For landscape 17-50 enough?

[twix]

Hello everyone,
I just like to get some opinnions on my 17 - 50 2.8 from tamron, what do you people`s think will it be wide enough for landscape? I use this lens on my 7D.
My problem is that I am not really that much into landscape, but my brother is coming next year over to OZ and I plan a trip to Ayers Rock and also to Cameron Corner, so their will be plenty of opportunitis to do some landscapes. Like always it is a bit of a money issue, because I do more wildlife and motorsports at least that is what I would like to do more in the future so I thought my next lens I save up for will be the canon 70-300L but with this trip coming up next year I do not know if I am not better off getting me a kind of 10-20 lens. And who knows maybe I like it that much that I will later on do more landscapes!
Cheers Klaus!

[arthurking83]

Always get the gear you are most likely to use!

You won't get the insane perspective that an ultra wide like 10mm will give you with one shot .. but if you still want to try that and don't mind a bit of extra work .. do multiple shot panoramas + stitching.

Do some now .. before you go on your trip!! and see what you need to do to get the image looking like you want them too.

Have a look at M$'s ICE software.(assuming you're a Windows user .. not tablet or Mac or something strange like that!)


But to answer your question:

17mm on APS-C is fine.

[twix]

Thanks Arthur for your advice!
I did not thought about stitching for panoramas!
I think I will try that and give it a go!
Maybe youtube can help me as well!

[ameerat42]

I'll 2nd AK's advice: get what you're likely to use.
About the perspective, stitching can begin to emulate a wide field lens.
Furthermore, when you do use a wide lens, say f=10mm, the image detail it records is not as great as that you would
record with a longer lens, say f=30mm, and a stitched series. - That's if you wish to record such detail. (Some people will call out
"pixel peeper", but it depends on what you want.)

Now just returning to "perspective", bear in mind that it matters not what focal length lens you use for a subject at a given distance.
What changes with focal length is the "field-of-view" you get. One other thing that MAY change is the apparent change in "perspective"
imparted by a wide lens with resultant distortions.

Anyway, enough talk. If you can afford a Σ10-20 you will probably NOT cry at the results. I will not suggest a Σ8-16 because you MIGHT cry at the cost.
(Actually, I didn't, but I'm tuff - and broke)

Oh, and PS: to actually answer your Q about whether 17-50 is "enough", well, it depends

[twix]

Thanks for your reply ameerat42!
Buy the way, you are not the only one who is broke ! Belive me, I am in the middle of a divorce!
Anyway, I think AK advice is a very good one I should try the pano stitching, and if I do not get it right, well, then maybe I can crop the pic`s from my 17-50 so it looks like a panorama shot! I still got enough time to try a few thinks out. Also I just joined a lokal photography club and there are a few guys are very handy with PC will see how all will works out!
Thanks guys for your help !
One more question while we are on the subject of Landscapes you reckon I should get me a Polerizing ore GND filter for the outback? It would make sence, or?

Cheers Klaus!

[in2fx]

Wide lens are always fun in the city and with landscapes