Which UWA Lens Should I Hire?

T

TomHollo

Messages
111
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I have a week off work coming up and I have a long list of locations on my wish list which I'm hoping to get through!

Amongst this list is the Glyderau Range in Snowdonia, and more specifically, the Devil's Kitchen:

Lovely photo of the Devil''s Kitchen taken at 18mm

Google Map

I also have plans to visit the Balcombe Viaduct:

Balcombe Viaduct

I also have a few more but I thought seeing as it's going to be a busy week that £40 to hire a lens is quite frankly a steal! the only trouble now is...which one!

Lenses for Hire has a good selection of UWA lenses - I could really do with some guidance on which would be the most beneficial.

The choices are:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - £37.50

Sigma/C 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM - £33.50

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM - £35.25

I have a 1000D with the 18-55 kit lens and a 28-300 Sigma. I am leaning towards the 10-22, mainly because of the range and the IS which could be useful as I don't have a tripod.

Can anyone shed some light on the image quality of the Canon 10-22 compared to the Sigma?

Many thanks,

Tom

P.S. I almost convinced myself to pursue a Tokina 11-16 earlier - I have the UWA bug! :bonk:

P.P.S. I will of course be getting insurance!
 
TomHollo said:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - £37.50

I am leaning towards the 10-22, mainly because of the range and the IS which could be useful as I don't have a tripod.

Can anyone shed some light on the image quality of the Canon 10-22 compared to the Sigma?

Many thanks,

Tom
Click to expand...

Just for your info, the Canon doesn't have IS.

For me I'd go Canon, I had the Siggy for a couple of days and found it rather soft in comparison. I'm sure you'll LOVE any UWA you hire.
 
Go for the Canon! It's a little sharper than the Sigma, if I was buying I'd say the Sigma because the Canon is a fair bit more expensive, but if you're renting go for the 10-22.

I'd seriously recommend getting a little travel tripod type thing as well, I've got one that I can keep in my camera bag, and it'll really expand the type of shots you can take, especially if it's looking nice as the sun starts to go down!

Chris
 
I hired the canon (from lensesforhire, and have since bought a second hand one) and was very happy with it. I did find it difficult to not use it zoomed in, but eventually got the hang of it.
+1 for the tripod. As you are going for landscapes, you can take some nice long exposures. (don't make the aperture too small though). I found on the 400d, that the colour contrast improved the longer the exposure.

If the 18-55 you have is the same as the 400d kit, then this can be used to some extent for landscapes, so I am not sure if these are what interest you, that the 17-40 is going to be of major use.

This is one taken at shoulder height, long exposure, no other playing.
 
Thanks all!

I think I saw the 'S' and got excited.....

Seems like the Canon 10-22 is the winner - as coldpenguin mentioned with the 17-40 covering a range that I already have, the 10-22 will probably be the best bet.

A tripod is definately on my shopping list, although I'm not sure I would want to lug it up the Glyder range! A 700m vertical gain is going to be hard work as it is - i think i'll have to jetison my 28-300 if i take the 10-22 and the 17-55!

Thanks for your help everyone :)

Tom
 
TomHollo said:
A tripod is definately on my shopping list, although I'm not sure I would want to lug it up the Glyder range! A 700m vertical gain is going to be hard work as it is
Click to expand...

Have a look for mini tripods, seriously! I got one of these when they were on special offer for about a tenner, it's under 30cm high, surprisingly sturdy, and weighs hardly anything. Set it up on some rocks and you're good to go!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top