Canon L Lens

[Dwarak]

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.

[Sleeper]

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.

[Gregg Bell]

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.

[PerfectPicture]

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

[Andrew]

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.

[Declan]

Go for Canon 10-22mm...definitely a L Lens quality

[wideangle]

If you get the Canon 10-22 you won't be let down by its optical qualities including great colour tones and sharpness.

[PerfectPicture]

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.

In another Photography Forum this subject was raised, and somebody had both a cropped body and 5DII (Full Frame camera) as well and tested the Tokina 12-24 lens on both.
it fits on both they said, and they even showed resulting comparison pictures as well.

It did work, but the vignette at shorter focal length settings of the lens on FF wasn't the best they indicated, but the other end of the scale the pictures looked OK.
I suppose not best suited for FF Camera bodies and more so on APS-C camera's, as the marketing on the lens suggests ...

l don't have a Full frame Camera, but would like to test it one day to see for myself as well

maybe another member can confirm or deny this !?

Either way, Great Lens for a APS-C Camera

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....

How did you go Dwarak ! what lens did you get in the end?


Cheers

[Andrew]

In another Photography Forum this subject was raised, and somebody had both a cropped body and 5DII (Full Frame camera) as well and tested the Tokina 12-24 lens on both.
it fits on both they said, and they even showed resulting comparison pictures as well.

It did work, but the vignette at shorter focal length settings of the lens on FF wasn't the best they indicated, but the other end of the scale the pictures looked OK.
I suppose not best suited for FF Camera bodies and more so on APS-C camera's, as the marketing on the lens suggests ...

l don't have a Full frame Camera, but would like to test it one day to see for myself as well

maybe another member can confirm or deny this !?

Either way, Great Lens for a APS-C Camera

Did they shoot at the wide end (12mm) as I believe you run the certain risk of a very expensive mirror/mount collision.

[Dwarak]

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....

[etherial]

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.

[Captured Exposure]

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.

[James Axford]

17-40 is great value lens, to get a better quality lens you're looking at about double the price.

[enduro]

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.

[abeluka]

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.

[David]

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.

[Tannin]

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.

[mikec]

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.

[Gregg Bell]

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.

[Tannin]

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.