spend for other excellent lenses. On 18MP crop body like 7D I shoot landscapes generally between f8 and F11.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>It is impossible to generalize about the focal lengths of "landscape lenses." While many feel that wide to ultra-wide lenses are landscape lenses, it turns out that many other photographers rarely use them for their work. I know a number of highly-regarded landscape photographers who love their f/4 70-200mm zooms. I do a fair amount of landscape work with a 100-400mm lens on full frame. </p>

<p>Dan</p>