17-40 L or 24-105L for landscapes

Started Jan 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
akustykmagmanetpl Contributing Member • Posts: 764
Re: 17-40 L or 24-105L for landscapes

BristolBorn wrote:

Which is your preference? Obviously the 17-40 would benefit the ultra wide shot but the difference between 40 and 105 could be useful for certain shots.

Which would be your preference?

in FF camera?

that depends on the angle of view required for the scene

for 17-24mm -  that's an easy one

between 24 and 32mm on tripod - it's still 17-40. less sharpness in center, but better geometry and decent corners (24-105 is crap below 32mm).

between 24 and 32mm handheld - quite often 24-105 if there's not enough light to keep T shorter than 1/60s. and suck it up when it comes to corner quality of 24-105

between 32mm and 40mm without direct ligth sources - 24-105

between 32mm and 40mm with direct ligth sources - 17-40

above 40mm - you guessed that one right, scout

in short - 24-105 is really better above 32mm which isn't that great choice for typical landscape work. 17-40 has less detail than 24-105 but is more consistent corner to corner.

ultimately choice comes down to what kind of scenery I'm photographing, i.e. focal length. on average I think I shoot about 50-50 landscapes with both those lenses...

 akustykmagmanetpl's gear list:akustykmagmanetpl's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel T6i Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow