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)

Take a look: http://www.jaimephotos.com/

To protect your lens from dust, immediately buy the B+W filter from B&H

( BWUVMC77 - 77mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant C It cost $79.95 plus shipping.)

I have not seeing dust inside the glass. This filter is a very good quality, and easier to clean than Hoya filter.

if u are in NY and shooting architecture then the 17 on crop is not quite wide enough

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.

Both are great lenses though.

I currently have a tokina 12-24 . I was thinking of selling it if I get the 17-55 and possibly buying something that would get more use.

Usually I shoot tight and find my 17-55 frustrating, but I'm starting to love it for landscape shots...

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.

In my opinion this lens is fantastic.

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.

Sorry, another thing to add would be that if this is going to be your "holiday" lens there is simply nothing better.

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.

Works for me although I do tend to try and use my 10-20mm for ultra wide shots.

What's wrong with your 12-24? You'll miss that extra wide angle. Trust me.

Great for landscapes, not wide enough for interiors IMO. I think 24mm is an ideal focal length for most interiors.

Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com

Just didn't know if I should keep my wide angle after I get the 17-55...I think I'm going to. Thanks for the suggestions.

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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

It's fine for landsacpes, unless you need ultrawide angle.