#1  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:29 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Landscape and general lens dilema

Folks,

We're heading to Canada soon and I'm after recommendations for a landscape and general use lens.

At the moment I have a Canon 350D, 18-55(rubbish), 70-300(rubbish), 70-200 f4L IS (lovely), and 1.4x L converter.

I'm thinking of one of these to go on the 350D,

EF-S 17-55 f2.8
16-35 f2.8L II
17-40 f4L

Another alternative would be to buy an older Canon 5D body (5D MkII is beyond sensible for my usage) and get one of the following:

24-70 f2.8L
24-105 f4L
24 f2.8 and 50 f1.4 primes

Help!! Are any of these lenses better/worse than the others for landscapes and general shooting?

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-04-2010, 10:37 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
In my opinion, the 17-40mm f/4L on a full frame is an excellent compromise over the 16-35mm f/2.8L II's extra stop of aperture. If you're shooting landscapes, I don't know of a situation where you'd need f/2.8. Typically, for depth, landscapes are shot at f/8 and smaller. f/8 also just happens to be a sweet spot for a lot of lenses.

If you were shooting indoors, f/2.8 would make sense.

For general purpose, all day, walk around lens, the 24-105mm f/4L is pretty much hard to beat.

On the 350D, you would want to look for something in the 10-22mm range for almost equivalent field of view.

On an unrelated note, you lucky so-and-so -- Canada, eh! Maybe next year for me.

H
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-04-2010, 05:41 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,832
You're not going to get any better advice than from our very own landscape master above. Totally agree with H. 17-40 is a fantastic landscape lens on a FF camera, but on your crop body you'd be looking for something a little wider like Canon's 10-22, the Sigma 10-20, or the Tamron 11-16. That Tamron is extremely popular, you may not be able to get a hold of a copy due to demand/availability.

On a crop body, my recommendation for a walkaround lens is the 17-55. I had the 24-70 but swapped it because I found it just wasn't wide enough for me. YMMV. I know the 24-105 is highly favoured as well, just that the 24 wide end doesn't suit me personally, but everyone's different.

The above assumes you'll be sticking with your crop body for some time. If you are thinking about going to a full frame camera like the 5D soon, unless you don't mind selling and buying some new lenses as well, you may be better off with a slightly different lineup.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-04-2010, 07:33 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Thanks guys, I'm glad you responded as I really value your expertise.

Do you think the 5D (not 5D MkII) is a valid step up from the 350D?

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-04-2010, 07:35 AM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,988
I'd agree with Troy, the 10-22 Canon or Tamron,you can add the Tokina 12-24 to that list, it's quite a nice lens. If you don't want to carry a lot of gear and have the money the 24-105L on a full frame body is quite good.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-04-2010, 09:18 AM
Analog6's Avatar
Analog6 (Odille)
Registered User

Analog6 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Glenorchy, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 430
The 16-35 is just a superb lens, if you can afford it IMHO you cannot do better. I absolutely love mine, it is the default lens for the camera. The 24-105 f4 is also a wonderful lens. When I go to NZ next month those will be the 2 I am taking.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-04-2010, 09:46 AM
Wavytone
Registered User

Wavytone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Killara, Sydney
Posts: 4,050
Another thought is that if you don't really want to lug all that gear while travelling, leave it behind and buy a high-end wide-angle compact suited to landscapes such as the Panasonic LX3.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-04-2010, 10:46 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,832
Having been to Canada, I'd absolutely be taking my DSLR and landscape kit for most of the spectacular scenery, and always keep a compact in pocket or wife's handbag for outings where the DSLR isn't convenient. Don't think a compact would do it justice unless unavoidable.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-04-2010, 11:09 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
OK, so I've decided not to buy a 2nd hand 5D and will stick with a crop body.

With this in mind, what do you think of this line-up:

Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5
Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm f4L (already have this)

Now, I currently have H's old 350D body, would it be worthwhile updating to the 50D or 7D?

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2010, 12:25 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Jason,

My opinion, but, I don't think you need an IS lens for the 17-55mm range. It's a bit of a waste, especially considering it's f/2.8

7D would be a big step up!

H
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:54 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
I agree re the IS, but that lens seems to have a good focal length range, and the 2.8 would be nice as it'll be the lens that is on the camera most of the time.

Is there another lens you'd suggest to go between the 10-22 and the 70-200?

Regards,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:48 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,832
The IS isn't an option, it's there. For me, it's all about the FL and aperture and image quality on that lens. The IS I can take or leave. But I honestly believe it's a great walkaround zoom for a crop body.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2010, 08:09 PM
Vanda's Avatar
Vanda (Ian)
Registered User

Vanda is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 189
Being a Nikon user I can only assume that Canon has an equivalent lens. I was prepared to spend up to $1000 for a good quality W/A to small telephoto zoom and purchased the Nikkor 16-85 F3.5 with VR. An added bonus with this lens is the IF - internal focus - the lens does not rotate when I refocus with a square grad filter attached to the front - great for landscapes. Bit pricy but a great lens - I use it 90% of the time. I have a cheaper 35 F1.8 and a 70-300 which I use a lot less - spend the bucks on the one you will use mostest - thats my advice!

Last edited by Vanda; 12-04-2010 at 08:14 PM. Reason: added a bit
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 23-04-2010, 07:12 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Well all, after all your input I bought a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, and it's arrived!

Wow! This thing is w-i-d-e!!

Next up a UV and CPL filter.

Thanks all.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 24-04-2010, 05:19 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,832
Sweet. Personally, I'd forget the UV filter and put that towards a cheap ebay hood for it, but still get a good CPL filter. Maybe a neutral density filter (3 stop or so I think mine is) too to increase exposure times for some of those milky flowing water type landscape shots.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 24-04-2010, 07:12 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
The UV would be there purely to protect the lens, do you not think that is worth doing?

I've already ordered the EW-83E hood (genuine) which is on its way, along with an EW-83J for the 17-55 when I get it.......

For the CPL I'm thinking Hoya, either the Pro1 or the HD. Supposedly the HD has more transmission, but does impart more unnatural colour than the Pro1.

Initial images show the 10-22 to be nowhere near as sharp as the 70-200 f4L.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 24-04-2010, 08:00 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,832
I started out with UV filters on all of my lenses "for protection". I also always use a hood. Found the hood protects the lenses enough, and I get better contrast without the UV filter, so now I don't use UV filters at all. I have never scratched a lens, but have bumped the hoods ocassionally.

I have the Hoya Pro1 CPL.

Keep in mind that the 70-200 f/4L has a reputation of being one of the sharpest zoom lenses available. You'd be hard pressed to find any zoom lens as sharp as it. The 10-22 is also no L series lens, and it won't be sharp wide open, but for landscapes you'll likely be shooting f/11, f/16 or smaller.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement