User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Canon L Lens

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    3,086
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Canon L Lens

    I am looking at buying wide angle lens for landscape photography looked at few canon L lens quiet expensive and heavy as well can anyone suggest an alternative. I am using a canon 500d thanks.

  2. #2
    Member Sleeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarak View Post
    I am looking at buying wide angle lens for landscape photography looked at few canon L lens quiet expensive and heavy as well can anyone suggest an alternative. I am using a canon 500d thanks.
    I suggest Tokina 11-16mm. $770 at DDP. I have yet to find any problem with this lens. I heard good things about Canon 10-22mm too, but I never tried it.

    I'm guessing you were looking at 16-35mm or 17-40mm. If you don't plan to get full frame anytime soon, I don't think those are good choices.

    15-85mm and 17-55mm f/2.8 from canon are not as wide, but more versatile.
    Currently snapping away with -> Canon 500D + 7D | EFS 18-55mm | EFS 55-250mm | EF 300 f/4

  3. #3
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    15 Feb 2009
    Location
    Perth,Australia
    Posts
    238
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ultra-Wide angle
    Sigma 10-20mm
    Canon 10-22mm

    Wide Angle
    17-40mm f/4L
    16-35mm f/2.8L

    If you want a wide angle, then I'd get the 17-40mm L I hear its very good, and its only $1200 from DDP.

  4. #4
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    25 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    376
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarak View Post
    I am looking at buying wide angle lens for landscape photography looked at few canon L lens quiet expensive and heavy as well can anyone suggest an alternative. I am using a canon 500d thanks.
    Hi Dwarak,
    l know the Canon 10-20mm Lens is quite good, people say. l looked at this a few monthes ago, and after alot of reading decided on getting the Tokina 12-24mm Lens, great quality construction (not plastic) and sharp and reasonably priced as well. and compatible for cropped body like the 500d and 50D and even FF Full Frame cameras as well.
    the canon 10-20mm Lens would be nearly twice the price and only for EF-S lens (not FF camera's).

    also others say the sigma and Tamron can be good, depending on the model. (often cheaper then the other two mentioned above).

    What is your budget?

    anyway , l suggest go to camera store and try and see which is best suited to your needs and price!

    Cheers
    Robert

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    3,086
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the information guys the canon 17-40mm f4l sounds good I found it on anazon for 699.00 USD I may go in for that....

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Dec 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    17-40 is great value lens, to get a better quality lens you're looking at about double the price.
    Canon 5D MKII, 17-40mm f/4L, 24-105mm f/4L, 17mm TS-E f/4L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L
    135mm f/2L.
    Alien bee lights, Gitzo tripods, Adobe CS5

    I find the single most valuable tool on my computer is my recycle bin.


  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2007
    Location
    Perth, Straya
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As outlined above, please post info about your application, price range, and how wide you really want to go. Ultra wide lenses have special applications and may not be suitable for most landscape photography.

    17-40mm is a great lens and a standard for many landscapers.

    I can vouch for the much less expensive 17-70mm f/2.8 - 4.5, it's really sharp out of the camera, doesn't weight much and has great colour reproduction.
    "Nature photography is about choosing a location, crawling through dirt, being bitten by insects and occasionally taking a great image". - Wayne Eddy.

    Canon 5D MkIII, Canon 7D, 17-40mm f/4L,
    24-105mm f/4L
    + Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS +400mm f/5.6L + Canon 1.4xTC + Canon 100 EF f2.8 USM + 430-EX


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I recieved a Tokina 11-16mm for Christmas.
    Although I have never tried the alternatives (Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 10-24) I can say with total confidence that you would not be displeased with the Tokina
    I was sold on its max aperture of f2.8 compared to the other all f3.5+. It is a really well constructed lens, and if you're not planning on changing to a full frame, it really is a great purchase.

    I got my lens though a Japanese company selling through eBay. I managed to get it for $550 AUD - I couldn't find the lens listed lower that $1000 through an Australian retailer.
    www.tempo-e-luci.com



    "time and light photography"

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Regular David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A cost efficient alternative to the Canon 10-22mm is the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens which you can get for somewhere between 600-700 roughly speaking.

    For landscapes you dont necessarily need the faster shutter speeds (2.8,1.8 etc) you need for portraits, sports, birding etc because the subject is not often moving and unless you are in a rainforest the lighting is not an issue- in any case you can use a tripod as most smart landscapers do and thus can afford to run a slower SS to compensate for the 'slow' apeture. Im not saying Apeture is NOT an issue, only that it would not be the number one priority for me in choosing a landscaping lens.

    Ive used the 10-20mm Sigma and the 24-70mm EX DG USM Sigma and both are very good quality lenses with consistent rewards for the investment made.. BUT for landscapes Id go for the 10-20mm if you dont want to spend over 1K for it... mind you, the 17-40 L Canon is popular with landscapers and that might not cost you much more than the Siggy options.. but I often want to go down to ultra wide with landscapes so the 10mm kick off point of the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 suits me.

    I noted you looked at the Canon L series wide and ultra wides but wanted a cheaper alternative so I will not comment on them except to say the Canon 10-22mm and 17-40mm I have used ARE very very good lenses and if you are planning to progressively upgrade your kit the L series lenses are the way to go.
    Last edited by David; 18-01-2010 at 8:48am.
    Comments and CC welcome..

    Gear: Canon 6D & 1Ds Cameras l Canon EF 17-40mm F 4.0 L USM l Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 L IS USM l Canon EF 70 - 200 F4.0 L USM Lenses I Manfrotto Tripods I Adobe Photoshop CS6 l Lightroom 3.0 I Lee Filters



    "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust 1871 - 1922

  10. #10
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree entirely with David about the near-pointlessness of f/2.8 in an ultra-wide.

    The one thing I don't like about the 10-20 Sigma is that it only goes to 20mm, which is fine if your standard lens is an 18-50 or a 17-70, but a definite problem if you use a 24-70 or a 24-105, let alone a 28-whatever. I really like the sound of the new Tamron 10-24, but I am still waiting for reviews to confirm that the image quality is as good as the Canon 10-22 or the various other lenses in this general category.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    The one thing I don't like about the 10-20 Sigma is that it only goes to 20mm, which is fine if your standard lens is an 18-50 or a 17-70, but a definite problem if you use a 24-70 or a 24-105, let alone a 28-whatever.
    I actually always thought this would be a major problem since I use 10-20 and a 24-105 as my main lenses. To be honest, it's never really been an issue. Even when I've been shooting climbing while hanging in my harness where I can't actually walk forwards or backwards to get more or less in the frame.

  12. #12
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    15 Feb 2009
    Location
    Perth,Australia
    Posts
    238
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    I agree entirely with David about the near-pointlessness of f/2.8 in an ultra-wide.

    The one thing I don't like about the 10-20 Sigma is that it only goes to 20mm, which is fine if your standard lens is an 18-50 or a 17-70, but a definite problem if you use a 24-70 or a 24-105, let alone a 28-whatever. I really like the sound of the new Tamron 10-24, but I am still waiting for reviews to confirm that the image quality is as good as the Canon 10-22 or the various other lenses in this general category.
    I don't see this as an issue, unless you are using DX, still 4mm isn't a big deal to cry about.

    20mm on FF - 84°
    24mm on FF - 73.7°
    28mm on FF - 65.5°

    20mm on DX - 63.4°
    24mm on DX - 54.5°
    28mm on DX - 47.6°

    The difference may seem alot but at the end of the I dont see why its so important to have every focal length under the sun, if you're not going to use it. Back in the daysyou only had a choice of only a handful of prime lenses, today you're blessed with more choice then ever before.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    08 May 2009
    Location
    Buninyong
    Posts
    1,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwarak View Post
    Thanks for the information guys the canon 17-40mm f4l sounds good I found it on anazon for 699.00 USD I may go in for that....
    Just be aware though, you stated you wanted this for landscapes. There is a HUGE difference between 17mm and 10mm.

    I have heard (and seen) the Sigma 10-20 is quite good. I manged to pick up a Canon 10-22 in near new condition for $650 so I bought that. I really like it, colors are rich and well saturated, very well built lens and I couldn't be happier with it.
    Mic

    Photography is the art of telling stories with light.

    www.michaelgoulding.com

  14. #14
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    08 Jan 2010
    Location
    Lake Cathie
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    After much researching I am going with the Tokina 11-16. From all reviews it is supposed to be a good lens.

    It cost me 869 non grey import. There may be better prices around. I did a little searching but couldn't find any cheaper unless going grey.

  15. #15
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg Bell View Post
    The difference may seem alot but at the end of the I dont see why its so important to have every focal length under the sun
    Gregg, you are missing the point here. It's not about having every single possible focal length available (although, of course, it's nice to have them and the more the merrier). It's about not being driven insane by constant lens swapping. Now your preferences may be different, but I shoot a lot around the 18-28mm range (which is, in the classical categories, normal to moderate-wide - not by any means a weird set of lengths). If you do the same, having a 10-20 and a 24-xxx will drive you absolutely spare unless you run two bodies.

    That's the important point. But also, as a secondary point, I personally wouldn't want a gap any larger than that between the 10-22 and the 24-105. That's a gap I can live with comfortably, but I wouldn't want it much bigger, otherwise I might as well switch to a bag full of primes - if I'm going to have a restricted set of focal lengths around my most-used range, then I want the benefits of prime speed and size to make up for them.

    What would I say if the 10-20 was clearly sharper than the 10-24 and the 10-22?

    I'd say "forget the range, go for the sharp one every time!". But it isn't, so that doesn't apply.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Dec 2009
    Location
    Punchbowl
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have canon 10-22, the image quality is as good as L glass, also produce very good contrast and vibrant colour.
    It almost never off from my camera.
    If you shoot landscape, you will never regret buying this lens.
    Cheers,
    Felix

    Experience: What you get when you don't get what you want

    ~another 50D user~

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Regular David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lyxivan View Post
    I have canon 10-22, the image quality is as good as L glass, also produce very good contrast and vibrant colour.
    It almost never off from my camera.
    If you shoot landscape, you will never regret buying this lens.
    +1 : My experience agrees with this assessment.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Sep 2009
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the sigma 10-20. scored it for $510 almost brand new with a hoya polariser. I think it is a great lens. Good solid build and is nice and sharp. Have a scout around and i'm sure you'll find a great deal on this lens.

  19. #19
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    01 Aug 2008
    Location
    Whyalla, South Australia
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectPicture View Post
    the Tokina 12-24mm Lens, great quality construction (not plastic) and sharp and reasonably priced as well. and compatible for cropped body like the 500d and 50D and even FF Full Frame cameras as well.
    The Tokina 12-24 is suitable for APS-C (crop) bodies only and arent suitable for full frame bodies. Its the Sigma 12-24 that suits FF bodies.
    Canon 1D, 5D, 7D & D2000 plus lotsa extras
    See here for gear list: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...d.php?p=151869

    My photo website http://www.touring4x4.com/
    Travel & photography blog: http://www.touring4x4.com/blog/

    PP & CC is OK

  20. #20
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban Declan's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Go for Canon 10-22mm...definitely a L Lens quality

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •