Best/most reasonable landscape lens for me right now...?

Anton17

Anton17

Messages
538
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I have a couple of other threads, and I want to make it clear that I am currently strongly considering purchasing a Canon 40D at the end of the month. I am still undecided, hence this thread.

I currently have a Canon 400D, which is currently out of action, with poor lenses (stock kit lens + 90-300mm). Before I get it repaired I'm considering my options, one of those being the Canon 40D. I am interested as to how the kit lens with the 40D fares for people if they have experience with it.

I am looking for, as you would expect, sharpness, clarity and colour definition/saturation. I would intend on taking a lot of sunrise/sunset - dusk/dawn long exposure shots if the situations provide them. Saying this, I like to be able to have the shots as dark as possible so I can afford longer exposures - I don't have any filters yet, and I've found I can't get a decent picture after 5am with the shutter open for longer than a second; I don't know whether a lens could help this, or whether I should look for an ND filter. Along side wanting the lower mm's for landscape shots, I also need it for a daylight walkabout lens. So, I'm looking for some versatility that hits my category... if I have one.

The lens would be used on my 400D, to make this clear, and not the 40D. It is a choice between a lens and the 40D and I can't afford both. I would want to keep the lens, however, if I stayed with the 400D and looked to upgrade after, so this should be a keeper of a lens.

My budget is probably about £400 and I doubt I could stretch further than that, but it is early days. I was willing to spend £400 or around that on a 40D with a kit lens, so it seems fair. I would like to try and keep it as inexpensive as possible, however, but without compromising quality so I am interested in purchasing second hand. (Anyone have any experience with buying lenses second hand; is it usually a horror story?)

I have seen the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (http://www.jessops.com/online.store...non/EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM-1123/Show.html) - which seems like good range and a good price. I could probably afford one of these second hand.

I've been recommended the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro (http://www.jessops.com/online.store... f2.8-4.5 DC Macro (Canon AF)-35252/Show.html) - from another user, but I have no idea what it is like. I could possibly afford one of these brand new from the right place.

If you have any experience or suggestions then I would like as many as possible since I am probably going to go and try to get the lens that the most people recommend in this thread. I am strongly preferred to buying second hand so I can get the best quality for my money. I doubt I would be able to try out the lens first, which I am aware is quite bad, but is the only way I would be able to purchase second hand so I want as many people's opinions and recommendations as they come. I am in your hands and you have my faith! :)
 
To keep it short... the Sigma 17-70mm totally rocks...and one went on here this week for £150! Get the HSM version if you can... the 10-20mm is excellent as well, but will cost you considerably more than the 17-70mm...
 
Thanks for the advice, guys. The 17-70mm and the Canon 17-85mm are firmly on my shortlist - probably going to be one of the two.

Any other recommendations or comments on these lenses?
 
Do you really need the IS?

One alternative option might be the 17-55 kit lens. It is a mediocre lens, but is good for a kit lens.

They are pretty cheap second hand (think I saw one for £30, I think this is mainly because people upgrade), and I believe that it is also the kit lens option with the 40D (over here anyway).

I am just wondering whether this would give you the oportunity of getting the 40d (in your other threads I think you said you were concerned about the life of your 400d?), and then you can see whether you need less than 17 for the type of landscape you want to take. With the 90+ of your other lens, you would be missing a gap in the middle though.
I played with a 10-22 recently from Canon. A really nice lens, but, in order to get a good picture at 10mm, you need to almost be at an angle with the landscape. The lens makes mountains small, (lurvely and wide though). I found you needed to get down much lower than usual to get foreground.

With the 17-55 (which is my widest lens, I use this instead of my 28-135 for landscapes), landscapes can look real even at shoulder height.

IS is a really nice feature though, my longer lenses (28-135, 70-300) all have it, and it saves a lot of my shots (but that is just my shakey hand).

(otherwise, it sounds to me like the Canon IS you mentioned above, with ND filters and IS turned off fits your bill closer)
 
Blapto said:
Well, what do you find is wrong with the kit lens? Is it just a matter of image quality, do you find that the focal length is perfect?
Click to expand...

Image quality, distortion at both ends, focus, build quality, colours, sharpness - I could go on.

I don't mind the range but I would like to have a longer one. That's why I have the 17-85mm in such a high priority. I find a shot that I love but can't get quite close to it without using my zoom (90-300mm) but the image quality in that is subjective and I often find the range is too high. The range of the 17-85mm is ideal for me, as with the Sigma 17-70mm, which is why I'm considering them so seriously, for both price and the image quality improvement (which won't take a lot from the stock lens).

I am thinking either of them would be just what I need... better image quality and sharpness with a better range and build quality (the IS is simply a bonus that I would love when I'm using it as a walkabout rather than a landscape) and I feel like the 70-200F4 L, kennysarmy, may be good but I prefer the lower ranges. Stick a lens hood and an ND grad filter (any recommendations for that? I'm clueless!) and the 17-85mm or the Sigma would be great for me.

... or does anyone have anything to say against that? :shrug:
 
i may be wrong here, but I too am considering the investing in a new lens, and really liked the look of the 17-85 Canon IS, but since it is an EFS mount, then if I eventually upgraded to full-frame (5d) then it could not be used on that camera ?

maybe not a huge consideration, but it may sway your thinking if you buy something "future proof".

also I believe there is an IS version of the 17-55 canon lens available , for not much more than the standard 17-55.

finally, do the sigma 17-70 have IS ?
 
I have a Tamron SP AF28- 75mm F/2.8 xXRDi LD Aspherical (IF) Macro for Canon and I find it is a great lens and worth your consideration. I also have the Canon 17-85mm EF-S lens and the only plus here is image stabilization, bu as I often use a tripod for Landscape it's not an issue and I prefer to use the Tamron. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top