Cameratrackworld….what lens (sorry)

Have a Canon 600d cropped sensor camera and used the 18-55mm kit lens for the last year.

Photos I take are primarily landscapes and buildings so looking for wide angle lens……….or so I thought, have spent the weekend researching and numerous people saying to use a telephoto for landscapes with the added benefit of a zoom for wildlife etc.

Am currently thinking Canon 10-22mm ef-s but happily swayed although as a keen amateur not looking to break the bank.

Any thoughts learned hive?

Good choice especially as the price has recently come down by about a hundred quid

Was very pleased with mine, good overall sharpness with nice colours too

Don’t forget to add a few quid on the price for a hood, unfortunately doesn’t come with one

Ive got the 700d and just upgraded the kit lens to a 24-105L lens.

Its not particularly wide on a crop sensor, but its a great all round lens.

I was looking at the 10-22 EFS also, but I dont want to invest in any EFS lense as may go full frame one day so I am waiting for the rumoured 24-24 f/2.8 L lens to compliment my 24-105.

EDIT: and why are you sorry?

I think ( hope 😕 ) that I’ll probably always stick with a crop so wasn’t too worried about not being able to be used on a full frame.

Agreed, the price point (on the 10-22) looks pretty good and seems to have good reviews. Although if a telephoto would cope with landscape and have the benefit of zoom for stalki…….I mean wildlife does appeal.

Just wouldn’t want to lose the ‘landscape benefit’

The Sigma 10-20 mm f4-5.6 EX is a great lens for the cash. Top build quality too.

For landscape, if you don’t know what focal lengths you’d like to use, why not look at something like:

http://www.take-a-view.co.uk/2012_winners.htm

Make a list of the ones you like, and a note of if it was wide, normal or tele lens. You should be able to tell pretty easily. The details of the shots are listed in the books of the entries IIRC.

As kidalco says, the sigma is are realy good quality lens. However, if you want any kind of telephone then the 10-20 is not ideal. It is a really wide lens but also perfect for landscapes.heavy as a second lens to carry around for the day though. Lugged it all around NYC yesterday!

I have the Sigma too and it’s definitely the sort of lens you carry around as well as your normal lens to use when the subject requires it. I find with landscapes that it’s so wide you need to either crop afterwards or make sure there is something in the foreground to avoid the photo looking a little flat.
It’s cool for certain effects though..

[/url]
Saint-Chapelle 4[/url] by Beanum[/url], on Flickr

Cheers all, some food for thought there.

I have the Sigma 10-20, and whilst I love it, it’s not as great for landscapes as I thought it might be. Anything in the distance just shrinks into oblivion.

Also…it may be great inside buildings. Outside, not so much.

The Canon 10-22 is far better than the Sigma 10-20 if that’s what you are after.

I had the canon 10-22 when I owned a crop sensor camera. I thought it was far better than the 17-40 that I use now on full frame as it had less distortion. I don’t think there’s much out there that works as a proper wide angle as well as a zoom for wild life etc. if there was, I’d imagine image quality wold be compromised a fair bit. Best teaming it up with another lens e.g. I also use a 70-200.

The comment above about shrinking everything in the distance into oblivion is true for all proper wide angle lenses. You just have to learn to use it properly which means big foregrounds to make the shot effective.

Also factor in the cost for a decent set of ND Grad filters. Finally, your comment about probably staying with cropped sensor cameras… I thought the same but then bought full frame meaning that my ef-s lenses, including the 10-22, no longer fitted. I did manage to recoup a fair amount from selling them which helped fund the new camera.

Edit: a couple of shots taken with the 10-22

[/url]
Bed for the night[/url] by alanach[/url], on Flickr

[/url]
Rainstorm over Mull[/url] by alanach[/url], on Flickr

toby1 – Member
……………….if you want any kind of telephone then the 10-20 is not ideal………..

This was kind of the point of my OP, should I ditch the idea of a wide angle specific and go with something with greater range like Canon ef-s 18-200 (for instance). I hadn’t even considered telephoto until this weekend’s research.

But I didn’t want to lose out on a good landscape lens just to get a bit of zoooooooooooooom (couldn’t resist).

jad – Member
….if there was, I’d imagine image quality would be compromised a fair bit. Best teaming it up with another lens e.g. I also use a 70-200……

Pretty much this is what I was thinking, the 18-55 has been good but I’ve more often than not wanted something either above or below its range, especially when I haven’t physically been able to put myself closer/further away from the subject.

organic355 – Member
….EDIT: and why are you sorry?…

Because I’m fairly sure this might not be the first ‘what tyre/lens/bunsen burner?……. thread on here 🙂

Just take six photos 2 up 3 across and stitch them in PS, instant wide instant medium format.

use a telephoto for landscapes

You can use any lens for anything, you’ll just get different results. Teles are good for picking out details from landscapes but you can lose some contrast if you do.

wysiwyg – Member
Just take six photos 2 up 3 across and stitch them in PS, instant wide instant medium format.

Actually recently got lightroom 5 so experimenting with that at the moment.

molgrips – Member

You can use any lens for anything, you’ll just get different results. Teles are good for picking out details from landscapes but you can lose some contrast if you do.

Just want to be able to get the best (finance dependant) landscapes I can really. Just after thoughts.

Just take six photos 2 up 3 across and stitch them in PS, instant wide instant medium format.

I use Hugin, free,very powerful, but not very well documented (hence I’ve only figured out the basics).

Six 24mm shots:

[/url]
Mother Church of "St. George the Martyr", Locorotondo[/url] by brf[/url], on Flickr

Although I need to sort out the perspective a bit as it’s too distorted….

Just want to be able to get the best (finance dependant) landscapes I can really.

Well that’s my point. ‘Best’ is a subjective term. Wide angle gives you a specific kind of shot, so does tele. It’s up to you which you like.

Tele:

Wide:

Which is best? They’re both good.

like Canon ef-s 18-200

I wouldn’t do this. The compromises are just one step too far in lenses with this large a zoom range imo.

Do you really care about what type of images you get? i.e. do you have particular shots in mind, that you’d be disappointed if you didn’t get?

If so, I would buy the best lens you can afford that would do that. (i.e. the Canon 10-22 if you keep seeing images you like that are wider than 17mm)
If not, I would just buy the best good general lens you can afford (i.e Canon 17-55mm, or in my case Tamron 17-50).

If you just want to take nice images, and you’re not too fussed about what the subject is, but want to learn photography, then you might be better getting a couple of fast primes. A sigma 30mm and an Canon 85mm for example (or a Tamron 90mm if you fancied a try at macro).

As mentioned above you can always stitch if your subject is static, and crop a bit if 85mm is a bit wide. You’ll still get fantastic images with good lenses.

Just want to be able to get the best (finance dependant) landscapes I can really. Just after thoughts.

You probably know this already, but just in case, the one think I learnt really quickly with photography is that you can throw as much money at it as you like, but there are no shortcuts to landscape photography. You have to be there at dawn or dusk, remember locations, know your technical stuff, plan your foregrounds, know your seasons, get a tripod and ND grad filters, endure cold fingers, etc, etc.

The lens is just the last 5%.

Of the two images from molgrips – it is definately the second perspective that I am after.

AlexSimon – Member

You probably know this already, but just in case, the one think I learnt really quickly with photography is that you can throw as much money at it as you like, but there are no shortcuts to landscape photography

I wished I’d known this principle before starting mtb’ing 😉

Yeah I appreciate what you’re saying, only one lens at the moment though so would do a fair bit of comparing at the same settings and then try to experiment with the differences, if I don’t get on or not what I thought then sell up and try something else. In no rush etc.

I going to go with the (naive) mindset that I’m more likely to accidently get a nice shot than with a ‘better’ lens than a cheaper kit lens.

EDIT: actually reviewing both of molsgrips images………..I quite like both. And jads are a given obviously.

Those images were taken with totally different lenses, you can’t get both with one lens.

You can get fairly wide angles with stuff like the 18-200, but nothing like as wide as that second image. And the lens will be of worse optical quality. Two lenses will give you better range and better optical quality.

BUT of course you only need one lens, which means you can get both shots and anything in between that you happen to see on your bike ride without having to carry another, but more importantly without having to change lenses which is a bit of a ballache tbh. I end up ignoring plenty of shots because I’ve just taken that particular lens off and put it all away.

At the same time – having something like a ultra-wide angle lens fixed to your camera will make it fun trying to find all the unusual angles to snap. I often go out with just one lens – to force myself to look for opportunities.
I’d love an ultra-wide.

I find my UWA hard work actually. Frustrating as often as not, even though I do get the occasional good pic. I find myself wracking my brains for a funky fore/background combo, instead of just taking nice pics.

molgrips – Member
….. I find myself wracking my brains for a funky fore/background combo, instead of just taking nice pics….

This is of course an inevitability that I have been warned about by other photographerists.

AlexSimon – Member

If you just want to take nice images……..then you might be better getting a couple of fast primes….

Just picked up on this comment. I actually ordered a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 Mark II which seemed relatively cheap but had good reviews on most sites I could find.

Good stuff. I have the same and use it all the time. Especially in my home studio.
I recently shot my first DSLR video with it too. Very happy with it.

You might find that gives you a good taste of what difference a good lens can have versus a kit lens. Then once you’ve used that for a while, you might have a better idea of what to buy next.
I had a worse kit lens than you (pre IS), but it instantly made me realise that I had to ditch it, hence the Tamron 17-50.

Thanks for all the advice.

I have decided with my current level of expertise (or lack there-of), not to go for the 10-22mm as it’s a bit spendy to ‘experiment’ with especially with graded filters, so…

As stated above, have the 50mm on order, now also the ef-3 55-250 IS mkII and a hoya polarising filter.

Seems to be the way others have gone reading reviews and certainly more comfortable with the price point whilst practising.

Having looked extensively through the photos of the last year it became apparent that it was actually a lack of zoom that seemed to be lacking not necessarily a wide angle.

You may or may not be interested but just wanted to thank those above and advise the decision/mistake I eventually arrived at.

(My intention though is definitely for the 10-22 or similar in the future though 😉 )

The 50mm is a great lens, you can’t go wrong for the money. It can be a bit limiting on its own, but the way I see it, you can have loads of mediocre shots, or get one really good one. Just don’t drop it, it’s not the most robust 🙁

butcher – Member
The 50mm is a great lens, you can’t go wrong for the money. It can be a bit limiting on its own, but the way I see it, you can have loads of mediocre shots, or get one really good one. Just don’t drop it, it’s not the most robust

Yeah I’d read you need to treat it with kid gloves – but bang for buck seems to be one of the best out there for my level.