Using the 17-55 for landscapes

It seems that every couple of months, someone makes a post to the effect that "the 17-55 is a great lens for photojournalism, but it's useless for landscapes." I'd like to start a thread in which we discuss our experiences in using the 17-55 for landscapes at various focal lengths, and what techniques we may need to use to compensate for some of its known quirks and/or shortcomings (if, in fact, you see the lens as having such quirks and shortcomings).

The latest thread I've seen where such opinions have been expressed is here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=33731746
and the linked thread on the Olympus forum here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33727830

To quote a few excerpts from the more negative posts on the Oly forum:

• "The Nikon 17-55/2.8 lens is an amazing lens in so many ways, but one thing its also well known for - it basically sucks at distances over 100 feet."
• "my kit lens is sharpe than the nikkor 17-55 lol"
• "The 17-55 is a weird retrofocal design. It is best at wide apertures and poor when stopped down Infinity is not good on this lens as it is not intended to be used for distance shots."
• "the Nikkor DX 17-55 2.8 is a lens for photo journalists, optimized for medium distance. It was designed in the time where Nikon thought that APS-C would be their professional format. The build quality is tank like - that is way it is so expensive. The curvature of field, not uncommon in fast lenses (remember it is 2.8 even at the long end), makes it less than optimal for shots at long distance, especially in the corners, where the 18-55 Nikkor kit lens outperforms it.

At close and medium distance it is extremly sharp with outstanding contrast, but it is not the best choice for judging typical Nikkor lens performance at infinity."

Since the example 17-55 crops shown on the Oly forum are outstandingly bad, and I do not have any information about the overall picture or shooting conditions that produced such poor results, I am going to kick this thread off with four additional posts. In each of these, I will show a landscape shot using the 17-55 at a different focal length: 35mm, 22mm, 55mm, and 17mm. All the examples I'll show were shot from the same spot (although two different elevations), and none of them employed such compensation techniques as the well known "beyond infinity" manual focus technique often employed with this lens at wide angles. I'll also show three 100% crops for each example, so that you can get an idea of the performance variation that I've seen with focal length.

I'd welcome comments on my own posts, of course, but I would hope that others might be able to post their own examples, for good or bad, and information on the technical datas and any special shooting techniques employed, so that we all might gain better insights into how the 17-55 can be better used for landscape shooting.

I'll follow this post with Example 1.

Ray

The four examples I'll show were all shot in Prague this past May, from the tower on top of Petrin Hill, which overlooks the city. It was a cloudy day, no blue sky at all, and the shots were all made at about 11am, so the conditions, while not ideal for beautiful landscapes were actually pretty good for capturing detail. All are single-shot raw NEF captures, rendered in Lightroom, and then imported into Photoshop CS3 for a light touch of pseudo-HDR (to bring out the cloud detail) and the second stage of my normal sharpening workflow.

The first example was shot at 35mm, the mid-range of the 17-55mm. I remember someone here once commented that the 17-55 is best thought of as a very flexible 35mm lens, and I agree generally with that comment. In my experience, 35mm and up is the sweetest range of the lens. Here's the shot, taken at f/11, 1/200 sec., and ISO 200. I was shooting from the first observation deck of the Petrin tower.



and here are three crops:

Lower right corner:



Middle left edge crop:



Middle right side crop:



In this case, the point of focus was the towers of the monastery. Because of the small aperture, however, the lens holds pretty good detail at infinity, at the expense of perhaps a slight amount of diffraction softening in the foreground foliage compared to some of the other examples I'll post.

Ray Ritchie

Shortly after I purchased the lens some year ago I read about the 17-55/2.8's fall off in performance at distance. I beleive that claim is true, the 17-55/2.8 is not much of a peformer for landscapes, at least not to the level one should expect from such an expensive lens. My 24-90/3.5-4.5 on a Pentax ist-D outperformed the 17-55/2.8 on a D200. However, for work at up to 20-30 feet the 17-55/2.8 is wonderful.

Here's a wider angle shot of basically the same scene as Example 1, again at f/11 and ISO 200, but now at 1/160 sec:



I don't have any notes on my shooting that day, but I'm pretty sure that the focus point was again the towers, though I may have used a focus-and-recompose, which would affect the edge results. Here are the crops:

Center:



Lower right:



Middle left edge:



In this case, I see some slight smearing of the detail from the left edge, which is a result of the "residual sperical abberations" (I think that's the term) which this lens exhibits from about 17-24 mm. The amount of distortion depends on focal length, aperture, and focus point. However, I don't think the distortion is much of an issue on this particular shot, and it would be almost undetectable in a print.

Ray

Can you post an example of why you don't consider the 17-55 good for landscapes? I'm trying to understand specific problems people have seen, and general comments don't really add much insight as to where the problems may arise. At least, can you comment on whether the problems you've experienced have been only at the wide end, or across the entire focal length range?

Ray

The example below was shot from the upper observation deck at the top of the tower. I was jostling with a bunch of schoolkids for shooting room at the windows, so it's really just a snapshot, but it did capture a lot of sharp distant detail. Shot at 55mm, f/8, 1/400 sec., and ISO 200.



Center crop:



Lower right:



Middle right:



At 55 mm and f/8, I see negligible difference in sharpness from edge-to-edge. The curvature of the focus field doesn't play a big role at this focal length, so I can use f/8 rather than f/11, and the details are slightly sharper. BTW, I could have also used f/8 at 35mm and might have gotten slightly sharper results there - but I just didn't. I was on vacation, and my wife was waiting for me at the base of the tower, so I wasn't thinking about shooting a series of test shots.

Ray Ritchie

This last shot is looking toward the old town of Prague, with the Charles Bridge lying in the center. I definitely should have shot it at f/11, to improve the edge performance, but it's somewhat lucky that I didn't, as it gives me an opportunity to point out some of the quirks of the lens. First, here's the overall image, taken at f/8, 17mm, 1/320 sec. and ISO 200:



Again, I'm not sure about my exact target, but I believe it was the Charles Bridge/ Vltava River area in the center of the photo. Here's the center crop:



Here's the middle left edge:



and here's the middle right:



The smearing, or muddiness which I mentioned in Example 2 is now clearly evident in these two edge crops, enough so that it can be seen on close inspection of large prints. Had I been taking more time for these shots I would have used f/10 or f/11, and I would probably have used the "beyond infinity" manual focus method, rather than AF. But overall, this shot is actually still quite useable - just not as good as it could have been.

My overall conclusion from these examples is that I still see the 17-55 as quite useful for landscape work, especially from 22mm up, and actually exhibits excellent sharpness across the frame at focal lengths from about 28mm and up. It's a little weaker edge-to-edge at 17mm, but that can be somewhat compensated with careful choice of aperture and focus technique, and the composition of the shot can often be arranged to make the known quirks of the lens less critical. Because this lens is so good for closer work, and quite serviceable at landscape distances, it's usually the only lens I carry in the normal range.

Ray

I'll share my experience with the 17-55, although unfortunately I have no examples to share to back me up on what I didn't like about the lens, and what made me decide to return it.

I had purchased one last spring, with a two week window for return, which let me test it fairly thoroughly. I was hoping to apply it to general landscape use on a D200, with the bulk of the use on the lower end of the range, 17-35.

During the course of trying it out, I didn't find a single shot when pressed into use for landscape photography that impressed me. A distinct fuzziness seemed to be my impression, even into the center of the lens, and corners were downright muddy at times. After a bit of research, I also tried applying the manual focusing techniques that I found here and elsewhere. Technique wasn't really in question, as I did my best to eliminate any possible user error in focus, as well as using a (far too heavy for my back) stable platform with mlu and a cable release.

In the end, although I've seen landscape photos from this lens that seemed to indicate that it is capable of performing well, I could never get the copy I had to do well at all for landscape use, and since that was my whole reason for purchasing it, I returned it.

However, while I had it, I did find it performed well closer up, in PJ style shooting, which supports other claims I've heard. I also found it worked well on close-up nature work, I took it to a greenhouse while it was in my possession, and took some beautiful flower shots, with creamy backgrounds and a really nice pop to the colors.

While I often press my Tokina 12-24/f4 and Nikon 10.5 into service for landscapes, sometimes I use the 17-55. This was taken in the Swiss Alps, at 55mm, f/7.1



and the same scene at 17mm, f/8

Ray

Thanks for the the posts and the hard work you put in.

I have to be honnest, I do not find the pictures you posted as sharp as I would prefer them to be.

I might need a rest and take a second look at it in the morning.

I just bought the 24-70 last week for my D700 and I have another week to evaluate the lens before I can return it. So far I am pleased with the results but I have not used it for landscape very much. I hope and expect that its a much better performer.

I was very disappointed with the 17-55mm for landscape work for sharpness.The colours were great but that was it.Its a great lens for close up/low light work and the build quality is superb.I sold mine for the 16-85 and I am happy with my decision(For landscape work and general walkaround).The 35mm 1.8 is just as sharp for close up work at a tenth of the price.

Cheers
Bruce
SA

I use the 17-55 2.8 a lot, but mostly for studio still-life, product shots and closeup (non-macro) outdoor flower pics..all at which it performs very well.

I do take landscape/scenic pics with it too (and I concure with others here) that both the optical-clarity and line/edge definition (ie: sharpness) are not stellar.

It's decent, but not great. However, the colours are good and maintain consistancy throught the different shooting styles, etc.

Here's a link to landscape/scenic gallery that I recently took with the 17-55 2.8
http://kvincentphotography.ca/landscapes

and one more here:
http://kvincentphotography.ca/governmenthouse

Cheers,

KEV

It doesn't like the sun, it flares rather easily. Distortion is about the same as the 18-55mm VR lens. It bothers me at the short end (barrel). Even at night I prefer to use my 16-85mm, it is slower, but the image quality is better wide open, and the VR compensates for slow shutter speeds. The 16-85mm has much less distortion and doesn't flare as much.

When it's raining, it's another story as the 17-55mm has a big and excellent lens hood. It shields the front element from the rain and there is no sun to worry about for flare. So then I would use the 17-55mm for landscapes.

--
Adrian Diaz

I am not as happy with the 17-55 as I thought I would be. It is GREAT for flash pictures at events. And it does fine in other instances, but again, it seems to lack the decisive knock-out punch on a consistent basis (why?). My experience has been kind of hit and miss for "landscape" type shooting. I think the lens is happiest in the f/4, f/5.6 and f/8 aperture range. It seems that if you stop-down more than that (and often people will for landscape shots -- thiniking they need maximum DOF) there are no real benefits and it might counterproductive. Yet there have been many times when the 17-55 surprised me with a lot of depth and zip -- even when shooting "normal" subject matter (in the aforemetioned aperture range):











--
JF

1971_M5 said:

1971_M5 wrote:

I think the lens is happiest in the f/4, f/5.6 and f/8 aperture range. It seems that if you stop-down more than that (and often people will for landscape shots -- thiniking they need maximum DOF) there are no real benefits and it might counterproductive.

Click to expand...

The 17-55 is great stopped down in the studio, closeup kinda range - I frequently use f/22 for my still-life and designer floral shots (see links below most shots taken with the 17-55)...but, as you say, for landscape range anything smaller than say f/11 and it's definitely not as crisp and the optical clarity starts to decline.

http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life

KEV

Whilst the others look fine, I have to say, the 17mm samples are disappointing, Ray - I really think my 18-70mm gave better results at 18mm than that. The 55mm samples, however, do look great to me - far better than anything I got from my 18-70mm at 50mm for that kind of thing.

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/

Hi Ray!
I bought my AF 17-55/2.8 in april 2005 (in combo with D200).

Now I'm about to get rid of it because I bought D700, and I have a lot of FF primes.

Most of the times I made use of 17-55 during my trips (landscapes, street photos etc).

I've been really satisfied of his performances (also for landscapes), and it's a surprise for me to read that it is considered a not good performer for long distance shots.

In this moment I'm not able to post some picture taken with it (no access to my files from the terminal I'm writing).
I will share some example next monday or tuesday.

--
FabioMassimo

martinch said:

Whilst the others look fine, I have to say, the 17mm samples are disappointing, Ray - I really think my 18-70mm gave better results at 18mm than that. The 55mm samples, however, do look great to me - far better than anything I got from my 18-70mm at 50mm for that kind of thing.

Click to expand...

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not trying to say this is the best the lens can do, and I'm certainly not saying this is a great result at 17mm (though at smaller print sizes it's been fine).

I don't have an axe to grind here, and don't have the 18-70, so I can't comment on that. I will say that the results at 17mm are strongly dependent on the position of the point of focus in the frame. I have other results at 17mm that are much better, but chose to show this one as part of a sequence because the edge smearing is something that happens with this lens, and I think people should be aware of it.

BTW, if you can get around to posting examples from the 18-70 you think are better, along with relevant crops, that would be very interesting.

Here's a 17mm example that is much better:



In that shot, the point of focus (the bridge) was higher in the frame, and the aperture was f/10. I've made and sold large prints of this one, and the only detectable impairment is some softness in the trees on the left edge and the area around the right end of the bridge. The foreground rocks, however, are in absolutely perfect focus, as is the center of the shot, giving a really great overall impression. Unfortunately, I don't have any 100% crops of this one online at this time.

Ray

bbrault said:

Ray

Thanks for the the posts and the hard work you put in.

I have to be honnest, I do not find the pictures you posted as sharp as I would prefer them to be.

I might need a rest and take a second look at it in the morning.

Click to expand...

If you can post comparable results, with 100% crops, from some other lens at similar apertures and focal lengths, that would be very valuable. I don't personally have experience with any lens that gives better performance in the 26-55mm range, so I can't comment on the "not as sharp as I would like them to be" issue.

bbrault said:

I just bought the 24-70 last week for my D700 and I have another week to evaluate the lens before I can return it. So far I am pleased with the results but I have not used it for landscape very much. I hope and expect that its a much better performer.

Click to expand...

Examples from the 24-70 would be very interesting. Please do post the edge crops at 24mm, though, as well as the center.

Ray

Hi Ray,

I don't think I'm misunderstanding you (or at least I hope I'm not!) - I just took them to be "typical use" examples. I had heard that the 17-55mm was bad for landscapes at the wide end, but I kind of dismissed it, and all of your examples except for the 17mm ones didn't seem to correlate with this. I was just genuinely surprised at the results at 17mm - I haven't used it in an age (I have a 12-24mm and 16-85mm now), and I don't think I've used it on the wide end at infinity, but I thought I got better results than those crops with my 18-70mm.

I'll have to have a look and see if I can find any appropriate comparison images - I don't have any full-size ones at work.

I'm not trying to "slag off" the 17-55mm - it's a lens that I've very nearly bought on several occasions, as I love the build, but I'm not sure about the restricted range.

P.S. Nice image of the bridge

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/