Lens Advice

dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
edited July 14, 2008 in Cameras
I use the new Canon XSi, 17-85 IS, 70-200 F4, 300 F/4 IS 1.4 TC. I want a good wide angle lens for landscape shots etc.

If money were no object, what would you recommend. Or, should I use my 17-85 because the quality difference between it and say a 10-22 f/3.5 L is not that great????

Thanks,

Dan :D
Dan
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page

Comments

  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    Your choices are:

    Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6 EX
    Canon 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 EF-S
    Tokina 12-24mm/4.0 AT-X DX

    They are all very similar, pick one
    repending on your preferences.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • kini62kini62 Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    Add the Tokina 11-16/2.8 to that list. Supposed to be the best of the bunch.
    Manfr3d wrote:
    Your choices are:

    Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6 EX
    Canon 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 EF-S
    Tokina 12-24mm/4.0 AT-X DX

    They are all very similar, pick one
    repending on your preferences.
  • greenpeagreenpea Registered Users Posts: 880 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    kini62 wrote:
    Add the Tokina 11-16/2.8 to that list. Supposed to be the best of the bunch.

    A couple of weeks ago, I picked up a Tokina 11-16/2.8 (for Nikon). Super sharp, fast, well built, love the lens. Prior to that I had been borrowing a friend's Tokina 12-24/4 also a great lens.
    Andrew
    initialphotography.smugmug.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera" - Dorothea Lange
  • CameronCameron Registered Users Posts: 745 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    I own the Canon 10-22mm and LOVE it. Very sharp, good build quality. My brother owns the 4/3 mount version of the Sigma 10-20 and that is also a spectacular lens.

    To help you see the difference between the 17mm you currently have at the wide end and what 10mm would look like, I took a photo at each focal length using my 10-22mm. This is just out my back door so the subject matter is boring, but it demonstrates the difference in the field of view. ;)

    17mm
    329498626_LHPyd-L.jpg


    10mm
    329498421_wWKLJ-L.jpg
    Photos
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited July 10, 2008
    dlplumer wrote:
    I use the new Canon XSi, 17-85 IS, 70-200 F4, 300 F/4 IS 1.4 TC. I want a good wide angle lens for landscape shots etc.

    If money were no object, what would you recommend. Or, should I use my 17-85 because the quality difference between it and say a 10-22 f/3.5 L is not that great????

    Thanks,

    Dan :D

    Dan,

    In the ranges where they overlap, I find the image quality to be better on the EF-S 10-22 than on the 17-85. But more importantly, the difference between 10mm and 17mm is huge. 17 is a wide lens. However, 10mm gives you a whole new way of looking at the world.

    Aside from simply having a wider view, you can do some creative stuff with the wide-angle distortion. Here's an example that sort of illustrates my point.

    IMG_8709.jpg

    -joel
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    clap.gif Thanks everyone. Very helpful. I had seen some Amazon reviews that suggest the 10-22 is soft in the corners, but from what I see and from what you all suggest, it is a good choice. I'd prefer to stay with Canon, and I like that it is an L quality lens.

    Thanks Cameron for sharing the differences in focal length. Mighty generous of you. And Joel, that is one great shot clap.gif
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited July 10, 2008
    Psst, the Canon EF-S 10-22 isn't an L lens.
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    kdog wrote:
    Psst, the Canon EF-S 10-22 isn't an L lens.

    Right ne_nau.gif Sorry about that.

    It is the 17-40 that is an L lens. Soooooo, should I get the 10-22 or the 17-40 given that I already own the 17-85 IS
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited July 10, 2008
    dlplumer wrote:
    Right ne_nau.gif Sorry about that.

    It is the 17-40 that is an L lens. Soooooo, should I get the 10-22 or the 17-40 given that I already own the 17-85 IS
    The 17-85 is not a bad lens at all. I honestly don't see the 17-40L in your future. I'd go with the 10-22 which will allow you to capture things you can't capture now. For example, the 10-22 captures an entire room by standing in the corner. Or it will allow you to capture your whole back yard from a corner. That sort of stuff. When we were in the slot canyons, my shooting partner (anwmn1) was jealous that I was able to get much wider than him, and so he bought a 7mm zoom eek7.gif (Olympus).

    When you do decide that you need better quality in the 17+ range, I'd go with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's oh so sweet. (I can almost hear Ziggy typing now in agreement. :giggle )
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • CameronCameron Registered Users Posts: 745 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    kdog wrote:
    The 17-85 is not a bad lens at all. I honestly don't see the 17-40L in your future. I'd go with the 10-22 which will allow you to capture things you can't capture now. For example, the 10-22 captures an entire room by standing in the corner. Or it will allow you to capture your whole back yard from a corner. That sort of stuff. When we were in the slot canyons, my shooting partner (anwmn1) was jealous that I was able to get much wider than him, and so he bought a 7mm zoom eek7.gif (Olympus).

    When you do decide that you need better quality in the 17+ range, I'd go with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's oh so sweet. (I can almost hear Ziggy typing now in agreement. :giggle )

    15524779-Ti.gif

    I'm not Ziggy, but I wholeheartedly agree!! You'll be much happier expanding your range than duplicating it. The 17-85 is weakest (has most distortion) near 17mm so the duplication at that end isn't a bad thing.

    When/if you start to feel limited by the quality of your 17-85 you can think about upgrading that, but for now GO FOR THE 10-22mm!
    Photos
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited July 10, 2008
    CSwinton wrote:
    15524779-Ti.gif

    I'm not Ziggy, but I wholeheartedly agree!! You'll be much happier expanding your range than duplicating it.

    I'm glad we agree. :D

    BTW, just to be clear, my comment about Ziggy was directed towards the recommendation of the EFS 17-55, which I know Ziggy is a big fan of, and not the 10-22.

    Cheers,
    -joel
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    Thanks very much guys. That makes a lot of sense. :D
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2008
    If money is no object and you want the most versatile UWA lens, then I'd say the Canon 10-22.

    If money is an object, then the Sigma 10-20.

    If you are wiling to compromise the 10mm end and versatility for pure resolution power, then I'd say Tokina 11-16.
    My Gallery
  • greenpeagreenpea Registered Users Posts: 880 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    If money is no object and you want the most versatile UWA lens, then I'd say the Canon 10-22.

    If money is an object, then the Sigma 10-20.

    If you are wiling to compromise the 10mm end and versatility for pure resolution power, then I'd say Tokina 11-16.

    I believe the Tokina is the only f2.8 of the bunch.
    Andrew
    initialphotography.smugmug.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera" - Dorothea Lange
  • faust0maticfaust0matic Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins
    edited July 12, 2008
    Well, if you're shooting a lot in low light, the Canon 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 EF-S is OK, but not great. I get maybe 1 keeper for every 20-30 shots. However, I love this lens. I was sad to see it go, but my new primary body is a 1D MKIIn, so it's useless to me now. If I had not switched to an APS-H camera, I'd have held onto that lens forever. As for it being L glass, it is not an L lens. But, I did read a review of it and the guy called Canon and asked. He was told that the glass is L quality, but the lack of weatherproofing and the EFS status keep it from getting an L rating. Assuming this is true, that is. I had no complaints with this lens.
    http://www.faustomatic.com
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited July 13, 2008
    Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16 compared.
    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1022v1116
    My Gallery
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited July 13, 2008
    If money were no object
    :D

    Which it always is...mwink.gif

    Then...

    ...get the 5D and a 16-35L...:wow
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited July 13, 2008
    Ric Grupe wrote:
    :D

    Which it always is...mwink.gif

    Then...

    ...get the 5D and a 16-35L...:wow
    Why the 5 D over the 40D or the 1D or the new 5 D if it ever shows up?
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited July 13, 2008
    dlplumer wrote:
    Why the 5 D over the 40D or the 1D or the new 5 D if it ever shows up?

    Any full frame.

    The 5D can be had relatively inexpensive until the 19th when the rebate expires.
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited July 13, 2008
    Ric Grupe wrote:
    :D

    Which it always is...mwink.gif

    Then...

    ...get the 5D and a 16-35L...:wow
    Nope, 1DsMIII and 14mm prime.
    My Gallery
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited July 14, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    Nope, 1DsMIII and 14mm prime.
    You mean, 1DsIII and 8mm circular fisheye? :D
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • faust0maticfaust0matic Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins
    edited July 14, 2008
    I'm holding out for a 1Ds MK IV w/5mm 360 degree fisheye f/0.05. I hear it comes boxed with the new 6000EX nuclear powered flash unit. Finally...I'll be able to be behind the camera and in the photo at the same time, no matter how dark it is outside!
    http://www.faustomatic.com
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited July 14, 2008
    faust0matic wrote:
    I'm holding out for a 1Ds MK IV w/5mm 360 degree fisheye f/0.05. I hear it comes boxed with the new 6000EX nuclear powered flash unit. Finally...I'll be able to be behind the camera and in the photo at the same time, no matter how dark it is outside!

    Thats great, but does it come with a invisibility suit for the photographer? :D
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • faust0maticfaust0matic Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins
    edited July 14, 2008
    HA! Yeah, just like Predator. But it's still tough to shop out that blurry patch. Maybe I should hold out for the 1Ds MKV...I hear they'll have that bug worked out by then.
    http://www.faustomatic.com
Sign In or Register to comment.