15-85 or 10-22

if you pick up the 15-85mm you could probably sell the 28-135IS, and kit lens, and be at just about the amount for a sigma 10-20mm

killwilly wrote in post #16728014
This was a shot taken with my 15-85 at 15mm and you can see the distortion to the buildings left and right. Can you imagine what that shot would have been with a 10-22 at it's widest. I think 15mm is plenty wide enough for a crop camera, and no, I couldn't have moved further back, I was already sat on the front of a car.

IMG_1746 by killwilly, on Flickr

the 10-22mm at 14mm will show less distortion than the 15-85mm at 15mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …=675&CameraComp​=474&FLI=2

i'm also not quite sure what 'distortion' you're talking about in your shot...is it the way the buildings are angled inward? if so...that's not due to the lens, it's because of you angling the camera upwards to catch the top of the middle building in the frame....with a 10-22mm you would've been able to keep the lens pointed straighter, and the buildings wouldn't have that falling in look that you have

The 15-85 would be a terrific upgrade from your current kit lens 18-55, and is what stays on my camera most often. I do have a Tokina 11-16mm that I will put in the bag if I'm going out specifically for wide open landscapes or trees, etc - things that the 11mm may actually be useful for. My opinion, get the 15-85mm first, then keep your eyes open for the Tokina (love the 9 blade aperture for sun stars!) or the Canon.

DreDaze wrote in post #16729521
i'm also not quite sure what 'distortion' you're talking about in your shot...is it the way the buildings are angled inward? if so...that's not due to the lens, it's because of you angling the camera upwards to catch the top of the middle building in the frame....with a 10-22mm you would've been able to keep the lens pointed straighter, and the buildings wouldn't have that falling in look that you have

I agree, but I did say that I was sat on the front of a car when I took the shot. Normally I would have moved further back to get the whole of the building in the image, but had I have done that, I would also of got the car in the image, which I didn't want.

With the 10-22, you wouldn't have had to back up..in fact, you could have gotten closer.

Your picture is an example of where the 10-22 can save your arse in some situations.

That said, i own both, and the 15-85 is bolted onto my camera, and the 10-22 very rarely sees any use.

1Tanker wrote in post #16730648
With the 10-22, you wouldn't have had to back up..in fact, you could have gotten closer.

Your picture is an example of where the 10-22 can save your arse in some situations.

That said, i own both, and the 15-85 is bolted onto my camera, and the 10-22 very rarely sees any use.

I would also agree with you too, but I use the 85 end as much, if not more than the 15. I believe the 15-85 is one of the most versatile lenses on the market today.

killwilly wrote in post #16730660
I would also agree with you too, but I use the 85 end as much, if not more than the 15. I believe the 15-85 is one of the most versatile lenses on the market today.

These last few posts seem to focus on the 10-22 vs. 15-85. I agree the 15-85 is the more useful of those two. But I already have 28-135. 28-135 and 15-85 serve similar purposes. Maybe 10-22 is a better choice than simply replacing (mostly) the 28-135.

1Tanker wrote in post #16730648
... That said, i own both, and the 15-85 is bolted onto my camera, and the 10-22 very rarely sees any use.

I think that's the point I was trying to make. In less you are going to go very wide a lot of th time and are willing to keep it bolted to you camera, or at least carry it with you, as a general walk around lens the 15-85 give you much more flexibility.

rgs wrote in post #16730809
These last few posts seem to focus on the 10-22 vs. 15-85. I agree the 15-85 is the more useful of those two. But I already have 28-135. 28-135 and 15-85 serve similar purposes. Maybe 10-22 is a better choice than simply replacing (mostly) the 28-135.

The 15-85 is a better, sharper lens then the 28-135, but if you are willing to carry the 10-22 around with you for the wide end, than I would get it. I personally tend to shoot wider rather than longer and don't carry a second lens when I'm out and about so the 28mm wouldn't cut it for me. The 15-85 is the best compromise for a one lens solution. The difference between 85 and135mm on the long end is not nearly as dramatic as the difference between 15mm and 28mm on the wide end.

WIth MFA my 28-135 was also a good copy, but at the end of the day I would give a slight advantage to the 15-85 in terms of color reproduction/flare (presumably due to better coatings) and overall IQ. I would still consider it an upgrade from the 28-135 or 17-85 while I would consider the 10-22 as more of an addition to the stable.

Checking out both your sites, I would vote for the 10-22, because of your landscapes and the widest you have, without stitching, is 18mm or 64 degrees horizontal angle of view compared to 97 degrees with 10mm and 74 degrees with 15mm. I feel some of your landscape shots would have benefited from a wider FOV, especially since you ahve some much more space out there in OK to work with.

The difference between a 10 mm and a 16 mm (sorry, no 15 mm...)

10mm

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …52DT_zpsc4e4adc​8.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …55DT_zps63b16f8​0.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …51DT_zpsb6a9fae​1.jpg.html

killwilly wrote in post #16728014
This was a shot taken with my 15-85 at 15mm and you can see the distortion to the buildings left and right. Can you imagine what that shot would have been with a 10-22 at it's widest. I think 15mm is plenty wide enough for a crop camera, and no, I couldn't have moved further back, I was already sat on the front of a car.

Of course with a wider view, you could still correct the distortion without losing a significant portion of the image in the constraint cropping. The distortion is almost completely correctable, and might be more so if I took a bit more time. I lose about 1/6 of the image from having to crop off the sides after transforming.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16731174
85 f5.6 in my book is nothing to write home about for a non-kit lens.

I see this written often.

I'm glad to "settle" for 85/5.6, to have 15mm (just as i'm sure you're glad to settle for 16/5.6, for 8mm).

Some other options:

-24-105/4(lose a ton on the wide end, for 1 stop)

-28-135 (lose even more on the wide end, and still f/5.6 ~85mm)

-18-135 (same.. not nearly as wide, 5.6@85mm)

-Sigma 17-70 OS (still not as wide, faster than the others, but shorter on the long end - a good alternative though)

-10-2x UWA's (the wide end)

-Tokina 11-16 (pretty wide, fast, potential flare and CA problems)

-Sigma 8-16 (the widest for crop, slow {slowest of them all.. 5.6 from ~13-16mm}, small focal range, filter issues)


I often head out for walks with my 70-200/4L IS + 1.4x TC. Shooting at 70/5.6 (and 85/5.6) is part of the compromise... and all lenses require compromises.

lilkngster wrote in post #16731131
WIth MFA my 28-135 was also a good copy, but at the end of the day I would give a slight advantage to the 15-85 in terms of color reproduction/flare (presumably due to better coatings) and overall IQ. I would still consider it an upgrade from the 28-135 or 17-85 while I would consider the 10-22 as more of an addition to the stable.

Checking out both your sites, I would vote for the 10-22, because of your landscapes and the widest you have, without stitching, is 18mm or 64 degrees horizontal angle of view compared to 97 degrees with 10mm and 74 degrees with 15mm. I feel some of your landscape shots would have benefited from a wider FOV, especially since you ahve some much more space out there in OK to work with.

Thanks for the very on point comments. I appreciate it. And thanks for taking time to visit and get to know my work. Both of those sites have just been renovated. I hope you enjoyed them

I use MFA on all lenses and have been very comfortable with the 28-135 even though it's reputation is not so good. I do expect the 15-85 would be an improvement but maybe not a great one other than the wide end. That's why I have begun to consider the 10-22 even though a 90% 1 lens solution would be handy.

Even though WA is traditional for landscape, I have often found that I prefer a longer lens - the shot of Polychrome Pass in Denali NP was taken at the long end of my 28-135. I often like the compression of longer lenses and find the way a WA minimizes more distant object to no be what I want. I suspect the 15mm end of the 15-85 would be wide enough for me, nonetheless, the 10-22 is an attractive alternative.

rgs wrote in post #16731426
... I often like the compression of longer lenses and find the way a WA minimizes more distant object to no be what I want.

That makes sense with some of your landscape stuff. I could see you were trying to have a subject in some of them, but to be honest, from someone who is stuck in the NYC/NJ area, the real subject was the landscape, and several of them, I wanted to see more (tops of the mountains/cliffs, whats to the left and right of your image). I guess you are just so used to seeing all that open space.

rgs wrote in post #16731426
...I suspect the 15mm end of the 15-85 would be wide enough for me, nonetheless, the 10-22 is an attractive alternative.

That about sums it up for most users, including me.

lilkngster wrote in post #16731506
That makes sense with some of your landscape stuff. I could see you were trying to have a subject in some of them, but to be honest, from someone who is stuck in the NYC/NJ area, the real subject was the landscape, and several of them, I wanted to see more (tops of the mountains/cliffs, whats to the left and right of your image). I guess you are just so used to seeing all that open space.

I think your reference might be to this photo which was rather severely cropped to fit the format of the home page slider on the web site. This is the full version. It's Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs, a really spectacular city park!

I'm in Oklahoma City which, like most cities, is pretty packed. But, unlike the east coast, I don't have to drive far to leave the city behind. Sometimes one of the problems with vast landscapes is finding a focal point. The Quartz Mountains in southwestern Oklahoma are a fabulous place to visit but I have never made one photo there that I liked.