Canon 17-40 f4 v Tamron 17-50 f2.8 FOR LANDSCAPES

W

Whiters

Suspended / Banned
Messages
169
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently own a Tamron 17-50 (non-vc) but I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading to a Canon 17-40 f/4 L for my coastal landscape work? I use a 550d and 40d but may go up to full-frame when the funds allow! Will the 17-40 offer much advantage over the 17-50 on a crop camera? Better sharpness? Better depth-of-field? Better IQ?

I know there are already threads on here comparing the two lenses but I've found none that are specific to landscape work. I.e, the f2.8 over the f4 holds no advantage at all to me as I shoot at betweeen f11 and f22.

Thanks in advance for any help.
 
There is not much in it really. The canon will be weather sealed so thats one plus. It focuses faster, but that's irrelevant for you. Colours will be richer, so that's good.

But would you not see more gains if you get Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 to extend your range?
 
Whiters said:
I currently own a Tamron 17-50 (non-vc) but I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading to a Canon 17-40 f/4 L for my coastal landscape work? I use a 550d and 40d but may go up to full-frame when the funds allow! Will the 17-40 offer much advantage over the 17-50 on a crop camera? Better sharpness? Better depth-of-field? Better IQ?

I know there are already threads on here comparing the two lenses but I've found none that are specific to landscape work. I.e, the f2.8 over the f4 holds no advantage at all to me as I shoot at betweeen f11 and f22.

Thanks in advance for any help.
Click to expand...

I tried them both back to back and chose the Tamron.

Is landscape use so different from any other? A good lens will be a good lens no matter what you use it for and the DoF will be the same unless you use the Tamrons wider apertures or longer focal length that the Canon lens can't match.

Personally I think it's a no brainer even if you're thinking of going full frame sometime. Keep the Tamron and sell it if you do go FF. IMVHO going for a 17-40mm f4 wouldn't be an upgrade it'd be a downgrade.
 
woof woof said:
I tried them both back to back and chose the Tamron.

Is landscape use so different from any other? A good lens will be a good lens no matter what you use it for and the DoF will be the same unless you use the Tamrons wider apertures or longer focal length that the Canon lens can't match.

Personally I think it's a no brainer even if you're thinking of going full frame sometime. Keep the Tamron and sell it if you do go FF. IMVHO going for a 17-40mm f4 wouldn't be an upgrade it'd be a downgrade.
Click to expand...

^^^This.
 
I think the biggest factor you could change to improve across frame sharpness/IQ would be to start using F5.6-F8. Beyond F11, say F16 and F22 will cause diffraction which will start to noticeably soften the image.

I used to use the 17-50 for coastal landscapes and found F11 when focused carefully could give full front to back depth of field with f5.6 being used for most landscapes where foreground interest wasn't a factor. Indeed the Tammy is sharpest in the central region at F4 so don't discount 'some' scenes at F4 too!
 
Brazo said:
I think the biggest factor you could change to improve across frame sharpness/IQ would be to start using F5.6-F8. Beyond F11, say F16 and F22 will cause diffraction which will start to noticeably soften the image.

I used to use the 17-50 for coastal landscapes and found F11 when focused carefully could give full front to back depth of field with f5.6 being used for most landscapes where foreground interest wasn't a factor. Indeed the Tammy is sharpest in the central region at F4 so don't discount 'some' scenes at F4 too!
Click to expand...

Yes, I missed that on first reading. F/16 on APS-C is nowhere near optimum sharpness and f/22 is terrible. F/5.6 to 8 for preference, f/11 tops.
 
Don't know much about these two lenses, but not overly impressed with my Canon 17-55 for landscapes at its widest end albeit it's a cracking lens for other uses.

Might be better off going down the wide angle route although unless its a prime likely to be an EF-S fitting.

Canon 10-22mm is very good in my opinion and totally agree about not going above f/11, magnify in live view to check it's sharp, DOF preview works well in live view too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice guys, I think you've all saved me a fair bit of money there! I'll stick with my Tamron for now, I'm reasonably happy with the shots I've been getting anyway, although I'll perhaps opening up the aperture a bit as suggested.

What I should have said in my original post is that I already have a super wide angle, the Sigma 10-20, so that's not a consideration. Just wondered if the Canon 17-40 was worth replacing the Tamron with, but on balance it probably isn't.
 
Whiters said:
Thanks for the advice guys, I think you've all saved me a fair bit of money there! I'll stick with my Tamron for now, I'm reasonably happy with the shots I've been getting anyway, although I'll perhaps opening up the aperture a bit as suggested.

What I should have said in my original post is that I already have a super wide angle, the Sigma 10-20, so that's not a consideration. Just wondered if the Canon 17-40 was worth replacing the Tamron with, but on balance it probably isn't.
Click to expand...

Really the only reasons to replace it are I'd say if your planning on upgrading to a full frame body or a body with weather sealing and want a lens to match, some 7D users go with the 17-40mm for the latter reason for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top