Canon 17-40 L - recommended?

nomore

nomore

nomore

Associate
Joined
19 Oct 2003
Posts
1,112
Location
Olympia, WA, USA
I'm looking for a sharp lens for landscape photography. The Sigma 10-20 has already been recommended to me, but for £140 more, I could get the Canon 17-40 L.

Usually, L glass lenses are considered to be very sharp. Does anyone have experience with this lens or some full size examples?

It may be worth the extra cash as I've seen some reviews of the Sigma lens that say it's soft at the edges and has some light falloff.
 
They're totally different lenses. The 17mm will be a rather pedestrian 27mm on a 1.6x SLR whereas the 10mm will be 16mm. Much better suited for landscape photography.

If you don't want the sigma the Canon 10-22 is well worth checking out but is more expensive than the sigma.
 
xolotl said:
They're totally different lenses. The 17mm will be a rather pedestrian 27mm on a 1.6x SLR whereas the 10mm will be 16mm. Much better suited for landscape photography.

If you don't want the sigma the Canon 10-22 is well worth checking out but is more expensive than the sigma.
Click to expand...

I was told that the Canon 10-22 is a EFS mount. Unfortunately, I have a 10D which doesn't accept EFS lenses.
 
Last edited:
Agreed - with a 10D you are comparing a 16mm wide zoom to a 27mm wide zoom. That is a huge difference, enough for them to be considered for different applications.
 
I can vouch for the 17-40L, its very sharp and stays more or less constantly on my 20D.. as yet it hasn't seen much tripd mounted landscape action so I only have handheld examples to show which are probably not what youre after - take a look on some of the review websites like dpreview and fredmiranda
 
nomore said:
I was told that the Canon 10-22 is a EFS mount. Unfortunately, I have a 10D which doesn't accept EFS lenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its EF-S I just assumed that your camera would accept seeming as you were looking at the Sigma.


Another UWA solution is the Tokina 12-24mm. Its between that and the Sigma is you want a UWA as the 17-40 isn't very wide on a 10d.
 
If you have intensions of buying a full frame Canon D-SLR within a couple of years then get the 17-40L otherwise go for the Sigma or Tamron options.

I have a 17-40L for my 20D and find it wide enough but then I don't do much landscape photography.
 
Back in the good old bad old days of 35mm a 24mm or 28mm lens was considered wide. I really don't know why there's this fascination with having to go wider :confused:

I mean, look at Bresson, most of his landscape work was taken with a 50mm or telephoto.
 
for what it's worth I bought a 10-20m sigma and I didn't like it, it had some odd PQ and strange distortion at the edges.

Returned it today and will be buying a Canon 10-22mm in New York later this week so will post samples next week, but from what everyone says, the Canon is far better

Hope this helps :)
 
dod said:
Back in the good old bad old days of 35mm a 24mm or 28mm lens was considered wide. I really don't know why there's this fascination with having to go wider :confused:

I mean, look at Bresson, most of his landscape work was taken with a 50mm or telephoto.
Click to expand...

That's what I think... I need wide, but not necessarily mega wide.
 
SDK^ said:
If you have intensions of buying a full frame Canon D-SLR within a couple of years then get the 17-40L otherwise go for the Sigma or Tamron options.

I have a 17-40L for my 20D and find it wide enough but then I don't do much landscape photography.
Click to expand...

The 17-35 Tamron is full frame compliant too ;)
 
Bizarre. I'm sure I replied to this post this morning. Must be going mad.

Was just going to say "don't forget the Tamron 17-35mm". Have a look at my Slovakia/Poland pics. All taken with the Tamron, and one of them has a link to a full size version. Am happy to provide further full size ones if you want more examples :) This is one seriously good lens. I think people overlook it because they see the brand "Tamron" and think "eewww, quality issues". It's all myth and legend with this lens it seems :)

dod said:
Back in the good old bad old days of 35mm a 24mm or 28mm lens was considered wide. I really don't know why there's this fascination with having to go wider :confused:

I mean, look at Bresson, most of his landscape work was taken with a 50mm or telephoto.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with this. I have a 28mm for my AT-1, and I remember being amazed at how wide angle it was when I got it :) I really don't know what the obsession is with ultra super wide angle lenses. 17mm (+1.6 crop factor) is plenty wide enough for landscapes & architecture imo. All I would achieve from a wider angle is distortion, which I'm rubbish at correcting at the best of times :D
 
Lostkat said:
I think people overlook it because they see the brand "Tamron" and think "eewww, quality issues". It's all myth and legend with this lens it seems :)
Click to expand...
I had that on my short list. Only reasons I didn't go for it was the extra 5mm of the canon and the weather proofing for when I get my 1 series :D , nothing to do with image quality. That lens is a gem, bit like the 28-75 they produce as well.
 
Last edited:
umm why are you comparing a 17mm lens to a 10-22mm when one is being used with a 1.6crop and one with a FF body...? Of course 17mm is plenty wide on a 5D!

sorry folks but this is becoming an apples and oranges thread - start comparing apples with apples then we might get somewhere
 
Just to add confusion... i have the Sigma 10-20 on my 350D and i would say that its not a landscape lens. I find it too wide TBH and its more suited to architecture.

Dont get me wrong i absolutely love the lens and have had some fantastic photos with it and wouldnt be without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom