Canon Landscape lenses

[Swifty]

Hi!
Been a while since I logged on, I recently moved to Dubai so won't get back to Tasmania until next year for my next walk (usually plan around Anzac Day, great time for walking).
Does anyone use a Canon EF-S 10-22mm ultra-wide zoom? I'm thinking of getting one. If you have used one, appreciate any feedback! (I've got a 50D so it will fit )
I am considering the TSE 24 mm tilt shift, unimaginable landscapes, but wow, it aint cheap ...not even over here.
I will be doing some field work over here when it cools down a bit (mid to high 40's at the moment, not a good time to be out cracking rocks) and will post some pics when that's done.
Cheers Swifty

[tazz]

You can always try this software for tiltshift, http://tiltshiftmaker.com/

[Swifty]

Cheers tazz. I was thinking more along the lines of the shift rather than the tilt. Like capturing Federation Peak from the shores of Lake Geeves or Geryon from Pine Valley up close. I've seen the "miniature" stuff and I think it's great for human/ urban stuff, probably not so attractive for landscape. Plus the software will always result in less resolution and generally crappier images.

[photohiker]

I'm on full frame, so I can't use that lens, but I've only heard good things about it. In your shoes, I definitely have one in my kit, and I suspect it would be on the camera most of the time.

It's roughly equivalent range to the 17-40 on full frame and that works great for me.

[Drifting]

I have had a 10-22, and currently have a Sigma 10-20. The 10-22 is a nicer lens- less distortion, better colour, no colour cast, but the 10-20 is sturdier, and way cheaper.

There's other tihngs to consider as well- there's a big range of UWA lenses for Canon. Try one of the lens test sites like http://www.photozone.de or http://www.slrgear.com, or a review site like http://www.fredmiranda.com. Also the Canon photography forum, Photography on the Net, is a great source of infromation, but be warned- they are gear heads, and seem to think that you can only get good shots with a L lens.

Also bear in mind that Circular Polarizers don't work well with UWA lenses.

I get some really good shots with my 30D and 10-20, but I'll go for my 17-40L EVERY time if I can make the shot work inthose focal lengths. The 10-20 or 10-22 will make your horizon tiny, and IMHO you lose too much detail in big landscape shots. They are better for getting something prominent in the foreground and then having the background far off. For big landscapes I invariably go for photostitching, and for that I use a 17-40L or a 24-105L, and Photoshop CS3.

I personally wouldn't go for a 24 TSE on a crop-frame camera like ours. Don't get me wrong, I'd love one. The extended depth of field they can give you is awesome. But I for landscapes 24mm x 1.6 is too narrow. Also, critical focus in low light when manually focussing a 24 TSE would be a pain in the butt with a 50D.

[Drifting]

10-20 : See how it pushes the horizon away? I was pretty close to the lighthouse.



Pano stitched from a 17-40/4L



Another, from the 17-40, if I remember correctly.

[Swifty]

Thanks for the feedback, and for the (very impressive) photos Drifting. Were you at 17mm in the middle pano?
My 50D came with an EFS 17-85, which is not as crisp as a 17-40L, so I was looking at extending wider with the 10-22. Thanks for the links, some familiar URL's there, I've bee doing my homework too!
I also got a EF 100mm IS USM macro, it gives an awesome image, can't wait to get out bush with it as I also like taking shots of small things .

[Drifting]

I'd LOVE a 100mm macro IS- I have the non-IS and it is an awesome lens.

On the middle one- I'm not 100% sure- I took it more than a year ago. Now that I think of it, it may have been the 10-20, with the camera held in portrait fashion. I'll see if I can find the originals.

The 17-40 will absolutely blow you away. It is an awesome lens, and weather-sealed too, which is very nice.

But, IMHO the perfect lens combo for a 50D is a 10-22, 24-105 and a 70-200 or 100-400. My 17-40 gives a slightly sharper and more contrasty than the 24-105, but the 24-105's versatility way more than makes up for the very slight difference in IQ. I don't get to use the 24-105 much as my wife has taken it and won't give it back.

In choosing between the 17-40 and 24-105, one must decide what type of photographer you will be first, to a certain degree. The 17-40 is good for big scenes like those above, but the 24-105 is far better for detail shots. I used to go for the big-scale stuff, but now I like the closer-in details.

[Swifty]

I think your lens combinations are just about spot on. Wish I'd bought the body only and not got the 17-85, should have gone for the 24-70, then combined with a 10-22 and "later on" get a 70-200. If your middle pano was indeed from a 10-22, that settles it for me, it's a must-have. I love big pano's but (must be getting old), little alpine flowers and fruits are becoming very appealing to me. Like this one - taken with a crappy point and shoot but you get the general idea. I'm gonna find that little flower again with my 100 macro (it's by the little tarn on the plateau above Little Hugel).
PS (edit) I like your third shot best, very moody.

[woka]

If I had to choose one lens for an APS-C Canon DSLR, it would be the 17-40. But the 10-22 is great if you can afford a few different lenses. Like any wide angle lens, it takes a bit of getting used to, but you can do some great stuff with it. The 10-22 has some L quality glass in it, but isn't weather sealed, so misses the L in its name. Agree with Drifting's recommended lenses - the 24-105 is a great all rounder.

The following was taken with a 10-22 @ 10mm f13. Note the fringing on the rocks to the left and the shadow from my (stacked) filters in the corners. Both tend to happen at the wider focal length, but both are also fixable (at least to a certain extent). In my experience, it's rare to use the lens at 10mm anyway, 14mm upwards is more likely.

_MG_0104b.jpg (40.26 KiB) Viewed 26118 times

[Liamy77]

the lenses you get packaged with the bodies are almost always the crappier ones that makes the seller lots of profits!
comes down to what you can afford vs what you want to lug around...

[Drifting]

There's a healthy market for used lenses too.

My daughter (6) uses our old 350D and our original 18-55 kit lens- she gets awesome shots with it and it really into photography. Cheapie lenses have their place too!

Also, there's a lot to be said for spending some time with your camera before choosing the next BIG lens purchase- you may well decide you want a 24-70 or 24-105 and stitch stuff, or you may be willing to spend a bit more money and go for a 17-40 and a 70-200, and go for the longer focal length range. There's sooo many combinations......

[photohiker]

There's a healthy market for used lenses too.

And it should be used to your advantage. Once you stop using something, push it on. Good lenses will sell on ebay for 50-75% of new price as long as they aren't too old or knocked about. Cameras depreciate quickly so you should not leave it on your shelf for long. Even if you do decide you want your 30D (or whatever) again in a year or so, you will be able to buy one back for half what you sold yours for.

I'm pretty happy with my meagre lens collection since I sold off the shelf queens to buy my Micro4/3 kit. I will now not keep a camera body I haven't used in 6 months - they depreciate too fast.

[north-north-west]

Does anyone use a Canon EF-S 10-22mm ultra-wide zoom? I'm thinking of getting one. If you have used one, appreciate any feedback! (I've got a 50D so it will fit )

Yep, I do most of my landscape photography with one. Also on a 50D.
It's a nice lens, if a bit on the heavy and bulky side. Get a bit of chromatic aberration but it's usually minimal. Almost impossible to keep your own shadow out of the foreground if you're shooting with the sun behind you, so a lot of my shots tend to end up cropped into pseudo-panoramas. It focusses very close, too, so you can do almost close-ups with it, but you need an external flash because it's too big for the on-camera flash.
Filters are obscenely expensive, though.

An, ohhhhh, what I would give for a 17-40 . . . .

[Liamy77]

(this is on 35mm film -so bear in mind the conversion) just as a cheap toy i put a series 7 adapter ring onto a sigma 24mm f1.8 this allowed me to mount a 0.42X video converter... in the end? a 10.8mm lens that could focus on an object sitting ON the glass lens itself for about 2-300 $ second hand.
Bear in mind this was really just for a bit of fun and special effects -- you get a circular image...

[WarrenH]

I like Canon lenses. I like them a lot. I only have Canon's el-cheapo kit lenses.

My kids have the Canon L series lenses and those mega expensive Voightlander prime lenses. I don't try to compete with my kids photographically, they know who taught them photography. I do say to my kids, it isn't about the gear, it is about your vision and how you re-visualise your thoughts.

I like all of Canon's lenses. I use the kit lenses because people say that the kit lenses are most ordinary. Give the World's worst photographer the world's best gear and he or she will still be the World's worst photographer ... give the World's best photographer the world's worst gear and they will still be the World's best photographer.

All my best wishes. May your days be illuminated with extraordinary ambient light.

Warren.

PS, "I'm gonna find that little flower again with my 100 macro" ... an Alpine Gentian.

[Drifting]

Tell your kids: no shared custody of L lenses, no inheritance. End of story.

I agree with you about the quality of the photographer being the essential element, but then those L lenses are sooooo nice to use.

[WarrenH]

Drifting, the reason I have my el-cheapo Canon lenses is when my kids bought L Series lenses, I inherited their old lenses. It would be a bit rude to disinherit them ... but thank you for your concern.

My son Geoff made presents last Christmas ... that describe life exactly it how it is.




Warren.

[tasadam]

An, ohhhhh, what I would give for a 17-40 . . . .

From $820 plus freight... Interesting it's only F4.

Here is the lens that's been living on my D700 lately, while I give this lens a rest. Heavy glass for bushwalking, but the results are worth it.
How dare me go quoting Nikon products in a Canon thread... Oh no!
Seriously tho, 17-35 gives me great range for landscapes on the full frame Nikon sensor, so you'd think 17-40 should do ok on the Canon (if I can be as provocative to say if that's the best they can do)...
The other thing to consider is whether your camera is a full frame sensor or has a 1.6x factor. That would turn a 17-40 into an effective 27-64mm. No longer wide angle, but similar to my 24-70 on the Fx Nikon.

Our D200 is a 1.5x (DX) sensor, so we have the 12-24 F4 lens for it, which equates to 18-36, very similar range on that camera to the 17-35 on my D700.

So in summary, if you are liking the wide angle landscapes and -
you have a DX sensor camera, my recommendation would be along the lines of the 10-22;
you have a full frame sensor, go the 17-40

And my vote would be to go for the wide angle stuff.

Hope that helps (without being too insulting to the brand).

[north-north-west]

God, I hate it when you do that!
What makes you think I can afford another lens?
What makes you think I can carry another lens?
And what makes you think I can resist that lens at that price (plus a filter or two), despite the above?

Honestly, some people just don't know when to butt out!

*sigh* Ah well, I knew there was a reason I've been doing all this ruddy overtime. Suppose it keeps the bank balance down so I don't have to pay tax on the interest . . .

[north-north-west]

Don't get me wrong, Adam; I really appreciate you going to all that trouble.

But I'm trying to stop spending money on camera or walking gear for a little while. Just until I get all my diving gear back in test and up to standard, and get a snorkel on the ute (and maybe some driving lights), and . . . well, I'm sure you understand. Besides, that camera bag is so heavy already, another lens is going to kill me . . .

OK, I'll stop whingeing and bitching now, and just say thank you.

[Swifty]

Great responses, thanks all. Now I have 10-22 to go with the kit 17-85, plus with my 100 macro should have all bases covered in the bush.
I don't plan to go full frame any time soon, so EFS lenses are fine by me. The EFS 17-55 is optically as good as any L (but unfortunately also has an L pricetag). Nah, got enough lenses...

[Drifting]

I'd skip the 17-55- WAY overpriced IMHO, and it had dust issues. It's not that much cheaper than the 24-105, which would go better with your 10-22 anyhow, and is weathersealed.

The new 15-85 (I think that's it) is interesting as well.

Cheers- and go get some photos to post on here. Watch out for your feet at 10mm!

[north-north-west]

An, ohhhhh, what I would give for a 17-40 . . . .

From $820 plus freight... Interesting it's only F4.

Just in case anyone else is interested in buying some gear: keep away from the suppliers at the top of that list, as not all of them are particularly reliable and there's a good chance you'll end up out of pocket with nothing to show for it.

[tasadam]

How's this list?
Cheapest at $840 delivered with good feedback score.