chupacabra31 Offline Image Upload: On
|
p.1 #21 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii | |
Esquire08 wrote:
Just got my 17-40L today. I have the chance to "upgrade" to a 16-35L for this lens and $500 cash, but will likely stay with this lens.
The 16mm v. 17mm has been debated, but is negligible in my opinion when compared with the 35mm v. 40mm end of the lens. f/2.8 is nice, but f/4 is more than acceptable for landscapes.
You really have to assess it on your lineup of lenses. I'll be acquiring the 24-70 f/2.8L in the near future, and combined with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, there's really no reason for me to spend an additional $500 to get f/2.8 from 17-24mm. There might be fore other people, just not me, and that's one reason why I went with the 17-40, rather than the 16-35L.
Also...filters! ND, CPL, and other special filters are expensive enough as it is. The difference between a 17-40L and 16-35L is about $600 ($500 in my unique situation), but don't forget that if you want a polarizer or ND filter, you're going to spend another $200 on either. All of my lenses (save the 50 f/1.4) are 77mm lenses. Yes, you could get step up rings, but when you put all of the costs in front of you, you're paying a considerable amount of money more--close to $1000--for f/2.8. And if you have f/2.8 covered from 24mm to 200mm like me (and most from what it seems on this website), why pay another $1000 for f/2.8 from 17-24 when that money could be spent on a sweet tripod setup that'll give you all the vibration reduction needed to "make up" for f/4.

Can't you just filter your photos in Photoshop CS3?
|