28mm for landscapes?

[jeffreybehr]

What does "the 28mm of the 17-40mm" mean?

Lens length is lens length and doesn't change.  Angle of view changes when the sensor size changes.  A 17mm lens will have the same angle of view on your camera as a 27mm lens on a full-frame camera.

[didger]

How can anybody else possibly tell you what focal lengths you need for your shooting style and preferences?  For me 18mm is none too wide for my 1ds.  I use extreme wide all the time; couldn't get by without it.  that's why I paid a fortune for a Zeiss 18mm and a Zeiss 16mm fisheye.  Other people tend to shoot tighter so they might never use an 18mm.  If I had a 1.6x camera I'd have to go for 11mm or fish eye.  But what do you need?  That's up to you, not us.  I think you'd be limiting your opportunities drastically with nothing wider than 28mm (effective), however.

[philthygeezer]

I am aware of all this.  I'm trying to figure out whether the 27mm angle of view is worth the money when I have a 38mm angle of view with my EF24mm lenses.    Is it different enough to be worth the money or should I hang out for a 14mm f?? EF-S lens?  The 10-22's seem a bit iffy, and the 17-40mm has a great reputation but I'm not sure it's significantly different from what I can already do.

This was shot with my TS-E 24mm lens:  



Would a 27mm give me more in producing images like this?  I'm not sure...

[didger]

If you go for an ultrawide (which you surely should for a 1.6x camera) you would be wise to test several lenses to find the best one.  The main issue of soft corners is not as important for 1.6x cameras, but huge sample variations for ultrawide zooms are so common that it's still worth testing rather than gambling.

[philthygeezer]

Hope this helps more than the nitpicking nattering that goes on in these forums... :-)

Here, here!

 ::

Um, I believe that's, "Hear Hear!".  

   

[BryanHansel]

If I understand this correctly:  You love a 24mm lens and you are wondering if 28mm will be close enough to 24mm to make you happy.  

To test this, I just shot a couple of pictures using my Nikon 12-24 at the effective focal lengths of 24mm and 28mm from a tripod.  There is a good amount of extra coverage at 24mm vs. 28mm.  At 24mm there is a look that I like better than at 28mm, but if 28mm was all I had, I could make it work to produce simular pictures.  

One of my fav lenses is the Nikon 24mm, which I still use on my digital to produce good wide pictures even though it has become a 35mm.  It just takes more work to get the effect.

Will 28mm make you happy?  If you don't have money to spring for something wider than I'm sure it will work for you, but if you have the money, why not spring for something a little wider?

[philthygeezer]

If I understand this correctly:  You love a 24mm lens and you are wondering if 28mm will be close enough to 24mm to make you happy.  

Yep, that's what I'm wondering.  Thanks for testing this and giving your input.

I had a Canon FD20-35 f/3.5L in the early days that drove me nuts.  It was sharp but I couldn't put a filter on it at 20mm without vignetting.  The front element rotated and Cokin filters were completely out of the question at the wide end, even when I zoomed to 24mm.

Then I got a Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 with a little 52mm filter diameter and I was in heaven.  It worked with all my filters, front element didn't rotate and it was sharper to boot.

I found that 24mm was comfortable.  Still super-wide but easier to compose with than the 20-35 at 20mm.  I bought an EF24mm f/2.8 because I was so comfy.

Canon should make an EF-S 15mm f/2.0 L that's sharp into the corners for the same price as the 17-40mm f/4L.   One that takes a polarizer without vignetting, with a 58mm filter diameter and a nice DOF scale.  I'd buy that in a heartbeat.  Maybe they ought to give it a 67mm filter:  It's about time the 70-200mm f/4L had company.  We need a razor sharp 15mm EF-S lens at any rate.

[ctgardener]

I own a 17-35 (Minolta's f/3.5 G lens).  I actually use it very little, preferring to shoot "landscape" (whatever that means on a given day) from 50mm up (all of this on 35mm film).  I actually shoot scenics (since landscape implies wide angle !) more often at 400+ than at 20-.  I'm anticipating owning the new 7D soon, with its 1.5X crop factor ... the 17mm wide end will give me a 25.5 mm equivalent (or FOV for those who are somehow confused by this all-too-obvious usage) - probably wide enough for 95% of my nature photography.  I'll either haul around a film body at the same time in case I want to shoot wider, or I'll eventually pick up an ultrawide (thinking I'll wait for a Minolta branded lens for a while & consider the Sigma 12-24 if push comes to shove ... given that I've waited a couple years now for Minolta's DSLR, I don't tend to be too impatient with these things

- Dennis

[philthygeezer]

I used to adore my 24mm for broad landscapes, but now I have a 1.6x crop.  Am I giving up much with the 28mm of the 17-40mm f/4L?

Also, is the 17mm reeeallly 17mm on this lens?

[philthygeezer]

What does "the 28mm of the 17-40mm" mean?

Lens length is lens length and doesn't change.  Angle of view changes when the sensor size changes.  A 17mm lens will have the same angle of view on your camera as a 27mm lens on a full-frame camera.

I'm attempting to speak in effective focal length but was a bit too succinct.  By "the 28mm of the 17-40mm"  I mean the 28mm effective focal length at the 17mm end of the zoom.

In asking, "Also, is the 17mm reeeallly 17mm on this lens?",  I am asking if the real-world, non-effective focal length is 17mm at the short end, since my EF28-135 IS USM is really a 32 or 33 to ~128mm lens.  Manufacturers sometimes stretch the truth with zoom lenses.  If the 17-40 is really a 19-37 or something, then it is less of a jump from the 24mm lenses I already own.

[gmitchel]

What does "the 28mm of the 17-40mm" mean?

Lens length is lens length and doesn't change.  Angle of view changes when the sensor size changes.  A 17mm lens will have the same angle of view on your camera as a 27mm lens on a full-frame camera.

I'm attempting to speak in effective focal length but was a bit too succinct.  By "the 28mm of the 17-40mm"  I mean the 28mm effective focal length at the 17mm end of the zoom.

In asking, "Also, is the 17mm reeeallly 17mm on this lens?",  I am asking if the real-world, non-effective focal length is 17mm at the short end, since my EF28-135 IS USM is really a 32 or 33 to ~128mm lens.  Manufacturers sometimes stretch the truth with zoom lenses.  If the 17-40 is really a 19-37 or something, then it is less of a jump from the 24mm lenses I already own.

"Effective focal length" is a bit of a misnomer. It confuses people.

The 1.6x cropping factor on the 20D is just that. The 17-40mm lens has a FOV that ranges from 27mm to 64mm.

In every other way, the lens functions on a 20D like it would on a 1Ds Mk II or a film camera. Subject magnification is the same. So is DOF. "Effective focal length" leaves people with the impression they change on the 20D.

Is there a significant difference between a 17mm image uncropped and a 17mm image cropped so the FOV is the same as a 27mm lens? You bet! A big difference.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Graham Welland]

In a word, yes. Compositionally the wider effective focal length will give you more opportunity for these types of shot and you'll be able to take advantage of the closer distance that you can include in hyper-focal focussing type of compositions. (Alternatively I guess you could climb up a step ladder and give yourself an effective tilt to get a greater depth of field with the 24 - Scheimpflug effect and all that).

Personally, I still find 27/28 less than truly wide angle. If you want the equivalent of your 24mm (true 24mm) then you'll need a much wider angle lens than the zoom provides. With my Nikon 12-24 I find that, for all intents and purposes, it acts really like an 18-36 lens (all the effective vs real focal length, DOF issues etc are basically irrelevant navel gazing or if anything an advantage for wide angle types of use).

Why don't you rent one for the weekend and try it. Then, you'll know and it won't have cost you a bunch to find out whether it's for you or not.

[jd1566]

Question 1 - Is a 28mm enough for landscape.. Probably not, but as another post suggested this will depend on your personal style of shooting - However I believe a 24mm is your minimum wide angle, and 17-40 zoom is really nice on a full frame or film camera as going wide gives you great foreground to background depth with Billy Brant type photos.  I personally feel hemmed in with my 20D and 17-40mm, and am looking at various alternatives to get me past the 28mm effective field of view.

Question 2 - Is the 17mm REALLY 17mm?  Well, I got the 18-55mm lens together with the 20D in a kit and I can't tell them apart (ok the 17mm is SLIGHTLY wider, but imperceptible).  Obviously I am comparing them on a 20D so as if they are 28mm FOV - (or 27mm for nitpickers...)  On a full frame camera I'm not too sure if it goes all the way to 17mm, as a Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 lens that I had seemed slightly wider.  However the Sigma fell and the aperture mecanism broke so fixed it and sold it.
Most lenses are not EXACTLY their stated focal lengths and if you go to a site like Photodo you will see older lenses specified with their real focal lengths.  Unfortunately I haven't seen newer lenses analysed by them.. Running free sites is expensive when no one supports you...

Hope this helps more than the nitpicking nattering that goes on in these forums... :-)

[Sam NI]

Hope this helps more than the nitpicking nattering that goes on in these forums... :-)

Here, here!

 ::

[didger]

Um, I believe that's, "Hear Hear!

Tsk, tsk; I noticed this too, but I didn't want to nitpick or natter.  Maybe it was an intentional test.

[Sam NI]

[didger]

We need a razor sharp 15mm EF-S lens at any rate.

Ha, ha, ha.  We need all sorts of ultrawide stuff we ain't got, like sample to sample consistency, like sharp corners at short focal lengths for large sensor cameras.

Incidentally, I love the pic you posted; really nice.  Go ahead with no compromise lenses.  It'll work out (says someone who loves to spend other people's money).