Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes 
Thread started 01 Sep 2011 (Thursday) 16:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which Lens to choose....

 
Richard ­ Fleming
Member
Avatar
100 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: i live in Clintwood, Va, near the Ky and Tn border..
     
Sep 01, 2011 16:28 |  #1

my kids are wanting to buy me a lens for taking Landscape Photos.....i will be using it in the Fall (Autumn) for the color changes in the Tree Leaves in the Appalachian Mountains where i call home.....
so fay i am looking a couple.....would either of these be a good choice? if you think i shoud choose a different lens ..please feel free to tell me....i am open for suggestions......have a couple weeks to make up my mind...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM


if this is in the wrong fourm would a Mod. or Adm. please move it or delete it for me.....as i am an Adm. on a fishing site i know sometimes ppl put things in the wrong place....:(


_______________
Canon T2i /MeiKe LCD Grip ...Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon "nifty two fifty" EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon FD 70-300mm f/4.5...Canon EF "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8 II ...Canon FD 135mm f/2.8......Vivatar 28mm f/2.8...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
paul3221
Goldmember
Avatar
2,457 posts
Likes: 144
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
     
Sep 01, 2011 16:39 |  #2

Given the choice between those two, I would take the 16-35L, although it won't be quite as wide. It is a lot more money though. If you ever want to upgrade to a full frame camera, the 16-35L will still work, but the 10-22 won't.


Paul
Sony A7RII, 5DII, a bunch of lenses and lighting... Whatever gets the shot... ;-)a
www.PaulDekortPhotogra​phy.com (external link)
Facebook Photography Page (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Sep 01, 2011 16:40 |  #3

Pretty soon this thread will be bursting at the seams with the "UWA isnt the only lens for landscape photography" crowd. And, they're certainly right - its just a comment that seems to pop up so often when the OP clearly wants a UWA...we get it already. :)

It seems like you're really looking for a UWA and you have the other focal lengths covered so Ill keep my recommendation in scope. The 10-22 is definitely the best UWA on crop for a landscape shooter IMO. Its flare resistance, range, ability to accept filters and IQ all lend themselves tremendously to landscape photography and although one alternative or the other may beat it on one feature, the 10-22 is a great package as a whole.

The 16-35 would be just so/so for me on a crop body because the field of view/range would be limiting to me - plus Ive no need for 2.8 on a lens I intend to use for landscape. And dont buy it just because you might go full frame. Buy for the format you have today and sell what you need to when the time comes - lenses hold value so well there is no point in doing otherwise.


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Richard ­ Fleming
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
100 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: i live in Clintwood, Va, near the Ky and Tn border..
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:16 |  #4

it doesnt have to be an UWA.....if you think a regular WA would be OK....thats fine too....i am open to suggestions.......i am not planning to go to a full body no time soon.....maybe never.
theres just so many different lens to choose from...i am like a kid in a candy store when the kids called and said take ya pick.......


_______________
Canon T2i /MeiKe LCD Grip ...Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon "nifty two fifty" EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon FD 70-300mm f/4.5...Canon EF "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8 II ...Canon FD 135mm f/2.8......Vivatar 28mm f/2.8...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sunman
Member
162 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:21 |  #5

you should start with defining what you would mostly shoot. that would narrow down the answers. i've shot landscapes with 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 300, 400 and 500. my most used for landscapes is 16-35 because i like to get close/low and shoot w i d e.


Come with me...i'll take you places.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,900 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 1206
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:22 |  #6

I've had the 10-22 when I didn't have a FF body. Now I have the 16-35. Unless you need the constant aperture and/or the speed, you're spending more money than you need to with the 16-35, the extra glass (non ES lens) is for the larger sensor, not that it doesn't work superbly on crop, but there is unused quality glass there. At least consider the 17-40.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Richard ­ Fleming
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
100 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: i live in Clintwood, Va, near the Ky and Tn border..
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:23 |  #7

OK...i will post a couple old photos of the places i go to shoot ....maybe this would help...these were taken with my Canon Power Shot


_______________
Canon T2i /MeiKe LCD Grip ...Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon "nifty two fifty" EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon FD 70-300mm f/4.5...Canon EF "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8 II ...Canon FD 135mm f/2.8......Vivatar 28mm f/2.8...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Richard ­ Fleming
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
100 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Location: i live in Clintwood, Va, near the Ky and Tn border..
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:33 |  #8

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i193.photobucke​t.com …R%20Images/Brea​ksPark.jpg (external link)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i193.photobucke​t.com …0978_269259_563​4829_n.jpg (external link)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i193.photobucke​t.com …932_2600196_281​9522_n.jpg (external link)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i193.photobucke​t.com …0978_269261_803​323_n1.jpg (external link)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i193.photobucke​t.com …50978_287830_11​6052_n.jpg (external link)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i193.photobucke​t.com …0978_287944_523​1393_n.jpg (external link)

_______________
Canon T2i /MeiKe LCD Grip ...Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon "nifty two fifty" EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS...Canon FD 70-300mm f/4.5...Canon EF "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f/1.8 II ...Canon FD 135mm f/2.8......Vivatar 28mm f/2.8...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:36 |  #9

Richard Fleming wrote in post #13037441 (external link)
it doesnt have to be an UWA.....if you think a regular WA would be OK....thats fine too....i am open to suggestions.......i am not planning to go to a full body no time soon.....maybe never.
theres just so many different lens to choose from...i am like a kid in a candy store when the kids called and said take ya pick.......

Well, only you can really decide if you want to go UWA or not - but if you do, the 10-22 is perfect for the application.

If just wide angle is what you want, your 18-55 is actually a pretty good lens for landscapes - it does well stopped down. But, this thread is about a new lens and I know how that feels so a good wide-standard zoom is the 15-85. I really enjoyed mine when I had my old 40D. It was a very flexible lens and oftentimes, 15mm was plenty wide for me. It might be a nice upgrade to your 18-55.


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rankinia
Senior Member
449 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Sep 01, 2011 17:45 |  #10

If I was going quality, it would 10-22mm, or the 17-55/2.8 which is the same focal length as one of your lenses already. 16-35mm is in my opinion a waste of time on crop, its expensive, the zoom range is small and its trumped by the 17-55mm, which is better in most ways Ive ever used them. 10-22mm would give you something different.

On another note. If its not you who wants a new lens, dont waste your money.


1ds, 30d, 17-40/4 180/3.5, mt-24, 580ex2
http://adamrose.wordpr​ess.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pitabread
Senior Member
Avatar
834 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Great White North
     
Sep 01, 2011 18:05 |  #11

I agree with the previous poster that the 16-35mm probably isn't ideal on a crop, when the 17-55mm f/2.8 is available for less money.

I have the 10-22mm and originally bought it for landscape use, but haven't found it as ideal as I thought I would. The tricky thing about ultra-wide landscape shots is there is a lot more going on in the frame; it's a lot harder to eliminate distracting items than with regular wide angle. Not that it's a bad lens; I find it quite ideal for interiors or otherwise cramped shooting spaces.

The 15-85mm might be ideal. It would give you an upgrade in quality over the 18-55mm and a few extra mm on the wide end.

What other sort of gear do you have? I'd recommend getting a tripod, remote shutter release, GND filter set and polarizer over a new lens, if you don't have those already. They'll probably make a bigger difference in landscape shots than just a new lens would. But that's just my opinion.


Bodies: EOS 7D, Rebel XT/350D
Lenses: 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Accessories: Speedlite 580EX II, Gitzo 1541T tripod, Markins Q3 Traveler ballhead

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stump
Senior Member
Avatar
772 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Knoxville TN
     
Sep 01, 2011 18:23 |  #12

I have to say, I like my Canon 10-22mm more than any lens I've ever used. I like it more than I do my 70-200 2.8L.

If I wanted a wide lens for a crop body, 100% without a doubt I'd get the 10-22mm! I couldn't take a bad photo with the one I had.


6D - 50 1.8 - 50 1.4 - 70-200F4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nanogram
Member
98 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Washington
     
Sep 01, 2011 22:57 |  #13

Go with the 10-22mm for crop, it is a stellar lens. If you are looking to go with an L lens, I would recommend the 17-40 over the 16-35 just because the image quality is really similar and the former is cheaper. Also, do you already have a tripod?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,147 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 462
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Sep 01, 2011 23:02 |  #14

EF-S 10-22 is nice.
But I'll like 100-400 more.


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Joergeske
Senior Member
633 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Manhattan KS
     
Sep 01, 2011 23:39 |  #15

UWA lenses are interesting, I personally feel like people get way to caught up in the canon 10-22. Don't get me wrong it is a fantastic lens, it focus'es super fast, its always spot on, the flare is nearly non existent, and the lens is tack sharp wide open. However, I don't know of many landscapes I have ever shot where I wasn't on a tripod if possible, and stopped down to f8 or even f11, not to mention I probably focused manually in live view. If you are thinking of doing these things then consider a tokina, sigma, or tamron. Personally I decided my 17-40mm wasn't wide enough for me, and I couldn't justify the cost of a 14 2.8 from canon, so I went with one of the popular rokinon/samyang/bower/​vivitar 14 2.8 manual lenses. I have absolutely loved the lens so far. Anyhow my point is save the money and get a lens that will force you to spend a second longer on the shot, the results will not disappoint.

If you were thinking of spending as much as 1500 on a 16-35, and you instead put that money towards maybe a bower 14mm 2.8 for around 360, you would be left with 1100 to maybe purchase a second land 300 F4 L IS, or maybe a 70-200 F4 both can be used as fantastic nature lenses and all around great items to have in a bag. A 70-200 F4 and a 14 2.8 Bower could be had for under 1000 if you find a good deal, those 2 lenses could give you a pretty healthy range that would allow you to possibly drop the 55-250 and 70-300 from you bag and bump up the quality a bit to.


www.joergeske.com (external link)
Nikon D800, Nikon D600 x2
Nikon 14-24 2.8AF-S G, Nikon 24-70 2.8 AF-S G, Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II AF-S G, Nikon 28 1.8G, Nikon 35mm 1.4 G, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4 Art, Nikon 85 1.4G, Nikon 105 2.8 VR Micro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,018 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which Lens to choose....
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is gardenchefs
948 guests, 306 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.