Canon medium wide lens, mostly for landscapes

hiphopopotamus

hiphopopotamus

Messages
321
Edit My Images
No
I currently have a 50D with 18-55is, 50mm 1.8 II and a sigma 70-300. A prime macro around 100mm may also be added to this.

I'm looking into a landscape lens, and had settled on the 17-40L as something that would do everything I wanted until reading around a bit and learning things about the tamron 17-50 vc/non vc or the canon 17-55 being better for cropped-sensor bodies.

I have ruled out the canon 17-55 due to the 17-40L being the top of my budget when 2nd hand.

I used to own a sigma 15-30 and certainly felt I didn't need anything wider than this. My everyday lens is really my 50mm 1.8, I love the sharpness of the images I get, I rarely use my 18-55is for much unless I really need shorter (hence the need for this medium-wide landscape lens).

So would I be right in thinking I'd be happier with the 17-40 than the tamron 17-50? There seems to be some variability in the quality of the tamron lenses, but not really in the canons. I imagine when I'm not looking to take landscape photos my 50mm would stay on my camera as a general lens.
 
I tried the 17-40mm f4 but bought the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Some say it's sharper than the 17-40 and it does have the f2.8 for when you want it plus it's more compact and lighter. The 17-40 has the red ring of course, and that's enough for some but looking at it coldly I really can't see what it can offer over the quality 17-50mm f2.8's from Canon, Sigma or Tamron on APS-C.

The 17-40mm f4 is a wide full frame lens and that's where it makes sense IMVHO. However, if you have a film body or intend to get a full frame DSLR sometime soon it's a different question.
 
Thanks for the reply. Are they both a worthy upgrade to the 18-55IS however? I've heard lots of contradictory statements regarding sharpness on the 17-40 vs tamron 17-50, but assuming that they are fairly similar, a little extra searching round led me to this comparison, suggesting the 17-40 was almost no different in sharpness than the 18-55is. Given that in post-processing I can very easily correct for the slight colour defects the 18-55 produces, is it worth paying the extra to upgrade?

http://camerablognetwork.com/2009/0...ison-revisted-post-canon-50d-af-micro-adjust/
 
So your not really looking for a medium wide lens, your looking for a better quality medium wide lens, because in terms of width what's the difference between your 18-55 and a 17-40 or a 17-50?
 
Jackwow said:
So your not really looking for a medium wide lens, your looking for a better quality medium wide lens, because in terms of width what's the difference between your 18-55 and a 17-40 or a 17-50?
Click to expand...

Exactly, I had presumed the 17-50 or the 17-40 would be a worthwhile upgrade for the 18-55is, but not really sure they are from that review in particular, and considering I would like to invest in macro photography as well I thought it might be worthwhile diverting these funds there...
 
Have a look at the EF-S15-85 F3.5-5.6. It's also a great walk around for a crop body. I've found mine razor sharp and not a mile from my 24-105L in IQ.
 
Indeed have looked at the 15-85, but that actually doesn't look to be much of an upgrade either in terms of PQ, with the 17-40 seeing to win there.....

Obviously the extra 30mm might be a nice difference from the 18-55 I have currently but I don't tend to feel the need for that extra 30 in a walkaround lens.
 
Last edited:
Certainly the 15-85 is a more versatile lens. Apart from the extra length, it has a great IS system which has helped us get photos of static stuff indoors. Not sure where you've seen 17-40 is that much better than the 15-85. Certainly don't find it lacking on our 7D (assuming you're OK applying lens corrections in something like LR as it does vignette at the shorter lengths). And it's an extra 45mm, not 30mm ;)
 
arad85 said:
Certainly the 15-85 is a more versatile lens. Apart from the extra length, it has a great IS system which has helped us get photos of static stuff indoors. Not sure where you've seen 17-40 is that much better than the 15-85. Certainly don't find it lacking on our 7D (assuming you're OK applying lens corrections in something like LR as it does vignette at the shorter lengths). And it's an extra 45mm, not 30mm ;)
Click to expand...

Here is the comparison I've found of 15-85 vs 17-40:
http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

To be honest the 18-55is vs 17-40 comparison I linked to a few posts earlier isn't too much different to the conclusions reached in this 15-85 vs 17-40 comparison.

When I said it's an extra 30mm, I meant when compared to the 18-55, rather than the 17-40, as it's the 18-55 I'd be moving from - sorry should have been more clear in that post, will edit now. And considering the 18-55 already has the IS system, I'm not sure how the extra 30mm (+3mm at wide end) in the 15-85 justifies its expense in comparison to the 18-55is if it's not a clear PQ upgrade as well...
 
Last edited:
hiphopopotamus said:
I'm not sure how the extra 30mm (+3mm at wide end) in the 15-85 justifies its expense in comparison to the 18-55is if it's not a clear PQ upgrade as well...
Click to expand...
Judge for yourself if it is a quality upgrade here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx. TBH, I'd put it on a par with the 17-55, just slower.

Depends what you want to do, but most of the pictures we take are not on a tripod, and not normally wide open. I haven't been as a..l as the review you posted to, but I'm certainly very happy with the images we get from our 15-85 when comparing them to a 17-40 and 24-105 on a 5D2... YMMV of course :)
 
the 18-55 isnt a bad lens (Ive got two) - if you are into landscape unless you do lots of low light its debateable why you'd want a f2.8 lens, personally i'd save your cash and get a 10-20 instead (or the tokina 11-16) as what really strikes me as missing in your kit is a WA
 
arad85 said:
Judge for yourself if it is a quality upgrade here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx. TBH, I'd put it on a par with the 17-55, just slower.

Depends what you want to do, but most of the pictures we take are not on a tripod, and not normally wide open. I haven't been as a..l as the review you posted to, but I'm certainly very happy with the images we get from our 15-85 when comparing them to a 17-40 and 24-105 on a 5D2... YMMV of course :)
Click to expand...

That is a really good review, missed it in all my searching it seems. It does actually look like the 15-85 is a fair upgrade, especially at the wider end. It is a pity that review didn't include the 17-40 in the comparison, or the tamron 17-50, would have loved to see how they compared.

big soft moose said:
the 18-55 isnt a bad lens (Ive got two) - if you are into landscape unless you do lots of low light its debateable why you'd want a f2.8 lens, personally i'd save your cash and get a 10-20 instead (or the tokina 11-16) as what really strikes me as missing in your kit is a WA
Click to expand...

That is a decision I've been weighing up and certainly haven't taken lightly, but I just don't feel I'd use it enough to justify the amount of money I'd spend on it. With a 17-40/17-50/15-85 I could leave it on a fair amount and not worry... I think if I get a 10-20 or 11-16 I'd love the few photos it gave me every year but it would spend most of its time gathering dust... and on my budget at the moment that seems like it could be a waste...
 
In your position I'd get an ultra wide like the 10-22 and keep your 18-55IS.

Tamron's sharp alright but stopped down to f/5.6 or lower and your kit lens is just as good if not better. It feels like a toy with poor build quality and noisy little motor. Don't bother unless you want f/2.8 for low light, non-flash photography (but in that case I'd rather get a 30mm f/1.4 to complement your 50mm instead).
 
I have used 17-40mm with my canon 30d and very pleased withy the image quality. It consistently produced sharp photos. It is a nice walk around lens on a cropped sensor camera.
 
For landscapes the 17-40 is a great lens, one that you won't want to upgrade in the future. I actually prefer the field of view on a cropped sensor camera to my 5D with this lens, so wouldn't say it's a full frame only lens.
 
RedTele said:
In your position I'd get an ultra wide like the 10-22 and keep your 18-55IS.

Don't bother unless you want f/2.8 for low light, non-flash photography (but in that case I'd rather get a 30mm f/1.4 to complement your 50mm instead).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Yes a wide-ish prime is something i had thought about, but was hoping the 17-40 might cover that and not be much less sharp. In the future I'm sure I'll invest in an ultra wide, but for now I don't think I'm too bothered...

Tharksha said:
I have used 17-40mm with my canon 30d and very pleased withy the image quality. It consistently produced sharp photos. It is a nice walk around lens on a cropped sensor camera.
Click to expand...

Craikeybaby said:
For landscapes the 17-40 is a great lens, one that you won't want to upgrade in the future.
Click to expand...

These are the reasons the 17-40 was top of my list. Decisions never seem to get any easier on these forums ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top