| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2005 06:15:56 AM · #1 |
After a bit of soul searching, I have come to the realization that I am an outdoor photographer. On top of that, I seem to be drawn more and more to natural landscapes and such. With this in mind, I have decided that I would like to invest in a better wide angle lens than my current 18-55mm kit lens that came with the Digi Rebel.
I want something better than the 18-55, but don't have the $$$ for the high end stuff like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L. I am seriously considering the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L. One of the reasons is that this lens has 77mm fitting for filters, just like my Canon 300mm f/4.
Anyhoo, what I am looking for are suggestions of other lenses that may suit my purpose. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 06:40:19 AM · #2 |
CHeck out the Sigma range. There are many good lenses which cost much less than canon lenses. They may not be as fast but good for budget. CHeck out all the Sigma lenses on DPC's new lens database and try and find some pics from the lens you are considering.
Here's the canon one you are looking at. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:12:00 AM · #3 |
| All I can say is that I like the 17-40L. Good colours and contrast and pretty sharp too. Pretty much the only bad thing about it is the small maximum aperture (it´s the only one I have that has a smaller maximum aperture than 2.8) but if that really bothered me I would have saved a little longer and got the 16-35. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:16:25 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
After a bit of soul searching, I have come to the realization that I am an outdoor photographer. On top of that, I seem to be drawn more and more to natural landscapes and such. |
That's cool, that you are defining your niche. I recently got the 300 and love it. Also right with you as the kitter is my widest. I'll be watching this thread as I may want to follow you and get a better WA.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:50:22 AM · #5 |
High HIGHLY recommend you look at the tamron 17-35 Di 2.8-4.0 , I had this lens for a while because of a failure on my 16-35L 2.8 (the one you cannot afford) and seriously, aside from being a bit slower to focus and having a cheaper lens hood.... the shots are so sharp and good that I can't tell them apart.
This lens is designed for the 1.6crop of cameras such as the 300D/20D/10d and I really hope you can try one out. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 09:33:54 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
High HIGHLY recommend you look at the tamron 17-35 Di 2.8-4.0 , I had this lens for a while because of a failure on my 16-35L 2.8 (the one you cannot afford) and seriously, aside from being a bit slower to focus and having a cheaper lens hood.... the shots are so sharp and good that I can't tell them apart.
This lens is designed for the 1.6crop of cameras such as the 300D/20D/10d and I really hope you can try one out. |
Yup, I just picked this up this weekend and thus far I really like it. It is very sharp, built like a tank and seems plenty fast for me. The lens hood is kind of hokey but it works.
I think you got 2 or 3 days left to get one to take advantage of the current $40 dollar rebate. Canon mounts seem to be going pretty fast as locally in San Diego I found one in stock at the last shop I went to (kind of glad too as they had it for the cheapest). Street price goes from 479-520. $440 (AR) for a piece of SP glass sealed it for me...and I am glad I did.
ED: Failed to mention it takes a 77 filter.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 09:38:52. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:22:52 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
One of the reasons is that this lens has 77mm fitting for filters, just like my Canon 300mm f/4.
Anyhoo, what I am looking for are suggestions of other lenses that may suit my purpose. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. |
I wouldn't worry about the filter size. If it's smaller than 77mm then stepup rings can be used to use the 77mm filters.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:10:19 PM · #8 |
The recommendation for the Tamron 17-35 seems liek a good one, that lens gets very high praise pretty regularly.
Because an important consideration in landscape photography is to maximize the rendering of detail, I'd also suggest that primes are really a better path than zooms. The Sigma 20/1.8 is a well-respected entry.
Although going for VERY wide angle coverage is tempting, I'd rather stitch to get ultra-wide perspectives, since the amount of detail goes up dramatically.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:42:04 PM · #9 |
A few things:
1) I have the 16-35 f/2.8L...I bought it used at a great price. If I sell it I can make some money so I thought "why not?". The Tamron 17-35 is getting good reviews so I would consider moving to that and pocketing the difference in cash but (!) I can't stand the thought of going back to variable apertures...
2) For landscape, you normally want small apertures and you often use a tripod so I would think speed is not a necessity...so with that in mind I would highly recommend getting the 17-40 f/4L from Canon for your purposes.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:51:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
A few things:
1) I have the 16-35 f/2.8L...I bought it used at a great price. If I sell it I can make some money so I thought "why not?". The Tamron 17-35 is getting good reviews so I would consider moving to that and pocketing the difference in cash but (!) I can't stand the thought of going back to variable apertures...
2) For landscape, you normally want small apertures and you often use a tripod so I would think speed is not a necessity...so with that in mind I would highly recommend getting the 17-40 f/4L from Canon for your purposes. |
I agree that variable aperture can be a nightmare, but for landscapes with long enough exposures, I can only assume you would be at least at f4 to start? (I don't do landscapes so I don't know!) |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:53:23 PM · #11 |
Canon has a 10mm telephoto out there that is fairly new to the market.
It is not a fishyeye, but what other specs on this lens I am not sure of.
I know it costs around $400-$500.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:56:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Canon has a 10mm telephoto out there that is fairly new to the market.
It is not a fishyeye, but what other specs on this lens I am not sure of.
I know it costs around $400-$500. |
Must be very very new...I am a CPS member and I've never heard to this lens. 10mm cannot be a telephoto, so you may have gotten the appelation wrong.
Perhaps you're reffering to the: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ? This is in the ULTRA-WIDE zoom range. it's a "ok" lens fairly distorted at the bottom of the range...but what bugs me most is that it's fairly slow.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 12:59:54. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:57:13 PM · #13 |
| If you want a truly wide angle for landscapes like I do. Try the new Tokina 12-24mm constant f/4. It takes 77mm filters. Its sells for $400.00 in most major camera stores. If you want to see some samples of the Tokina 12-24mm lens try my photosite. Samples |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:58:39 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Canon has a 10mm telephoto out there that is fairly new to the market.
It is not a fishyeye, but what other specs on this lens I am not sure of.
I know it costs around $400-$500. |
Must be very very new...I am a CPS member and I've never heard to this lens. 10mm cannot be a telephoto, so you may have gotten the appelation wrong. |
Like I said, its new, it here. Telephoto?? I thought it was a 10mm- ???mm.
I've seen it, I've held it. Just look.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:59:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
I agree that variable aperture can be a nightmare, but for landscapes with long enough exposures, I can only assume you would be at least at f4 to start? (I don't do landscapes so I don't know!) |
Good point...I don't know the price point of the Tamron so you might want to look into those two.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 01:01:13 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Canon has a 10mm telephoto out there that is fairly new to the market.
It is not a fishyeye, but what other specs on this lens I am not sure of.
I know it costs around $400-$500. |
Must be very very new...I am a CPS member and I've never heard to this lens. 10mm cannot be a telephoto, so you may have gotten the appelation wrong. |
Like I said, its new, it here. Telephoto?? I thought it was a 10mm- ???mm.
I've seen it, I've held it. Just look. |
yeah, I edited my post your talking about: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
and it's an ok lens...but fairly slow and very distorted at 10mm. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 01:01:16 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Like I said, its new, it here. Telephoto?? I thought it was a 10mm- ???mm.
I've seen it, I've held it. Just look. |
Do you mean the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5?
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 01:02:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Like I said, its new, it here. Telephoto?? I thought it was a 10mm- ???mm.
I've seen it, I've held it. Just look. |
Do you mean the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5? |
Could be.
Again, I don't know much on this lens. I am not in the market for a lens of this type. However, I am in the market for a longer lens.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 02:01:16 AM EDT.
