Need help picking new lenses..
I am planning to upgrade my lenses over the next few months. I have a Canon 20D and a Digital Rebel XT as backup. I shoot landscapes, nature, macros...mostly outdoors. I would love to hear everyone's three favorite landscape lenses and what percentage of the time you use them. Thanks for you help.
0
Comments
2. Your shooting habits seem very close to mine - landscapes, flower closeups (semi-macro), and occasionally macro with tubes. I started with a 24/105L, both for the IQ and ruggedness, but more importantly it covered almost the entire range in which I was interested. I then added a 17/55 EFS, to get more wide end. My next and likely last lens will be the Canon 10/22. I dont' "do" birds or other wildlife.
3. The only thing we don't know is your present lens selection.
I am still on my first round of lenses (ie: cheaper starter lenses). I will most likely go to Canon with my new lenses and "L" glass for some that I will use more often. The Canon 10-22 is probably a definite since I don't currently have a lens with the super wide angle. Here is what I currently have:
Canon 18-55 kit
Canon 75-300 F4-5.6
Tamron 28-75 F2.8
Sigma 28-300 (Junk - never use it)
Sigma 70-200 F2.8
I usually keep the Tamron on my camera for everyday use and it's a decent lens. I definitely want to repace the kit lens and am thinking about the 10-22 and another with a wider range than the Tamron (the 24-105 you mentioned is along the lines I was thinking). I used the Sigma 70-200 for sports and it's not a bad lens but it's too heavy and bulky to pack in my backpack for a long hike in the woods. I'm looking for something a little lighter (doesn't need to be 2.8). I'm torn between a 70-200 range and a 100-400 range. I have a 2x converter for my Sigma but rarely use it. Sorry, this may be more than you needed to know. Thanks for your help.
I also have a 20D and over the summer last year I bit the bullet and bought my two favorite lenses!!! The 16-35mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L. I have to say that I use the 16-35mm more than the 70-200. Before I got the two beauties I owned the 17-40mm L f4 and the 70-200mm L f4...both were great lenses (and a heck of a lot cheaper) but I needed the extra stops for shooting in low light.
So I guess if you don't need the extra stops, you might want to consider the 17-40mm f4 and the 70-200mm f4. Otherwise, you might want to check out the lens my hubby bought...the Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3. He's taken some great shots with it!
Good luck with whatever you decide!!!
Robyn
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
Thanks for the advice. The speed is one place that I'm really undecided. I shoot a lot of landscapes and on a windy day it's nice to have the extra stops to work with. However, I spend about 60% of my time shooting waterfalls and other moving water where it's sometimes easier to simply use a slower lens. The main reason I like to stick with the 2.8 is for those situations where I can't use a tripod. UGGHH! Sooner or later I'll figure it out. I just don't want to end up spending money on something that will sit in my bag and collect dust. Thanks again!
While the 24/105L is more aimed at FF cameras, it's range when combined with the Canon 10/22 would seem to cover the focal lengths it seems you are interested in.
I probably should have added the 10/22 to my 24/105 and had that same range, but I was swayed by the glowing reports of the 17/55 EFS lens and succumbed to it. I'm certainly not wishing I hadn't purchased it as it has easily lived up to expectations (other than the location of the zoom and focus rings, when I'm not looking at the lenses, I forget which one is on the camera - the results on the screen are virtually identical, and I often have to look at the EXIF data to tell which lens was used).
You might want to look act actual user comments about the 10/22 lens at:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
It's good to compare the different brands in one focal length range - generally I find there is a reason that Canon lenses cost more. If you look at my signature, the quote tells it all. But I think you already know this - you mention never using one piece of "junk".
You also said "UGH" about tripods - I find myself using mine quite often for landscapes and certainly for flower closeup stills. It's nice to take bracketed f/stop shots using the same focus to compare the results.
And for sunsets, which can last for an hour or so, a tripod is a godsend - set it up, level it, and fire away whenever the light and/or cloud pattern changes significantly; again the comparison of the same shot is useful. I used to hate tripods until I got my new one for Christmas (Manfrotto 190CLB + 486RC2 head).
Hmm, glad to hear this about the Tamron 18-200. I'm looking at a lens similar to that as my primary walk aroudn lens, as the majority of my shooting is done outside in decent lighting. I'll have the 32/f2.8 for my indoor available light shooting then.
I've used both the Canon and Tokina and ended up spending my money on the Tokina. The image quality is on par with the Canon and IMHO it's a nicer build (reminds me of my L glass). It's also $200 cheaper.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
My Ugh was actually directed toward figuring out what lenses are right for me. As for my tripod, I never leave home without it - especially for landscapes. I shoot a lot of waterfalls and the tripod is an absolute must. Thanks again for the advice. Most of the lenses you mentioned are the ones I'm looking at...now I just need to decide which combination to go with.