would it be a better i idea to rent a camera then? like the 40D or 50D to get cleaner shots with more dynamic range plus have a second body then to use two lenses on each body to avoid switching lenses?? hmmm
Printable View
would it be a better i idea to rent a camera then? like the 40D or 50D to get cleaner shots with more dynamic range plus have a second body then to use two lenses on each body to avoid switching lenses?? hmmm
I wouldn't suggest having 2 bodies hanging around your neck if you're hiking!
The fisheye will give a different effect than the 10-22mm ultrawide angle so I guess it depends on what results you want. I use my 10-22 a lot and it works perfectely for landscape shots (for me) which is why I recommended it over the 16-35. Unfortunately I can't comment on the fisheye as I haven't had the opportunity to use it.
I'm not sure what you mean by it's effectiveness compared to the fisheye but it will give you some nice dramatic results at 10mm.
I'd rent the new Sigma8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM (the widest lens available for your body) and a 7D if you have enough money (:
A graduated NeutralDensityFilter and a Circular Polarizer Filter will make your shots look neat
good suggestions thanks! but i cant seem to find that sigma anywhere :( i sadly dont have enough money to rent the camera too :(
I recently found suggestions from friends who thought the Tokina 11-16 2.8 was a good idea. Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? im not crazy about the few small mm range though. Im still stuck between the sigma 10-22 the canon 10-22, tokina zoom fisheye, and the tokina 11-16.