| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2005 09:42:23 AM · #1 |
noob interested in landscape photography, wondering what suggested lens i should get for the 350D? Somewhere aroung $800
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 09:57:45. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 09:54:46 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 09:57:11 AM · #3 |
I must say i love my Canon 10-22. It is a bit expensive, around $800 USD but worth every penny. It is a tad soft but nothing that can't be fixed.
June
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 09:58:23 AM · #4 |
For what it's worth... I'm with you (fellow noob). I've been doing some research and following recommendations on this site. I have picked an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It's on my wish list at B&H and I'm hoping one day to sell enough blood to be able to afford it! ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:09:05 AM · #5 |
How wide do you want to go?
What lenses do you have now, and what 'need' is unfulfilled by them?
Extreme sharpness is not really necessary, but good contrast and color would be.
Is there any other area of photography that this new lens might address (architecture or low light or...)
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:11:01 AM · #6 |
i hear the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM is quite a good lens.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:25:16 AM · #7 |
at $1400 is much more than the budget specified.
Besides, the canon 17-40L is $680 and nearly as good. I went with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC for $440 new off ebay. (499 at b&h). More range, faster and just as sharp for less money.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:27:27 AM · #8 |
for landscape... I'd definitely go wider than the 16-35 or the 17-40... 10-22 would be my first choice if I were using a Canon.
But that all depends on your style of photography too. :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:29:22 AM · #9 |
| I'm going for the new Sigma 10-20 |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:30:32 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
at $1400 is much more than the budget specified.
Besides, the canon 17-40L is $680 and nearly as good. I went with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC for $440 new off ebay. (499 at b&h). More range, faster and just as sharp for less money. |
oops, i didnt see the edited post when he changed the budget.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:45:07 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by colda:
I'm going for the new Sigma 10-20 |
Let us know if you like it. I want one toooooooo
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:55:55 AM · #12 |
I don't know much about how people feel about it, but there is the tokina 12-24mm f4.0 that looks interesting. Don't know how soft it is...
//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=360349&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:58:29 AM · #13 |
| From what I understand, the Tokina is very good. A bit better than 19 on the short end, on a Canon... The Tokina would be my first choice, right behind the Nikon 12-24... But that's just because I use Nikon. :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:11:17 AM · #14 |
Wow, thanks for the input!
now, I'm even more confused! hehehhe but at least I got it narrowed down. Do you guys recommend buying lenses off of ebay? because I know JandK cameras are from brooklyn and they're well known for their bait and switch scams. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:25:22 PM · #15 |
A 16-35 can take the same angle of view as a 10-20 if you simply back up a few paces. They just can't take the same angle of view from the same spot.
But who said you can't move?
Buy what you need, then position yourself accordingly.
Always buy the best glass you can afford for the application at hand |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:34:40 PM · #16 |
The most impressive thing about the 10-22 is the extreme DOF. It lets you mess with perspective at the low end in a way that is impossible with a longer lens no matter where you stand. Of course if you shoot a person's face really close up they better have a huge ego or a good sense of humor, because the results are not too flattering, but that 10-15mm range can be used to create some great effects.
As a pure landscape lens I find it a bit soft, but if you are getting the very close and the very distant in the shot, it rules. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:41:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A 16-35 can take the same angle of view as a 10-20 if you simply back up a few paces. They just can't take the same angle of view from the same spot.
But who said you can't move?
Buy what you need, then position yourself accordingly.
Always buy the best glass you can afford for the application at hand |
That might work for something relatively close to you, but compositions of horizons (mountain ranges, seascapes, et. al.) that are miles away do not really change appreciably with a few feet of movement.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:42:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
at $1400 is much more than the budget specified.
Besides, the canon 17-40L is $680 and nearly as good. I went with the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC for $440 new off ebay. (499 at b&h). More range, faster and just as sharp for less money. |
I found a pretty good comparison that showed that at F4 and 17mm the 17-40 was slightly sharper, and at f4 and 35mm the 16-35 was slightly sharper. Other then that they preform almost the same. Thus if you do not need F2.8 (which you shouldn't for landscape) the F4 should be an excellent choice. I have only used mine on one outing and haven't looked at the photos yet.
|
|
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: 09/18/2025 06:35:54 PM EDT.
