canon lens for landscape

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Xzag, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. Xzag macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    #1
    I am a stop-motion guy. 50D + 70-200 II is well suited to that. I am headed to Alaska in one week, and I want to branch out and get some landscape shots, as well as some closer in shots of us on a boat catching fish. I am looking for inputs on reasonable lenses in a wide angle format for this. I am considering the ubiquitous 24-105 4L, the 17-40L, and the ASPC oriented 17-55 2.8. Opinions? I have information overload on the reviews, so would like to get some real-world inputs from the forum....thanks in advance.

    should I even think about other manufacturers? Obviously, the less I spend, the better.
     
  2. Rowbear, Jul 9, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012

    Rowbear macrumors 6502a

    Rowbear

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Gatineau, PQ, Canada
    #2
    I own the 17-40 (equivalent to 27.2 to 64mm on your 50D), and I've shot many times with the 17-55 (88mm). When outside in good light, they are both excellent. They both deliver good contrast, colours, and are both sharp. The advantage of the 17-55 over the 17-40 is in low light with its faster aperture and I"S", so not a problem for your trip when outside.

    If you want to go wider, I also have the EF-s 10-22 and that is also a fantastic lens, equivalent to 16-35mm.

    I have never tried the 24-105 (38.4 to 168mm)
     
  3. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #3
    The replies you'll get on this forum will likely be as varied as the reviews you've been reading. People who own certain lenses will be more likely to recommend those lenses, and people who have upgraded from an APS-C camera to a full-frame one will be likely to tell you to "future-proof" yourself by avoiding APS-C lenses.

    For what it's worth, I'll throw in my $0.02. I own all three lenses that you are considering buying, and I have cameras with both sensor formats. Given what you have said, I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS because it is the most versatile of the lot, perfectly meets your stated needs, and holds its value very well on the used market (should you decide to sell it down the line). I don't think the 24-105 would be wide enough for a small space like a boat, and the 17-40 is slower, has less range, and lacks IS (though it is a bit cheaper than the 17-55 f/2.8). You might also consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8; it's a fine lens optically and is a great value for the price.
     
  4. Mr.Noisy, Jul 9, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012

    Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #4
    as Phrasikleia mentioned the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good non - canon lens, for Landscaping on a crop sensor check the Canon 10-22mm as mentioned by Rowbear, as an alternative have a look at the Sigma 10-20mm, this is a fun lens to use, personally I shoot using FF sensors and either 17-40 or 70-200mm for landscapes, the 24-105 'can' be used for landscaping but as it's 24mm at it's widest it only really works on full frame, but if money isnt an issue have a look at the carl zeiss 21mm lens, a beautiful lens, but it may start a prime lens addiction, and convince you to go FF.
     
  5. someoldguy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Location:
    usa
    #5
    What about the 15-85 ? I just got one with a 50D ( like I need more gear) and it seems to be pretty close as regards IQ on the crop body as the 24-105 on full frame . I've got 3 POTD submissions this month done with this lens that are pretty much straight out of the camera . Seems to be like a 24-135 on full frame . If you don't need 2.8 , maybe this is an alternative .
     
  6. Prodo123 macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #6
    Its variable aperture makes it a no-no.
    If only it were a constant f/4... even if you don't need a f/2.8 you at least need a f/4.

    You could try the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX AF 11-16mm f/2.8. It's like the Canon 10-22mm but with a constant f/2.8. It's the crop sensor equivalent of the superb 16-35mm f/2.8 line.

    The 17-55mm has the dust problem, which is why I shied away from it.
    The 17-40mm is a more economical choice over the 17-55mm if you are planning on going full frame in the near future.

    Honestly if I were you I'd go with either the 10-22mm, 11-16mm or the 17-40mm.
     
  7. Rowbear macrumors 6502a

    Rowbear

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Gatineau, PQ, Canada
    #7
    Excellent choice also. Never taught of that one ;)
     
  8. Xzag thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    #8
    thanks, keep em coming!

    I went and played with the 17-40. I found out that I really need IS, so now I am going to try and play with the 24-105 and the 17-55 2.8. I have read about the dust issues, and I am concerned. Phrasikleia, do you take any extraordinary preventive measures here? I will be switching lenses during the day to catch wildlife with the 70-200, and then back to the wide for the landscape shots. I admit, it is nice to go to the beach with the L lens and know that even on a windy day, it is not hurt if I dont release it from the body....
     
  9. 100Teraflops, Jul 10, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2012

    100Teraflops macrumors 6502a

    100Teraflops

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Location:
    Elyria, Ohio
    #9
    I would not combine a 24 whatever with a crop body. Just not wide enough bro! How many times are you going to Alaska? Food for thought! I agree that a 17-55 or a 15-85 are your best bets. Have you thought about renting, since you are a "stop motion guy"? A Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 are viable options too, but obviously one is limited a bit on the long end. Hope his helps!

    www.lensrentals.com
     
  10. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #10
    Nothing more extraordinary than a UV filter (if I'm not using some other kind of filter instead). I had heard about the dust issue before I got the lens and was sure to put a UV filter on it as soon as I unboxed it. Apparently, the dust comes in through the gap around the front element, so placing a filter over the front seals that bit. Three years and countless dusty archaeological sites later, my 17-55 has only a speck or two of dust visible within it.
     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    I think if you're shooting on a boat, you're worried about the wrong thing: you should be more concerned with salt water rather than dust. Most dust is also harmless since it is so far outside the focal plane that it won't be visible in the photos.

    Phrasikleia's advice is spot-on: a 17-55 mm makes much more sense and you'll be able to shoot at lower light since you have a larger initial aperture and IS.
     
  12. WRP macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Location:
    Boston
    #12
    For a complete quiver I'd go with the Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 and you already have the 70-200.

    I have all of these and am NEVER in a condition with a crop camera without a lens for the job at hand. But, the 17-55 wasn't wide enough on a crop for true landscapes for me. The Tokina really fits that bill and is an awesome lens.

    The dust problem with the 17-55 is over stated. Yes, it gets dust but it never shows up in images. Plus, the lens is insanely easy to take apart and clean.

    There is a post floating around somewhere I saw with a completely cracked to hell front element on a lens and for all intents and purposes the image only suffered slightly. Don't let the dust bother you.
     

Share This Page