Landscape Lens Recommendations

fotog1960

I currently own a Canon 40D and have contemplated moving up to full frame but the $$$ is keeping me from that upper end until a later date. I currently own the Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM lens and I am looking for a complimentary lens. I have looked at a number of lenses including the following

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 DC HSM

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 AT-X 116 Pro ( May not have enough range)

Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM (Has very good reviews)

Above are a few under consideration but I am looking for any feedback for an APS-C camera lens in combination with the 70-200. I shoot mainly outdoor landscape/nature.

Any help would be appreciated as I am going to Yellowstone in April.

Bob

Stumblebum

Bob, I haven't used any of those lens. However, I can tell you based on personal experience what would work best amongst given choices. You don't want to have pure wide-angle as extreme wide is rarely needed and not having ability to play in standard zoom range is extremely frustrating. The IS is a great feature and so is f 2.8 and you are getting most of standard zoom with the Canon EF-S.

Depending on what kind of outdoors stuff you do, weight of lens should also be taken into account if you want to do long hikes and climbs. The focal length of 55 will come in very handy in Yellow stone. In fact I would say, most of the action happens in 25-70 range, and if you take pure wide angle you would need a third complimentary lens to cover that range. Whatever you choose, hope it works out for you.

philiphutson

fotog1960 wrote: »

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 DC HSM

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 AT-X 116 Pro ( May not have enough range)

Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM (Has very good reviews)

I have not used any of these lenses but.
My bag includes a 17-40, 70-200 and 28-70 (poor quality that I rarely use)
I personally would get the 10-22 (not that I have any experience with it). For an upcoming trip I would buy the wide angle and rent something in between. I have a Samy's camera not far that I can rent from and have on occasion. If you don't have any one close to rent from talk to borrow lens.
-Philip

kdog

I've owned the Canon EFS 10-22 as well as the EFS 17-55. Both are outstanding lenses. I'm a wide-angle kind of guy and could never be without the super wide of a 10mm on a crop body or 16mm on a full frame. However, if you had to pick one, the 17-55 is a far more versatile range for general photography, and probably landscapes as well. But you really want to eventually get a superwide as well. It'll change your way of looking at the world.

R.Jay

I use a 7D and have both the 17-55 which is what I keep on the body most of the time, it is quite a weighty lens, but very versatile. And the 10-22 which I have only had for a while and only use when the situation requires it. Like yourself - my main subjects are landscape / nature.

Cheers, Richard

Earache

The 17-40mm f4L is a highly regarded landscape lens... mine is super sharp, such that, when I focus correctly, I don't do any sharpening in post to avoid the "over-sharpened" look.
No IS, but that is less critical in daylight or tripod exposures - (relatively) lightweight also.

Davis B

I have the 10-22 and love it. A bit of knowledge, The 10-22 has the same UD glass that is found in the "L" lenses, but since its a EF-S designation it is not labled as such. Canon thinking is "L" glass is designed for FF Cameras and not the Crop bodies. So in essence you have an "L" lens at a crop body price.

Let me see if I can attach some samples

black mamba

Ideally, you'll be eventually adding two more lenses: something in the 35 - 70 range and something in the 20 - 35 range. Depending on your subject range, you may one day get something above the 200 mm limit you now have.

Over the years, I've acquired a bag full of high-end Nikon glass. Interestingly, the one lens that is my trusty workhorse is the Tokina 20 - 35 F2.8 ATX Pro. I also have the Tokina 11 - 16 F2.8 ATX Pro ( not a range I employ often but the lens is superb ). These two Tokina lenses snuck their way into my bag because they are positively outstanding in color rendition and clarity / sharpness.

Tom

roaddog52

I only have experience with the 10-22 and as it has been said by others, the glass is superior. If I still had a crop sensor body this lens would still be in my arsenal.

joe-bob

Davis - Great shots.

Stumblebum

Yeah...I would love to get water looking like glass in shot #2 above!

Cornflake

I'm also a big fan of the Canon 17-40L. If you do decide to get a full-frame camera, I think it will still work. I have a Tamron 10-24 for ultrawide shots. It seldom gets used, but in some circumstances the very wide angle is essential, and the Tamron is a fine lens for the price.

sapphire73

The only one of these lenses that I have (and use) is the 10-22 lens. I bought it before a trip to Alaska in 2009 and always make room for this lens when vacationing somewhere like Hawaii, Colorado Rockies, Big Sur, etc. It is a great landscape lens! But it's not a walk around lens, and I can see why you are considering some other options to complement your 70-200 lens.

Two examples of shots taken with this lens:

Rainbow on Captiva Island in Florida, USA (at 10mm using Canon 7D)


Blea Tarn, Lake District in the United Kingdom (at 11mm with Canon T4i)

RyRit

Look into the canon 16-35 in the event that you ever get a full frame that may only accept EF(not S) you will be able to use it and truly enjoy a great landscape lens. It is one of my favorite lenses. And it has a fixed 2.8!


great MFD
(yes, DOF and focus are a bit off but you can still tell)

Taken at 35mm to cut out other photographers and fishermen

bristlecone

Hi,
I'm a big fan of the 17-40 f4L. Very sharp lens, works well with 1.7 chip, I used it for years with a few sxi and t3i bodies.

photodad1

17-55mm F2.8 IS. It's a great lens.

PixelCharm

Fairly new, but recently upgraded from the Rebel 4ti to the 6D full frame - word to the wise, whatever you buy for a lens, stick with the EF lens. You cannot use the EF-2 lens on a full frame - the EF lens is a little more, but at least you won't be throwing your money away

denisegoldberg

fotog1960 wrote: »

Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM

I'm very happy with my 10-22 lens, used initially on a 40D and later on a 7D.

I was in Yellowstone in 2012, and a lot of my photos were taken with this lens. For the most part I flipped between the 10-22 and the 24-105.

PixelCharm wrote: »

Fairly new, but recently upgraded from the Rebel 4ti to the 6D full frame - word to the wise, whatever you buy for a lens, stick with the EF lens. You cannot use the EF-2 lens on a full frame - the EF lens is a little more, but at least you won't be throwing your money away

Ah, but the Canon EF-S 10-22 is a sweet lens. I would recommend this one unless you're planning to upgrade to full frame in the near term. If you do upgrade, sell the lens along with the body.

--- Denise

kdog

PixelCharm wrote: »

Fairly new, but recently upgraded from the Rebel 4ti to the 6D full frame - word to the wise, whatever you buy for a lens, stick with the EF lens. You cannot use the EF-2 lens on a full frame - the EF lens is a little more, but at least you won't be throwing your money away

But then you're preventing yourself from taking super-wide angle shots as there are no EF lenses whiich cover the super-wide range on a crop-body. Look at all the outstanding super-wide angle shots that have been posted in this thread to see what you'd be missing.

denisegoldberg wrote: »

Ah, but the Canon EF-S 10-22 is a sweet lens. I would recommend this one unless you're planning to upgrade to full frame in the near term. If you do upgrade, sell the lens along with the body.

--- Denise

I agree completely. One could pick up a used 10-22, use it for a couple of years and sell it for what you paid for it.

jsrucci

Yellowstone & lens recommendation

fotog1960 wrote: »

I currently own a Canon 40D and have contemplated moving up to full frame but the $$$ is keeping me from that upper end until a later date. I currently own the Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM lens and I am looking for a complimentary lens. I have looked at a number of lenses including the following

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 DC HSM

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 AT-X 116 Pro ( May not have enough range)

Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM (Has very good reviews)

Above are a few under consideration but I am looking for any feedback for an APS-C camera lens in combination with the 70-200. I shoot mainly outdoor landscape/nature.

Any help would be appreciated as I am going to Yellowstone in April.

Bob

For what it's worth, I own both the Canon 10-22, and the 17-55 for my 7D and love them both. In fact, the 17-55 tends to stay on the body most of the time. I love the 10-22 for landscape shots, which are my main focus. I'm jealous of you going to Yellowstone. We were there in May 2009 and it is by far my favorite National Park, of all the ones we've been to out west. Hopefully all the roads will be plowed and opened for you in April. The year we went, they were barely done in May but it all depends on the weather. This year's longer lasting winter may complicate things, so keep watching the NPS web site for info. If you are interested, here's a link to the shots from my trip back then (unfortunately was still using my 20D back then, and did not have either of the lenses mentioned here), but made do with what I had....

http://www.steverucci.com/Travel/Yellowstone-etc-May-2009#!/

Good luck with your trip!

duceduc

I,too, am looking into getting another lens. I have the 10-22 as well and need another lens to for tighter shots. The lens I am looking at is either the 17-55 or the 24-105L. I can't decide which to get since both are great lens from what I have read.

Between the two, which one produces better IQ and sharper image?

Here is a shot I took from Tokyo near Disneyland the day after a heavy snow fall.

kdog

duceduc wrote: »

I,too, am looking into getting another lens. I have the 10-22 as well and need another lens to for tighter shots. The lens I am looking at is either the 17-55 or the 24-105L. I can't decide which to get since both are great lens from what I have read.

Between the two, which one produces better IQ and sharper image?

I have them both and they're both great lenses. Between the two of them, you'd never know which lens you used by looking at the shots produced. There simply isn't enough of a difference to tell. So you need to look at other criteria. For landscapes, I'd say get the 24-105 for two reasons. First, you have a much wider zoom range with the 24-105. Second, if you ever upgrade to a full-frame camera, the 24-105 can go with you. The EF-S is for crop-bodies only. 24 is fairly wide for a crop-body, but you have the wider range covered by your 10-22. Most likely you would want to always carry both lenses. If carrying just one lens is important to you, the 17-55 is a much more usable range, especially for landscapes where 25mm is actually kind of long on a crop-body. But for me personally, 17 often isn't wide enough for me on a crop body. All in all, I'm guessing the 24-105 might be the better lens for you.

The single big advantage to the EF-S 17-55 is the f/2.8 aperture. You really need this for indoor events, which you didn't say was important to you. It's also better for night sky photography. The 24-105 is f/4, which is pretty slow for astro, IMO. Plus it's not generally wide enough for that purpose.

duceduc

I was leaning towards the 105. Most of my shots are outside landscape mainly. The 105 would be a better choice for me for the extra zoom.

renzero

I think my fave is still Canon 16-35 and 24-70

achambers

I have a 10-22 and I love it. As mentioned above you are getting 'L' glass. I have used mine for architectural as well as landscapes, an excellent lens.


10mm, 6/10, f8, iso400



21mm, 1/8, f8, iso1000