Which Lens to choose....

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....

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.

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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

Richard Fleming wrote in post #13037441
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.