EF fitting landscape or wide lens

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm wondering what you guys out there are using and what sort of results you are getting.

Ta.
 
17-40L here too with FF or 1.3 crop. No issues with limit of f4 as it tends to be used for landscapes only. Being weather sealed is a big plus in Scotland.

The 17-40 is a bit skinny on a 1.6 body so I sometimes use Sigma 10-20 for wide angles.
 
Last edited:
17-40 or 24mm TS-E on both FF and crop.
I really prefer the 24mm but its not the sort of thing you can walk round with ( well I cant as I use it on a tripod)
 
A lot of positives there for the 17-40 - guess you all disagree with this review (just 3 stars).

I use to have the 10-20 on my crop, it was a really good lens for the wider stuff, some interesting images from it although oddly not many landscapes I liked.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, thats why I ask here and only take a review as just another opinion, albeit a well structured one.
 
JohnN said:
I use to have the 10-20 on my crop, it was a really good lens for the wider stuff, some interesting images from it although oddly not many landscapes I liked.
Click to expand...

Wide angle lenses do require a different mindset when used for landscapes esp when it comes to positioning objects within the composition. A lot of folk think they will bring about some extra impact but often the opposite is true as thing diminish into the distance.

Why didn't you like the results ?

Was it the lens, you not using it in the most effective manner or just not a personal fan of wide angle landscapes ?
 
By EF, I'm reading that as FF (as opposed to crop). I'm Nikon rather than Canon but FF, so I think I can offer my 2p! I use a Sigma 12-24 or a Sigma 24-70. I tested both before I handed over the cash and have good copies of each. I could afford to trade up to the Nikkor equivalents but have no need to do so on either IQ or reliability grounds. IF either packs in, I might go the Nikkor route for a replacement. The 12-24 is insanely wide on FF and needs care in composition. It also only accepts rear mounted gel filters which makes grads and pols a problem although pols are of limited use due to the uneven effects on skies. If I was only allowed to keep 2 lenses and ditch the rest, I would keep these 2 (and secrete my 8mm fisheye about my person!!!)
 
Thanks guys - yep, I did mean FF (EF-S are crop only in Canon's lineup) and thanks for the feedback and I didn't realise Sigma did a full frame in that range, so something to look at.

Phil - I truly believe it was me rather than the lens - for oddball closeups it was great, theres a couple of my daughter in make up which are really nice - but for landscape everything just seemed to be sort of blugh.. I have my 10-20 gallery here if you're curious.
 
JohnN said:
Phil - I truly believe it was me rather than the lens - for oddball closeups it was great, theres a couple of my daughter in make up which are really nice - but for landscape everything just seemed to be sort of blugh.. I have my 10-20 gallery here if you're curious.
Click to expand...

Shooting ultrawide in landscapes you need a really strong foreground IMO, otherwise everything looks lost.
 
IIRC, the non-car shots in my gallery were shot on the 12-24 at the short end. The B&W one of the steps and rails shows how little distortion it gives - the exagerated perspective is a fact of physics not a lens flaw!

SkyBandPol1.jpg

Was shot using it at 16mm with a pol fitted to the removeable cap (to simulate a 10mm shot on a Canon crop body). The pixelation is deliberate to exagerate the banding a pol gives with UWAs on blue skies.
 
Thanks Nod - that stair shot is partly why every now and again I think I'd like that range back (my smallest is 28mm on full frame) - the vertigo effect it fun, its like Phil and Mark are saying - composition and foreground are key, thats where I think I was going wrong before - except with a couple of my daughter where there was a strong foreground.
 
JohnN said:
A lot of positives there for the 17-40 - guess you all disagree with this review (just 3 stars).

I use to have the 10-20 on my crop, it was a really good lens for the wider stuff, some interesting images from it although oddly not many landscapes I liked.
Click to expand...

photozone.de review is spot on :thumbs:. However if you were ok with sigma 10-20, then you have nothing to lose. 17-40 is a bit better
 
daugirdas said:
photozone.de review is spot on :thumbs:. However if you were ok with sigma 10-20, then you have nothing to lose. 17-40 is a bit better
Click to expand...

Think that's the first positive(ish) thing I've ever seen you post about the 17-40mm!

Back to the op I'd try a 17-40mm before you look anywhere else. Pick up a second hand one as they go pretty cheap so you can sell it on for very little loss if it doesn't meet your expectations.
 
lol, so if not the 17-40, then what the Sigma 12-24?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top