Full-Frame landscapers, 17-40 f/4?

[bazooka]

So, I've ordered a mk2 and have been using a 40D. I use the 10-22 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. For a lot of my landscape stuff I use the 10-22, but I also use the 17-50 quite a bit for when 22 is too wide. I'm going to give the Tamron to my wife for her xti and sell the 10-22, but I need a good replacement that kind of fits the bill for both the 10-22 and the Tamron. It looks to me like the 17-40 is a popular landscape lens. Anyone have any comments on it good or bad? I have a 50mm 1.4 to fill the gap between the 17-40 and my 70-200. It seems like the perfect lens and at a great price.

I was also looking at the tilt shift 24mm but it doesn't seem like they would be useful enough for me to pay that much for (>$1200). Anyone use them much?

Thanks for any input to help me with my decision. I'm pretty settled on the 17-40 but I'm wondering if anyone would try to talk me into something else, or even a wide prime.

 

[Big Mike]

Are you inside my head?

I just upgraded to the 5DmkII and I also own the 10-22mm and the Tamron 17-50mm and the 70-200mm.
I'll probably be selling the 10-22mm, the 17-50mm (and a few others) and picking up the 17-40mm and the 50mm F1.4.

To answer your question (from what I've seen/heard) yes, the 17-40mm is THE lens of choice for full frame/35mm film users.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I use a 17-40 on my 7D and love it. The most complaints I see on full frame is due to issues at the edge. I still think its a great lens, but I have heard that the 16-35 f/2.8 is much better at the edges. I have also heard that a 17-40 F/4L MKII is in the works but I doubt you will see it before the new year.

 

[bazooka]

LoL Mike, you're right, we pretty much have the same kit.

Goonies, I looked at the comparison to the 16-35 and it seems the 17-40 is sharper on the wide end while the 16 is sharper on the long end. From what I've read/seen, the 17-40 has a slight sharpness lead overall, and considering the 16's much heftier price tag... I don't see how it could be worth it if you don't need it for the extra stop.

Anyone into TS lenses or using primes for landscape?

 

[Big Mike]

I don't think I've seen anyone using T/S for landscape, unless it's to get that miniature look/feel. I'm sure that someone's doing it, but it's probably a small niche.

Plenty of people use primes for landscape, probably most/all shooters who use medium or large format. And I guess if you are going to be striving for the best quality you can get, then good prime lenses will always be better than good zoom lenses. The 24mm F1.4L, might be good. I think there is a 20mm Canon lens, but I've heard very little about it, so I doubt it's any better than the 17-40mm. And lastly, there is the 14mm F2.8 L II...which I'd love to shoot with, but the estimated retail price is $2460.

 

[analog.universe]

Landscape is one of the best applications of T/S, and not because of the miniature effect. By tilting the focus plane parallel to the ground, you can get more of a scene in focus at a wider aperture. By shifting, you can avoid converging verticals, even if you're not shooting level with the horizon. Additionally, shift lenses are ideally suited for doing stitched panoramas, as you can get 3 images to stitch together merely by shifting the lens, instead of rotating the camera.

I tend to prefer primes for everything and the 17mm TS-E is my ideal landscape/architecture lens. When I upgrade to full frame (whenever that may be), the 17 will replace my Tokina as the wide end of my kit.

Slightly less wide, and slightly more affordable than the 17, is the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Distagon, which has a reputation for being one of the best landscape lenses ever made. Near zero distortion and incredibly sharp. The Canon 17 and 24 TS-E lenses are probably the only wide angles on the market for EOS that compete with it in terms of resolution and distortion figures.

 

[Big Mike]

Ah...I forgot about the 17mm T/S....I was thinking that the 24mm was the widest one.

And thanks for the great points about using T/S for landscape...certainly something to think about.

 

[analog.universe]

I forgot to mention though... for the price that the 17-40 is, I've not seen anything better. It's actually really hard to find something better at twice the price... Zeiss 18mm 3.5 maybe, but I think I'd even go for the 17-40 still.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, I've always heard that the 17-40mm is a great bargain at only $700.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I'm planning on a 17-40 at some point. The 16-35 is faster but it doesn't offer any noticeable gain in image quality. I've seen a few guys get an adapter and use the Nikon 14-24 with success but that's hardly a 17-50 replacement.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Goonies, I looked at the comparison to the 16-35 and it seems the 17-40 is sharper on the wide end while the 16 is sharper on the long end. From what I've read/seen, the 17-40 has a slight sharpness lead overall

Go here and compare the two http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
e
The 16-35 MarkII @ F/4 beats the 17-40 at all focal lengths shown. @35mm the 16-35 loses out in the corners it seems, but thats just barely.

Like I said, I have the 17-40 so I am all for it. It does exactly what I need and I would not pay twice the money for one stop. However, I just wanted to be honest about the 16-35 MKII being slightly better optically. Personally I don't think its worth almost $1000 more.

 

[bazooka]

Thanks for the point to the Zeiss.... I don't think I'd pay that much for a prime unless it was TS, but it's good to know that it is out there for future reference. I know some pro landscapers use TS lenses but I just don't know if it fits into my kit well at this time, especially at the prices. I'd love to have perspective control and infinite dof, but not at that price. If I could find one under $1k, I'd consider it.

Goonie, I will be using it more at f/16 than anything. At that aperture, it looks to be almost identical to the 16-35... maybe a touch softer in the center. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Image Quality

There's a 17-40 on CL in mint condition (no box, but with caps and hood) for $630 that I think I will pop on. Thanks to everyone for your input.

 

[Big Mike]

FYI, you probably don't actually need to shoot as small as F16 on such a wide lens. Using hyperfocal focusing, you may find that F8 or F11, give you all the DOF you may need. Depends how & what you shoot though, obviously.

 

[bazooka]

Thanks Mike. To be honest I've never actually looked at a chart or anything to find out exactly what aperture I should be at... but a lot of the time my foreground subject will be two or three freet from the front of the lens with the background being the clouds in the sky. I should probably get a dof calc on my app so I can stop guessing, eh? DoF preview only goes so far...

 

[Big Mike]

I'm guilty of that as well. I've shot plenty of landscapes on my 10-22mm by just going right to F22, assuming that's what I needed.
I've since forced myself to learn about it and I have a DOF calc. on my iPod.