Chicken or Egg!!

[garyhun]

I'm into landscape photography mainly and am just about to go digital with a 20D after years with film SLRs.

I want to get the 10-22 and the 24-70L as this seems such a wonderful combo of lenses.

So the question.......I really can't justify the expenditure of both right now so which lens do I buy with the camera now bearing in mind my love of landscape but knowing the 24-70 is so versatile and could, I guess, be used for landscapes with pano software if required!!!!

HELP.... I have done too much research and my head is spinning!!!!!!!!!:evil:

[Todd Jacobsen]

Depends on the landscape! Is your concern the foreground or background?

If you're looking at home gardens, 10-22 would do well. Gardens are generally "foreground" in view.

If you're looking at mountain views, the 10-22 will lose the IMMENSITY factor quite quickly. Mountain views are generally "background" in view.

I'd recommend 24-70 for landscape in general. The 10-22 is very good based on close proximity to subject. Once you lose the close proximity, you also lose the benfit of the 10-22.

[gasrocks]

Get the Canon efs 10-22 and the Tamron 28-75. Great combination of good glass.

[garyhun]

Todd...very good advice. I was thinking of the 17-40L at one stage but as I will get the 10-22 the 24-70 is more logical. Think the 24-70L will be best start point....thanks.


gasrocks....I am going with Canon L glass otherwise good suggestion!!

[Todd Jacobsen]

Another example is a lake with mountian views.

Lake is in foreground; mountains in background.

The 10-22 would provide more lake (foreground) view but at the expense of the mountians (which would look tiny in comparison to your eye view).

The 24-70 would provide a more natural "as seen" view, at the expense of losing lake or foreground.

So depending on your "intent" as well as principle subject (lake or moutains), your lens choice will follow.

Realize I'm being "king of the obvious" with the above, but I consider the 10-22 "foreground" centric rather than "landscape" centric. Both lens can do landscape quite well.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yup, I'm siding with Todd on this one. Get the 24-70L for starters, take some great pics, sell some great pics, and buy that 10-22. :-)

I've been debating something similar with myself for a lil while now. Cept, my lenses in question are the 100-400L, the 70-200L IS, the 10-22, and the 24-70L. Can't choose which comes first! Gah, choices are a major pain huh?

[Todd Jacobsen]

Todd...very good advice. I was thinking of the 17-40L at one stage but as I will get the 10-22 the 24-70 is more logical. Think the 24-70L will be best start point....thanks.


gasrocks....I am going with Canon L glass otherwise good suggestion!!

Hate to throw a curve in there but....

I think your debate should be 16-35 or 24-70.

I believe the 16-35 would fit your needs for landscape better than 24-70 - particularly in the upper ends of the zoom.

Your 1.6x factor makes the 16-35 the 25-55 of the film world. 50 generally is viewed as "from the eye" view.

[garyhun]

Thanks for the curve ball!!! :lol:

Understand what you are saying...and I have been struggling with this. Keep the 16-35 on the camera all the time OR have a 10-22 and 24-70 and swap lenses as needed. As I do not have unlimited budget and know that I will get the 10-22 the 24-70 seems so logical as the 16-35 has so much overlap with the 10-22.

Or am I missing something!!

[Todd Jacobsen]

Your question was not 16-35 or 10-22.

Your question was which lens would give a good landscape range.

Although you gave two options, I am suggesting that maybe, those are not the best available "one lens option" toward your goal.

If you want to purchase BOTH lenses, but are debating which one to purchase first, I wouldn't be focussed on landscape as a subject criteria.

[ed2day]

Are sure you don't want to reconsider the 17-40? If you are going to be with one lens for a while, that's what I'd do. It's an ideal landscape lens while it can also pass as a walkaround lens. The 24-70L is going to be marginal for landscapes at 38mm(effective 35mm equiv.). The 10-22 is going to be inadequate as a general purpose lens. So buy the 17-40L and sell it when you can afford the combo. If you buy it at a good price you can probably sell it for a $50 loss. The 10-22/ Tamron 28-75 is a good alternative also. For my needs, I wouldn't trade my 17-40 for a 16-35 straight up. If you're serious about landscapes, you'll be using a tripod which mitigates the speed factor, and the 16-35 is twice the weight which is a problem as I hike alot.

[shiato storm]

try out each length of lens - see if a camera store would be prepared to rent equipment to you. then go on ebay and pick up a bargain of your desired model...

[KevC]

I'd say 17-40L. With 1.6x crop factor, it effectively gives you 27-64mm which is a nice walkaround lens. The short end is definitely short enough to get some immersive landscapes, and the 40 end is long enough for a general walkaround lens.

Or you can get the 20D with the kit lens (18-55). That's short enough to do landscapes, and sharp as a tack stopped down. It's only $70 and you can save your money to spend on the 24-70L or a 3rd party alternative (Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70/24-60). They are all very excellent lenses.

Good luck!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Of the 10-22 Vs. 24-70mm Iwould definitely get the 24-70mm first.

24mm on the 20D is not bad at all :)

[garyhun]

Thanks to all for your views.

After spending a good 2 hours in my local camera shop trying different lenses I am now the proud owner of a 20D with 17-40L!!

I am soooo excited now I have made a decision and will be snapping like crazy ASAP!!

Of course, as I was buying, the girl in the shop said "If you do not get on with the lens you can bring it back brefore 30 days and exchange for the 24-70 if you think thats more you" Talk about trying to confuse me further!!! And because of that I'm thinking....emmmm should I have gone for the 24-70?? However, the 17-40 will stay on my camera and should be adequate for all my stuff for quite a while as I am mainky into landscapes and it's also a great walkabout lens anyway.

Look forward to posting some pics!

Gary

[roanjohn]

GOOD CHOICE!!!

To sweeten the deal...........instead of being torn between that and the 24-70, for the same price, you can get a nice fast prime..........i.e. 85 f1.8 ;-)

Don't you just love this forum?? HA HAHAHAH!!

Ro1

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ahh an excellent compromise between the two :)