Help me decide.....on lens

[flossed]

Hi

I have a Canon 550D with a kit lens 18-55mm....

I cant really decide if i should replace the kit lens with Canon 15-85mm or Canon 10-22mm
I am thinking if i should get the 15-85mm as a all rounder OR buy the 10-22mm & keep using 18-55mm

By the way my main focus is landscape.....15-85mm is a little bit better than 18-55mm for landscape right?

Thanks

flossed

[Xenedis]

If landscape photography is your interest, the 10-22 is the better choice.

The 15-85 in terms of focal length sounds like a good lens with more reach at both ends of the scale than the kit lens you have, but as a 'scaper myself, I like a very wide view, and to that end the 10-22 is the clear winner.

15mm on a 550D is only marginally wider than 18mm, whereas 10mm gives you roughly a 108-degree diagonal view, and it is noticeably wider than 15mm.

[LJG]

^^ Agree. I have both and while the 15-85 is great as a walkaround, I never leave home without the 10-22. I also hardly ever go much over 40 or 50mm with the 15-85, so your 18-55 would still fill the long end of things. You will find the 10-22 opens up a complete new realm of photography for you.

[andylo]

I learn from the experience that when you think your ideal photo style is something (i.e. for me is Landscape), life usually take its course and you probably end up better (or survive the wife) with something else (family and kid chasing )

Like yourself, I started with 500D and a 18-55IS. At that time landscape is where my passion is, so I go ahead bought myself a Canon 10-22. I thought I am the happiest man on earth

Except 2 weeks later my wife has been complaint why all the pics of her looks ridiculously fat and out kid looks ridiculously short and small in the picture (due to distortion) So I end up force to ditch the 10-22 and get the 17-85.

So if you are married with young children, 10-22 maybe not exactly ideal for you But every family is different

[Dwarak]

Think you will need more than the one lens the ultra wide Canon 10-20mm for landscapes and 17-85 as a more versatile lens

[flossed]

so i am better off getting the 10-22mm & keep the 18-55mm .... hmmm....

flossed

[Dwarak]

so i am better off getting the 10-22mm & keep the 18-55mm .... hmmm....

flossed

I would second that the 10-20 mm is a great lens for landscape work

[ameerat42]

Just been on a trip where I was hankering for even wider than my 16mm lens for landscapes. Wider lens beats stitching panos together, though the image size is smaller on the sensor.

[LJG]

so i am better off getting the 10-22mm & keep the 18-55mm .... hmmm....

flossed

Don't get us wrong flossed, we are not telling you exactly what to do, just offer our own experience. For me, I gave my 18-55 kit lens to my son, so did not have it as a backup to the 10-22. I found the 10-22 came up short in a lot of situations and was not overly happy with my 28-135 as a walkaround because quite often it was just too long. So I spashed out on a 15-85 as a walkaround and hoping it would completely replace my 10-22 and 28-135. Wrong! While the 28-135 did sit idle I still used the 10-22 all the time. I always say I could not do without the 10-22, but I now have a 5DII and 17-40 as well, so it does sit idle now. The Canon 10-22 is also the lens I do the least amount of PP on, virtually convert from RAW to jpeg and resize with maybe a slight sharpen, that is all.

I'll just edit this to clarify a couple of things. Firstly, when you say "landscape", what sort of landscape? The reason I ask is in close urban situations, or close landscapes, or old buildings, I go 10-22. If I am in open country with sweeping hills or a lot of what I call "dead" foreground with little interest I opt for the 15-85. If I am taking a picture of a snowcapped mountain in the distance I reach straight for the 15-85. If I am doing a sunset over water, same deal, straight for the 15-85, because that sort of shot does not require such an ultra wide angle, where being in a city street usually does. This also brings about other problems of building distortion, but that is another story, you can get that at 15mm as well. It is a pity you are in Sydney because it would be good if you could try both before you made your decision. The last time I let a guy try my 10-22 he hated me, because he went out and brought one the next week haha.

[Old Skool]

I'd get the 10-22 for sure. The 18-55 kit lens is actually not bad and landscape shots are usually stopped down to say F10 - F22 anyway so this would sharpen up the image from that shot wide open. Then again another lens that is sharp is the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Non VC lens - fairly cheap and excellent value.

[kiwi]

Firstly, there is not a landscape in the world that you can't take with the lens you have now.

Based on the fact that your last landscape photo you took was 129 days ago do you really need another lens ?

[mongo]

Kiwi makes a fair point.
If , however, you can justify another lens, then, for what you want to do, the 10-22mm is your lens.

[macdog]

if its for landscape get the 10-22, i love mine had it for 4yrs now, i love it

[Bennymiata]

If the Canon 10-22 is bit too expensive for you, the Sigma version is almost as good and it is a lot cheaper.

[98kellrs]

^ +1 on this. I tested the Sigma out recently as I am in the market for an UWA and it seemed to perform pretty well. From the reviews I've read the Sigma suffers from mustache-wave distortion a bit more than the Canon which is apparently hard to correct but to my untrained eye it wasn't hugely obvious.

I've also been looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is an absolutely brilliant lens, with only slight barrel distortion and the benefits of a constant wide 2.8 which would be uesful for low-light (indoor?) shooting. It does however cost slightly more than the Siggy and has a very narrow zoom range which would probably be a bit restrictive for your second lens.

[dulvariprestige]

I've had all three, sigma, then canon, and now tokina, the one thing I miss the most about the canon is the extra length, but 2.8 has come in handy at times, if I had to do it all again, I'd go for the tokina straight up.

[Bennymiata]

+1 for the 11-16mm Tokina too.
I have one and the pictures it takes are amazingly good.
Bright, sharp as a tack (with no visible distortion that I can see, which is very unusual for such a wide angle), but as 98kellrs says, the zoom is a little limiting, although it does work with my Kenko converter - if I'm desperate.

[98kellrs]

I had not considered using a Kenko with an UWA, nice idea! Thanks!

I'm pretty set on the Tokina, just got to wait for pay-day now!

Edit: Just found the Tokina for $563 bucks on eGlobal and if I order now it'll be delivered in time for my R & R next week, my local camera shop was asking $1024 for the same lens ! That's what credit card's are for..right?

[SimonG]

10-22 + save a few bucks for a 50 1.8. Then you can sell the kit lens...

As for your question, I doubt you will see a sharpness difference between the 18-55 and the 15-85 for landscapes (assuming reasonably small aperture).

[flossed]

Hey Guys sorry for the late reply, thxs for all the comments......I have approval from the mrs to get a lens

After all the reading I am still in a limbo!!! canon 10-22mm or canon 15-85mm, well i am thinking if i get the 10-22mm i will still have my 18-55mm kit lens plus i have the nifty fifty too...but if i get the 15-85mm i will have a better walkaround lens....arrgghh.....

Just check out my Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flossedman/

Thanks again Heaps for the comments

Cheers

flossed