Landscape Lens

willbaroo

willbaroo

Messages
1,214
Name
William
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies if this has been covered before people!:shrug:

Yet another thread about somebody (me) who has 'X' amount of money (€410 left over from hols) and would like a great value for money, best for landscape lens to fit to my new xmas prezzy (Canon 50D) providing Santa stops by!

I'm getting good vibes from Canon 10-22mm, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Sigma 10-20mm.

What do you people say?

Thanking you all in advance! :)
 
The Canon 10-22 gets a big thumbs up from me. More expensive than the siggy but I've never been sorry I chose the Canon.
 
I owned the Canon 10-22 on a 30d and was very impressed. It leaves you in no doubt it's a wide angle and the quality is very good.

I would personally only go for third party lenses if they did something the Canon version couldn't or the cost saving was a priority. I have never had one yet though.

Graham
 
MPB have 3 17-40's, and if my 40d from them is anything to go by they give you a 6month warranty! i'd go for canon glass if you can, i'd never touch another sigma having used a canon L lens!
 
You could have a look at the tokina 11-16mm f2.8 pro DX lens.

Much better build quality than the sigma and image quality comparable to the canon 10-22, not to mention the constant f2.8.
 
landscape lens for me is 17-40/4, walkbout lens is 24-70/2.8

(bought my mint 17-40/4 2nd hand on here for £430)
 
smalls said:
id go for the tam 17-50, constant 2.8 apeture and exellent walk about lens :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Unless you want UWA I would personally agree with the above, funnily enough as it's what I did ;)
However the Canon alternatives in the 10-22 and 17-40 L are both very nice lenses.
To be honest it comes down to budget - seperates the Canons from the 3rd parties.
Then it comes down to focal length - seperates the wider range 'walkabouts' from the dedicated WA lens in both cases.
 
The Tamron 17-50 has always been well regarded as a good walkabout lens, it or the Sigma 17-70 however the Sigma isn't a constant f2.8 it does give you a little more range I had one on my Sony and was very impressed.
Also I loved my Sigma 10-20 if you want an UWA lens that has good performance and affordable then its a cracking option.
 
You don't really need an ultra-wide for landscapes but they are a lot of fun, good for getting up close as they offer interesting distortion on perspective. You don't really want that distortion on landscape shots but as landscapes don't have many straight lines you usually get away with it. Epic things like mountain ranges are good with an UWA and also they're useful for squeezing into tight nooks and crannies like streams and gullies.

so it's up to you really but i wouldn't bother with the 17-40 as it's designed to be wide on a full-frame and it's not long enough to be considered a good walk-around on a crop sensor. In other worlds it might be L quality but on a crop camera it's the best of neither.
 
bomberman said:
...i wouldn't bother with the 17-40 as it's designed to be wide on a full-frame and it's not long enough to be considered a good walk-around on a crop sensor. In other worlds it might be L quality but on a crop camera it's the best of neither.
Click to expand...

You have a point. 17-40 is a rather limited range walkabout lens on a crop camera, and can't hold a candle to the 17-55 2.8 for that job. Brilliant super-wide lens on full frame though.

Best super-wide on crop is Canon 10-22, or Sigma 10-20 for a bit less.
 
I can strongly recomend the Canon 10-22, but it depends if the wide angle is a bit extreme so possibly a 17-40 may best suit you. I have heard the 10-22 described as a non L, L lens, if that gives you any impression of the quality of image it can produce. It is an EF-S lens so will not work on a full frame sensor camera.

My 2p...... and very relevant points to consider above but then thats the beauty of an open forum!

On reflection, I think if I could buy again I would probably buy the 17-40L as the 10-22 rarely comes out of the bag, but would struggle to part with the 10-22 now that I have it..... but may do if someone was to advise that the image quality of the 17-40L knocks spots off the 10-22..... oh dear... :thinking:
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I can strongly recomend the Canon 10-22, but it depends if the wide angle is a bit extreme so possibly a 17-40 may best suit you. I have heard the 10-22 described as a non L, L lens, if that gives you any impression of the quality of image it can produce. It is an EF-S lens so will not work on a full frame sensor camera.

My 2p...... and very relevant points to consider above but then thats the beauty of an open forum!

On reflection, I think if I could buy again I would probably buy the 17-40L as the 10-22 rarely comes out of the bag, but would struggle to part with the 10-22 now that I have it..... but may do if someone was to advise that the image quality of the 17-40L knocks spots off the 10-22..... oh dear... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Be advised that the 17-40L doesn't knock spots off a 10-22 in any shape or form. It's a brilliant full frame lens, which is what you're paying for, but extremely ordinary on a crop camera.

Nobody would even consider it if it was an EF-S lens. I really don't see the attraction on a crop camera at all. Yes, it's very well made, but the range is poor, it's only f/4 and has no IS. Get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS - that was designed for crop cameras and is brilliant (but not much use on full frame). 17-40L was designed for full frame and is brilliant at that (but not very good on crop format).

Edit: major feature of the 17-40L - it has a red ring ;)
 
Thanks for the input so far guys, i'm really liking the sound of the Sigma so far...

I know alot have said 17-40 L / 17-55 2.8 IS but I really don't think I can stretch that far unless the pound really goes pair shaped against the euro!
 
willbaroo said:
Thanks for the input so far guys, i'm really liking the sound of the Sigma so far...

I know alot have said 17-40 L / 17-55 2.8 IS but I really don't think I can stretch that far unless the pound really goes pair shaped against the euro!
Click to expand...


If you are keen on this focal range I would certainly consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the VC edition of the same lens. They can be had for £240 and £410 respectively, new :)
 
TP thread

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/search.php?searchid=2673179

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=168999&highlight=purelygadgets

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=114226&highlight=Simply+Electronics

personally I stay away from simplyelectronics, purelygadgets etc stay with warehouse express, park camera's or stuart at digital depot

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

As for a lens, 10-20 or 10-22 too limited a focal range, would recommend the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 instead for my 2p worth

Peter
 
steve001 said:
Canon 10-22 is very good.
Click to expand...

Not saying it isn't a good lens, own one myself, good for city photography, extreme landscapes, but the range is too limiting, gets used now and again, 17-50, would get more use, more practical lens.
 
I bought my 10-22 from Onestop-Digital for £489 (£10 off their marked price). It was delivered in about 5 days. Very happy with the lens, and probably the best quality lens I've used. :thumbs:
 
Just to put another point of view to those who say that a 10-20mm is too extreme or too limiting, my most used zoom on my 20D is a Sigma 12-24mm (which I much prefer to the Canon 10-22mm I owned.) It takes all sorts!

I hope that you like your new toy. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top