Landscape EF-S lens

EF-S 10-22 and EF-s 17-85 IS. Those people that have 1 of these or both could you place feedback as to their quality for doing landscape photos and waterfalls. I have a EF-S 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 50-500 and in the last week had the loan of a 16-35mm F2.8 and 17-40 F4 both "L".

For basically the same price of a 16-35 F2.8 I could get the 2 EF-S and money left over for the EF-S 60mm Macro.

As I have not been able to find a shop or someone with either of the 2 EF-S Im wanting others feed back on their quality before I decide to purchase.

It will be a while before I move to full frame so thats not an issue.

I have checked a few reviews and the feeling is that they are both good lens not "L" but still good and sharp would this be correct?

I rather get the 100mm Macro instead of a 60mm.. WHY, just because its not EFS.

However i do own a 10-22, and LOVE the lens! I did have the 17-40 and its also a wonderful lens. But i sold it for the 10-22 because the WIDE is just AMAZING WIDE....

It will prolly be the only EF-S lens id ever own... But i have no regrets buying it. Good investment for a 1.6 crop camera.

Both the 10-22 and 17-85 are great lenses. The 10-22 is the better of two from a quality standpoint, but the 17-85 is amazingly flexible. If I had to do it again, I _might_ go for the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 28-75, but it's a toss up.

I have the 10-22 for my 20D, and also carry a 28-135 IS for a compart two lens, general purpose kit. I believe the 28-135 compliments the 10-22 better than the 17-85 because there is no overlapping zoom range and an insignificant gap in coverage. The 135 mm is much better for telephoto shots than 85 mm.

If I need a longer telephoto, I add my 50-500 to the kit.

If you are using an APS-C digital I would argue nothing made by Canon (or others) can touch the FOV, or optical quality of the 10-22mm will provide for you.

The 17-85mm IS from what I read is an amazing lens, but if you really liked the look from the viewfinder of the L glass it will leave you wanting. You may want to opt for the 17-40mm f4L over the 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS. You will likely love the pop that much more.

I have the 17-85 and it is a good lens and for your 10-22.You should go with the Tokina 12-24 a lot of members use the Tokina instead of canon, I also have the Tokina and it is under $500., $200 less than Canon and it does the same job

ive been very curious to try the Tokina as well... ONLY because i hear the build quality it great. BUT!!!! I went with the canon 10-22, because YOU JUST CANT GO WRONG buying that lens. Ive used it a lot, and like another member on this forum said... it would be a cold day in hell before you could pry that out of my hands. =)

Im sure the tokina is a fine lens too, but for an APS-C sensor, im sure the canon will hold its own as far as resale value should i ever decide to go FF body.

This picture was taken with the Canon 10-22mm EFS using my Digital Rebel. I am very pleased with the lens although you can get some weird effects on objects close to you.

Gerhard

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The 10-22 and 17-85 are very different lenses.

The 10-22 is a excellent super wide lens, just excellent, but the 22m may be limiting for you. I assume you dont want to carry the 50-500 all the time!

The 17-85 is a nice walk around lens, its very sharp on the long end, but will be some what softer than the 10-22 on the wide end.

I think your question is do you want wider than 17, some like the super wide end, others do not.

In the end you will probably want both, or a 10-22, 24-105, 50-500 setup.

I found that im always swaping between the 17-40 and 50-500. I did find that for most of the time 17mm was wide enough, if I wanted wider I just took 3 shots and stiched.

Often times when im out I photgraph birds and 40mm just dosnt cut it. 75% of the time its the 50-500 that I use and as the weight does not worry me its my "walk around lens"

Based on looking at the exif data im using 17- 135 most of the time when i go to beaches and waterfalls.

I do like the sharpnes of the "L" but I have found that my 18-55 in daylight does ok.

Oh well half the fun is the research on what to get next.