I'm thinking of picking up a canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS for xmas and was wondering...for those of you that have it, do you find that 17mm is wide enough for landscape and architectural shots? I'm going to rent one to make sure I like it before purchasing but wanted your opinions.
This lens stays in my Canon 40D all the time. I have used it for weddings, Events, and Travel. I took it to spain a month ago took around 2,000 photos RAW + JPG.
Some photos here (Except the Roman Aqueduct in Segovia, Spain in which I used Canon 15 mm Fisheye)
The 17-55mm focal length is wide enough for most purposes. However, when I was using the Rebel XT, I often brought along the 10-22 as well depending on the landscape shot and the effect I was trying to achieve.
I have a 17-85mm on 40D, I am don`t shoot that much landscape, but at 17mm I wished I have a wider lens in many cases for architectural shoots. I think for landscape I`d like even wider lens, just got a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 to remedy this.
goodluck.
For pure resolution this lens can't be beaten at this focal length for a start. The focus is quick, I have no problems with dust, to my knowledge, and I only use a 7-day-shop lens cap for any protection. I tried a decent UV filter, wasn't happy with the results (Hoya HMC). The colours are good and it works, in general, an absolute storm on the 40D.
Here is a sample shot only sharpened with default RAW setting - 3 - in DPP - flickr.com
And a 100% crop from the centre if you don't want to download the 10MP file.
For landscapes only this would not be a good lens. This lens actually is the man though for general purpose, lowlight, special effects - IS comes in handy there), DoF with portraits on crop.
If landscapes only is your thing I would really recommend the Sigma 10-20 - I have one - and boy does it stack up well to my 17-55 IS and 70-200 2.8L IS
That lowlight image above was shot at 1"3 at F8.0 in Stratford-Upon-Avon, UK. I had to put my camera on a railing in order to get it to balance - this is where having a flat Camera/Lens combo greatly helps.
I've had a 12-24mm Tokina and that was a sweet lens. I got a few good wide-angle landscapes in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. I sold it since, and my widest is now the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I haven't taken it on any good trips yet. But, my main criteria these days is as few lenses as possible. So, the only options were the 17-50 Tamron and the 17-55mm Canon. I tried 2 copies of the Tamron, and both were very soft @ f/2.8 at all focal lengths. So, I paid up double of that and got the Canon. Its not impressively wide (27mm on a 1.6 crop). But, it is better than 28mm.
These are from the Tokina 12-24mm ... just to see how wide 19mm is.
For landscapes / architecture only, you would probably be best served getting a wider lens plus one of the cheapo kit zooms-- you can find an 18-55 non-IS for around $50, and an IS version for not much over $100. Then you could upgrade to the 17-55 IS later, and you would be out less money now (i.e. could start saving up immediately).
I bought the Tokina 11-16 and just took delivery yesterday. It looks like it will work VERY nicely. I paid around $412 shipped, after the live.com cash back. I was leery of ordering from Hong Kong, but the lens is fine. The thing is built like a tank, if anything better than my L lenses.
However, if you want a stabilized normal zoom now, I would just get that and add an ultrawide later. You'll still be well covered for many landscapes, and would feel the lack of an ultrawide mostly for architecture.
viper66 wrote:
do you find that 17mm is wide enough for landscape and architectural shots?
Most of the time, no. That's when I use my 10-22. To know it if will be wide enough for you just set your 12-24 to 17mm and see if it is wide enough for you.
Your 12-24 is an UWA lens. The 17-55/2.8 IS is a GP lens. If you want both, you need two lenses, not one. Come to think of this, if you'll keep your 12-24 than the 24-105 might suite you better FL wise.
