| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2007 12:22:48 PM · #1 |
Hey lense smart people,
Sorry for yet another lense question in the forums.
I have a trip to Glacier National Park planned for this July and I'm looking for a great lense for some wide angle shots.
I have a 20d but in a few years hope to upgrade to a 5d so I'm looking for an EF lense that will be compatible with both cameras. After some research it sounds like the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM is quite popular. For those landscape people out there - is that lense wide enough for the mountains and prairies of Montana? I was originally looking at the EF-S 10-22mm but wanted backwards compatibility so I decided to jump up to the 24-70 but it sounds so much "less wide".
As a side thought I'm also looking for a new wedding lense. Anything will beat my kit lense and I would imagine the 24-70 would be spot on and sharp. I'll be using a flash most of the time even though f/2.8 sounds wonderful. My budget is fairly open - especially if I can kill two birds with one lense.
Thanks in advance for any and all guidance!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:29:03 PM · #2 |
Even on full frame, 24mm is wide, but not really wide.
The Sigma 12-24 is about the widest rectilinear lens available that will cover a full frame.
The 24-70L is probably one of the best lenses available, optically though.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:29:12 PM · #3 |
If you're primarily going to shoot landscapes, you'll probably want to look at the wider lenses - such as the 17-40mm F4L, which is very popular and quite affordable. However, for more general work, the 24-70 is very good, but if you don't need the F2.8 speed the 24-105 F4L has a good rep too.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:30:38 PM · #4 |
The Tokina 12-24 is an excellent lens and great for wide angle photos that you will want to take at Glacier.
Peter |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:35:04 PM · #5 |
So it sounds like so far my answer is "no - go wider". Although I tend to want to lean towards getting a Canon lense I am open to suggestions as long as it will work with both a 20d and 5d.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:44:06 PM · #6 |
I second the comment about the Canon 17-40 f/4L.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:46:51 PM · #7 |
On an APS-C cam, the 24-70 is really not going to be as wide as you'd like for landscape. I had a 19-35 that I used, and that was wide enough. The 17-40 is a good suggestion. It will cover about 67 degrees horizontally. The 17-40 will also be forward-compatible with a 35mm camera, but will show some soft corners unless stopped down.
For wedding work, there's nothing like the 24-70. Tamron 28-75/2.8 comes close, but not wide open, and not in the corners. If you're going FF, get the Canon.
Edit: FWIW, on a 35mm frame, 24mm is *plenty* wide. It covers 73 degrees horizontally (84 degrees diagonally) with very low distortion. Excellent panorama lens.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 12:48:22. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:54:40 PM · #8 |
The Tokina 12-24 is a rebadged Pentax lens, and the Pentax DA 12-24 is designed for APS-C, so that would be a no-go on your future 5D.
Have you considered a wide prime? I'm not exactly sure whats available for canon, but there appears to be a decent priced 15mm 2.8 as well as a 14mm 2.8L (that costs more than most cameras!). You wont have the flexibility of a zoom, but your image quality, especially in the corners, will be higher.
If it were me, I would be looking at the Pentax 14mm 2.8 or the 21mm 2.8 Limited, and maybe the 12-24 zoom
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:54:54 PM · #9 |
another vote for the 17-40 L
Normally I'd say get a 2.8 over a 4.0 lens, but once you switch to the 5D, the image noise practically goes away, which means boosting the iso up a bit when needed isn't going to hurt you really.
OR
Keep in mind also that the Canon lenes hold thier value better. So you could buy the 17-40, then sell it without taking much of a loss to put towards the 24-70 once you have the 5D.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 12:55:58. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:57:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by hopper:
... So you could buy the 17-40, then sell it with taking much of a loss to put towards the 24-70 once you have the 5D. |
Best suggestion I've heard yet. Once you get the 5D or whatever's current at that time, you may well find that you don't really need 17mm. Canon L lenses do hold value incredibly well. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:08:57 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by hopper:
... So you could buy the 17-40, then sell it with taking much of a loss to put towards the 24-70 once you have the 5D. |
Best suggestion I've heard yet. Once you get the 5D or whatever's current at that time, you may well find that you don't really need 17mm. Canon L lenses do hold value incredibly well. |
I second this(or 4th or whatever it is now) the 17-40 is a great lens but is pretty damn wide on the 5d. MY wife does very well with it in the studio but often complains that she has no reach when we are out and about. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:11:55 PM · #12 |
| I was in the same predicament a year ago before a vacation in the Southwest. I was really wanting the 24-70 2.8L, and was drooling over the possiblities of the Canon 10-22mm, so I settled on both. I was lucky and had a couple good paying jobs come in right before I bought them, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten both. Best thing to do would be to decide which you will use more afterwards, not just on the trip. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:16:06 PM · #13 |
Mite be worth trying to rent a lens, I rented a 17-40 f4L from last Friday till tomorrow and its only cost me $50 (CDN). Also have to agree with Elvis_L where the lens is a nice wide lens but it feels as if there is little or no reach on it walking around out doors. Also you if you find a lens or two that you are interested in phone around and see if you can rent them for a day or two to see if they will suit your needs rather than dumping a large sum of cash on it...
-dave |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:22:36 PM · #14 |
Yeah I might think about renting something. So the 17-40 on my 20d will be wide enough?? I like its price compared to the 24-70.
I just don't want to waste money on a lense that I can only use on my 20d (namely the EF-S 10-22mm I had previously desired so strongly).
I thought about going prime as that opens up more options but I want to be able to zoom. I expect to be both close to and far away from some Montana scenery and don't want to be screwed on losing a shot because I'm stuck at one focal length.
Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone, keep em coming!
I hear a lot of good things about the 17-40 on the 5d but is it truly wide enough on the 20d?
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:27:41 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Yeah I might think about renting something. So the 17-40 on my 20d will be wide enough?? I like its price compared to the 24-70.
I just don't want to waste money on a lense that I can only use on my 20d (namely the EF-S 10-22mm I had previously desired so strongly).
I thought about going prime as that opens up more options but I want to be able to zoom. I expect to be both close to and far away from some Montana scenery and don't want to be screwed on losing a shot because I'm stuck at one focal length.
Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone, keep em coming!
I hear a lot of good things about the 17-40 on the 5d but is it truly wide enough on the 20d? |
i think 17 is wide enough on my 30d. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:29:19 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
I hear a lot of good things about the 17-40 on the 5d but is it truly wide enough on the 20d? |
It wouldn't be for me. If you want to rent, rent the Canon 10-22. If you want to buy a wide lens with an eye to using it on your 5D, I still say you should consider the Sigma 12-24, since it is designed for full frame coverage.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 02:20:14 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Kaups:
I hear a lot of good things about the 17-40 on the 5d but is it truly wide enough on the 20d? |
It wouldn't be for me. If you want to rent, rent the Canon 10-22. If you want to buy a wide lens with an eye to using it on your 5D, I still say you should consider the Sigma 12-24, since it is designed for full frame coverage. |
I don't think the 17mm would cut it for me, either. I'm looking to buy a lense and not just rent it for this trip. The Sigma 12-24 sounds decent and isn't horribly expensive. If it weren't for that lense I might just say screw it and get the EF-S 10-22. I'd like to hear Bear Music's and others' opinions on this matter.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 02:47:30 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Kaups:
I hear a lot of good things about the 17-40 on the 5d but is it truly wide enough on the 20d? |
It wouldn't be for me. If you want to rent, rent the Canon 10-22. If you want to buy a wide lens with an eye to using it on your 5D, I still say you should consider the Sigma 12-24, since it is designed for full frame coverage. |
I don't think the 17mm would cut it for me, either. I'm looking to buy a lense and not just rent it for this trip. The Sigma 12-24 sounds decent and isn't horribly expensive. If it weren't for that lense I might just say screw it and get the EF-S 10-22. I'd like to hear Bear Music's and others' opinions on this matter. |
bear has the 10-22 i am pretty sure. if that is what you want then you should get it and sell it later. you said you were a couple of years from the 5d so you might as well be happy in the mean time. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 02:51:53 PM · #19 |
Well, MY opinion is that 17mm isn't wide enough either for Glacier National Park or other extreme landscape work. 17 x 1.6 = 28mm, considered the high end of "true" wide angle in the FF world. 10 x 1.6 = 16mm, so the 10-22 is basically the APS-C equivalent of the 17-40mm; in fact, that's why they built it. The 10mm is REALLY wide, so wide you have to be careful not to include your tripod feet in your composition...
Since you say the 5D is "a few years" down the road, I'd just get the 10-22mm Canon, an exceptionally good lens, and then sell it if need be when you get to the FF point in your career. You won't take that bad a hit on it, and besides you might want to keep the APS-C camera as a backup anyway. Street price is running around $575 right now, and I'd be shocked if you couldn't sell it for $300 or even more when the time comes; so that works out to less than $10.00 a month in the meanwhile. And that $300 or so hit is only a fraction of the cost of FF anyway. Just chalk it up to the cost of conversion.
I do guarantee you this: once you have it, it will never be far from your camera. It's a mind-bending new way of seeing, if you've never used extreme WA before.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 14:56:31.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 02:53:36 PM · #20 |
I believe the Sigma 12-2? can go full frame (although I think you can only go down to @15 or so without running out of image area if on a FF body) - vertainly worth a look. The 10-22 EFS is amazing but won't fit on a FF body and neither will the Tokina (not sure if it will mount - I guess so). The 10-22 seems to keep value in the 2nd hand market and possibly you can resell or maybe even find one used somewhere (I don't see them often though).
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 02:55:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I do guarantee you this: once you have it, it will never be far from your camera. It's a mind-bending new way of seeing, if you've never used extreme WA before. |
Just saw this reply -> Gota agree, before the 10-22 I never had anything this W.I.D.E. [only the 28mm before it]and it's really cool - remember to lean forward so your feet are not in the image :-))
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 03:17:12 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, MY opinion is that 17mm isn't wide enough either for Glacier National Park or other extreme landscape work. 17 x 1.6 = 28mm, considered the high end of "true" wide angle in the FF world. 10 x 1.6 = 16mm, so the 10-22 is basically the APS-C equivalent of the 17-40mm; in fact, that's why they built it. The 10mm is REALLY wide, so wide you have to be careful not to include your tripod feet in your composition...
Since you say the 5D is "a few years" down the road, I'd just get the 10-22mm Canon, an exceptionally good lens, and then sell it if need be when you get to the FF point in your career. You won't take that bad a hit on it, and besides you might want to keep the APS-C camera as a backup anyway. Street price is running around $575 right now, and I'd be shocked if you couldn't sell it for $300 or even more when the time comes; so that works out to less than $10.00 a month in the meanwhile. And that $300 or so hit is only a fraction of the cost of FF anyway. Just chalk it up to the cost of conversion.
I do guarantee you this: once you have it, it will never be far from your camera. It's a mind-bending new way of seeing, if you've never used extreme WA before.
Robt. |
Thanks a lot for the insight, Rob. I'm glad the 10-22 isn't more expensive than it is and it definitely is loved by many. I DO plan on keeping the 20d as a backup so I wouldn't HAVE to sell the 10-22 if that's what I get. I might be leaning towards that. Too bad it can't be a primary wedding lense as well :)
Thanks everyone!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2007 03:28:41 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Too bad it can't be a primary wedding lense as well :) |
It can't be a "primary" wedding lens for sure, but it IS useful in your wedding arsenal, incredibly so. At 10mm it's probably too wide for shooting groups (distortion of shapes at the edge is a problem with ALL extreme WA lenses), but it's useful for groups from, say, 15mm on up.
When I do occasional wedding work as a favor for others (I've done it 3 times since I got digital) my workhorse lens is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (would have been Canon's 24-70 if I could have afforded it), and this is NOT wide enough to shoot easily in confined spaces. For example, if you're shooting in a small church and want something environmental, you need to be down in the 15-17mm range at least.
Now, your 17-40mm "L" glass fills that bill fine, but it's not anywhere near long enough for what else you may need to do. You pretty much need at least 70-80mm of reach at a minimum when working a wedding, so you WILL be changing lenses as you go. A fast, mid-range zoom is what's called for, and the 28-75mm or 24-70mm is pretty much optimal for that IMO.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-02-26 15:29:40.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2007 05:52:22 AM · #24 |
I'm with Rob on this. I was going to suggest it as well. Buy the 10-22 for APS-C and sell it when you need to. That lens isn't going to lose any value even if they DO come out with an L variant.
You'll be glad of it. I encouraged a friend to get that lens and it's quickly become 80% of his usage. Wicked sweet bit o' glass.
When you go for the 5D, if it is a few years off, you will have options.
I'm currently fidgeting about the 16-50 that could be coming out soon (and getting tired of waiting).
Another choice might be the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-5.6 (or is it 4.5... I forget)... That could cover you on the wide and the long end for wedding work. I doubt that could be wide enough for landscape though. 17mm on APS-C just ain't that wide.
Go 10-22! |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 07:37:10 AM · #25 |
Rob, I think you thought a mistake here!
If a lens is designed to be fited in a particular system, (ie Full Frame 35mm), then it will deliver a proper image area to that system in all focal lenghts!
May you think like tha lens has focal distance increase by only increasing elements distance of film plate (or sensor surface). But the real challenge at lens design is to be consistent in all focal lengths, compensating the increased distance with some optical compression to fit all frame in the frame!
Originally posted by robs:
I believe the Sigma 12-2? can go full frame (although I think you can only go down to @15 or so without running out of image area if on a FF body) - vertainly worth a look. The 10-22 EFS is amazing but won't fit on a FF body and neither will the Tokina (not sure if it will mount - I guess so). The 10-22 seems to keep value in the 2nd hand market and possibly you can resell or maybe even find one used somewhere (I don't see them often though). |
|
|
