landscape lens

[chubbiewoo]

Hi, I own a 450D and looking to get one of the following:

1) 17-55mm
2) 17-40mm
3) 10-22mm

i will be using it for outdoor landscape shots (ie most probably with the use of tripod, which may disregard the f2.8 of the 17-55...)

inclined to get 17-40 as it handles lens flare well and is L lens. but my friend told me to consider 10-22 as 17-40 on my crop body just becomes a normal zoom lens. would anyone like to air their views?

[WhipLash]

Originally Posted by chubbiewoo Hi, I own a 450D and looking to get one of the following: 1) 17-55mm 2) 17-40mm 3) 10-22mm i will be using it for outdoor landscape shots (ie most probably with the use of tripod, which may disregard the f2.8 of the 17-55...) inclined to get 17-40 as it handles lens flare well and is L lens. but my friend told me to consider 10-22 as 17-40 on my crop body just becomes a normal zoom lens. would anyone like to air their views?

Will you be using it for landscapes only? I have the 17-55 and I found it to be wide enough for landscapes. IQ is very good for this lens. With the f/2.8 and focal length, it can double as a walkaround indoor lens and for relatively tight portraits.

[deathstar]

10-22mm....no regrets!

I had a great time with this lens in Rome and Athens

[brandon93]

Of course, the L lens is the best one. But for me, the Kit lens is good!
Taken with the canon 450 Kit lens:



Cos i'm not landscape person,more on to nature, so i feel that this is ok for me.

[ahbian]

Originally Posted by brandon93 Of course, the L lens is the best one. But for me, the Kit lens is good! Taken with the canon 450 Kit lens: Cos i'm not landscape person,more on to nature, so i feel that this is ok for me.

How come L lens is the best one?

[lkkang]

10-20mm

[ggodetucsamoht]

delicated landscape len 10-22. 17-55 is inbetween the landscape shoot and portrait shoot.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by ahbian How come L lens is the best one?

Cos some people worship the red ring.

[Shen siung]

Originally Posted by ahbian How come L lens is the best one?

IMHO, it is just because Canon using better element / materials for the L lens, but no necessary the best.

IMHO, compare 17-55 and 17-40 L, I would go for 17-55...
But if you already have kit lens, and thinking really into landscape, then 10-22 is good. You may also consider other 3rd party, but I will leave it to you...

[chubbiewoo]

Originally Posted by WhipLash Will you be using it for landscapes only? I have the 17-55 and I found it to be wide enough for landscapes. IQ is very good for this lens. With the f/2.8 and focal length, it can double as a walkaround indoor lens and for relatively tight portraits.

yup i'll be using it for landscape only. indoors i'll just use my 30mm prime

[chubbiewoo]

how good is 10-22 when handling lens flare? and how's the colour saturation like?

[eosandy]

Sigma 10-20 is a good buy. Just adding to the mix...

[calebk]

Originally Posted by chubbiewoo how good is 10-22 when handling lens flare? and how's the colour saturation like?

Seems quite flare resistant, from reviews I've read.

Originally Posted by eosandy Sigma 10-20 is a good buy. Just adding to the mix...

Yeap. This was my first choice actually, given it's a fair bit cheaper than the Canon, and handles barrel (curvilinear) distortion better.

[chalib]

Originally Posted by eosandy Sigma 10-20 is a good buy. Just adding to the mix...

I have to agree with u....

[charlesleong]

Originally Posted by chubbiewoo Hi, I own a 450D and looking to get one of the following: 1) 17-55mm 2) 17-40mm 3) 10-22mm i will be using it for outdoor landscape shots (ie most probably with the use of tripod, which may disregard the f2.8 of the 17-55...) inclined to get 17-40 as it handles lens flare well and is L lens. but my friend told me to consider 10-22 as 17-40 on my crop body just becomes a normal zoom lens. would anyone like to air their views?

of the 3, on a crop body the 17-40 is the WORST choice. it's neither ultra-wide like the 10-22, long like the 17-55, doesn't have the f/2.8 of the 17-55 and no IS.

17-55 if you intend to use it as a general-purpose lens.
10-22(20) if you want a dedicated UWA lens.

(edit: hint - there's a reason the 10-22 and 17-55 are so expensive. it's because they're that good)

[lkkang]

one way to find out how good it is , is to go and rent the lens and shoot for a day. You will see the results yourself. If you think it is sharp enough, it is sharp enough

Originally Posted by chubbiewoo how good is 10-22 when handling lens flare? and how's the colour saturation like?

[Shen siung]

Originally Posted by charlesleong (edit: hint - there's a reason the 10-22 and 17-55 are so expensive. it's because they're that good)

Have to agree most good lenses are expensive.... but not all expensive lenses are good

[kel77]

Get the 10-22, you won't regret it.

This is the only lens that I missed after selling.

[LifeInMacro]

The question is how wide do you expect to go with your landscape photos?

If you don't need the ultrawide, then there're really many other options to choose from.

Get the EFS 10-22mm only if you're interested to go really wide. It is a relatively expensive piece of glass. From my experience in using this lens on 400D & 40D, some softness is generally expected at the edges on the 10mm end, especially if you're using a small aperture...and this is also confirmed by Canon CS when I brought it for checkup recently.

Flare - yes, there's some flare (I shoot without filters 99% of the time), but I'm rather conscious about this and try to avoid it by moving around a bit. Sometimes I find the flares rather interesting (e.g. when shooting directly into the sun) and shoot my pics with flares in full view! An example is here.

Stay cool and happy shooting. Cheers!

[calebk]

Originally Posted by LifeInMacro The question is how wide do you expect to go with your landscape photos? If you don't need the ultrawide, then there're really many other options to choose from. Get the EFS 10-22mm only if you're interested to go really wide. It is a relatively expensive piece of glass. From my experience in using this lens on 400D & 40D, some softness is generally expected at the edges on the 10mm end, especially if you're using a small aperture...and this is also confirmed by Canon CS when I brought it for checkup recently. Flare - yes, there's some flare (I shoot without filters 99% of the time), but I'm rather conscious about this and try to avoid it by moving around a bit. Sometimes I find the flares rather interesting (e.g. when shooting directly into the sun) and shoot my pics with flares in full view! An example is here. Stay cool and happy shooting. Cheers!

If I may clarify something - by "small aperture", are you referring to small aperture opening (i.e stopped down) or small f/stop number? These two are very different things.