Landscape Photography? 10-22 + 70-200??

Looking to get into more landscape / cityscape / nature photography. Until now, I've mainly been using my equipment for indoor events. I've been reading John Shaw's books to familiarize myself with outdoor photography. He seems to emphasize telephoto lens just as much as wide angle lenses.

As far as wide angle lenses go, I'm probably going to go with the EF-S 10-22, as I'm committed to staying with my 30D at least another year. Beside that, the images I see from that UWA are stunning.

As far as the 70-200 lenses go, I'm in a bit of a quandary. The only one I have had experience with is the 70-200 f4 IS, and it is indeed an amazing lens. I haven't had much time with the f2.8's, but I definitely see the value of the extra stop of light in the 24-70, as well as excellent bokeh.

I'm limiting myself to around $1700 on this purchase, so should I get the 10-22 and the:

70-200 f4

70-200 f4 IS

70-200 f2.8

or save up and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS

TIA,

Syd

no matter what your decision..............​.you'll EVENTUALLY "what to buy" or "Will get" the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS...............

The 10-22 is an Awesome lens.

Wide aperture means shallow DOF...so for landscape work an f/2.8 expense is unnecessary, since you want deep DOF for landscapes.

IS allows you to handhold a lens at slower shutter speed. If you are shooting landscapes, you should be tripod mounted, not hand held, for optimal result. So IS expense is unnecessary for landscapes.

Nature photography probably needs faster ability to grab that fleeting moment, so handheld might be more desirable. But a slow shutter speed might be fine for handholding with IS, but it does nothing to freeze the motion of that animal you are trying to shoot! So IS expense is unnecessary for wildlife nature photography.

Seems to me a simple 70-200 f/4L is all that you need, and anything more is simply catering to your lust for a fast lens and for IS (nothing wrong with that, if you acknowledge what you need vs. what you want!).

Thanks guys! One for the high road, one for the low road. Wilt, I will definitely use my tripod for those landscape shots.

As far as IS goes, I understand it won't help stop subject motion, but does it help with shake while panning a moving subject?

Yes it will, as there is a second IS mode for panning.

Off,

The 10-22MM EF-S is an awesome lens...you will love it.

I have the 70-200MM f/4 EF L and I am upgrading to the IS version soon. The f/4 non-IS is tack sharp but my experience with the 17-55 EF-S IS has taught me the value of IS to basic photography.

If you search the Lens Fourm for 70-200M F/4 IS you will find that a lot of folks will tell you that it is sharper than the f/2.8 IS version. I have no personal expsrience but a lot of folks who do make this claim. It is worth checking out.

As stated earlier, you don't need IS for landscaping but it might be nice to have for general hand-held shots. You also generally won't need the 1:2.8 aperture. So, it's f/4 non-IS at $600 vs IS at $1000.

For what you want to use the zoom, go with the f/4 non-IS. But if you're thinking longer term, the IS version might come in handy some day.

On the flip side, I shoot low-light sports. I need the f/2.8 non-IS as IS would be unproductive for 95% of the assignments it would see use. The other 5%? I'll wish for IS when I mount it on a mono or tripod and hope for the best. But I can't justify the extra $600 for that.

What aperture would you set for a landscape?

I'm trying to curb the gear appetite as much as possible by getting only what I need! I guess I will limit my choices down to the f/4 lenses now, being as I will be using the telephoto mainly outdoors with a deep DOF. I wonder if I should rent the 70-200 f4 IS before I make a final decision? Or just go for it and not look back?

gorby wrote in post #3069907
What aperture would you set for a landscape?

I have read in this forum that our crop cameras experience diffraction stopped down more than f/13, so that would probably be my limit for max IQ on landscapes.

I'd go with the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-200 f/4L IS. As for the 70-200 2.8 (IS or not) you pay a huge weight/size/price penality for an extra stop that you will hardly use for landscape work.

I'm trying to make the same decision... except I kind of want to use mine for sports; most have pretty good light, but even so it makes it much harder. I think I'm going to go with the f4 (non IS). I'd recommend in your case that you definetly go with this lens.

slappy sam wrote in post #3070198
I kind of want to use mine for sports...I think I'm going to go with the f4 (non IS)

Slappy, you can get away with the f/4 aperture but you'll be forced to push to ISO 1600 or (worse) 3200 and your image quality will suffer. In this case, the extra $600 would be worth the extra full stop to f/2.8.

Of course, if you're just having fun f/4 non-IS is fine. Just don't look at it at 100%.

gorby wrote in post #3069907
What aperture would you set for a landscape?

Really depends on if you want to isolate something in the landscape/cityscape image you're trying to photograph. Typically when I'm shooting landscape/cityscape, I set my aperture between f/8 and f/16 (more for my night shooting).

I'm in kind of the same situation at s you. I typically photography primarily landscape/cityscape, so the 70-200 f/4 would probably be suit my interests. But I shoot an occasional wedding or two per year where I could use the f/2.8. I'll most likely go with the f/2.8, but I have owned the f/4 version in the past, and I must say, it's a sharp lens. You won't be dissappointed with the 70-200 f/4 if you go with that.

Hmmm... jrjphoto... I am going to be using it for baseball and possibly sailing. For both of these sports I think I should be ok with an f/4 min aperture. Nearly all the time it will be very bright out. The only problem I foresee is cloudy days where I could have some trouble, but I think that since a) I'm shooting for fun currently and b) The f/4 is cheaper and smaller, I should go with the f/4.

Do you think the stop will make a large difference for these sports?