Canon Landscape Lens on a 550D

[LeoDePeo]

Hey all!


After a whole year of saving besides my studies I'm now finally able to realize my wish to step into advanced photography After a very long quest on several review sites and shops I came to the conclusion I should have come to way earlier, that the lens is way more important than the body itself. So, although I have been aiming at the 7D or 60D for a long time, eventually I bought the 550D, to have some money left for a proper lens. The kitlens was included, which is useful to experiment with the camera itself and get to know it, but eventually I want to specialize into landscape photography (and who knows which other things might cross my path, but that's not the case now).


Since I'm going to Russia and Finland this summer (in about 2 months) I want to have bought my landscape (ultra)wide angle lens as soon as possible, because I need time to get used to it of course, and I don't want to miss potentially great photo-moments


But, I'm drowning in all the choice, and I don't know what is wise to do, since I sofar don't have experience shooting with a DSLR. Although, I have some points which are important for me, and I was wondering if the ones around here with landscape experience could help me out with some advice. I'm aware of the fact that there are also other threads going on about landscape lensen, and I've read them, but I might have slightly other demands on my lens, and since I'm a student I want to spend the - for me - lot of money in the best way right away


- My camera is the EOS 550D


- My budget for the lens will be around 500-600 euros


- Next winter I'm going to northern Scandinavia, so I might need a lens very well capable of shooting in lowlight conditions and able to 'catch' the northern lights on photo (should I need at least f/2.8 for that, or does that depend on the lens?)


- Some small things might be that I'd like get a lot of colour in the pictures (if that might differ between the options), and I like to create panorama pictures (but I think possible softness in the corners are easy to get rid off in after processing - but correct me if I'm wrong!)


- I think, as I've read on other topics, that I should not focus too much on future and possible FF body's that I might buy after 5 years, because I could still sell the lens I'm gonna buy now, after a couple of years, right? In that case, I want to buy the best image quality lens available within my budget available at the moment, and with a great wide angle to shoot dark winter landscapes, northern lights, mountain landscapes, and so on.





Now, these are the options, I think:


> Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5


> Canon EF 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


> Canon 17-40 f/4L


> Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM


> Tokina 11-16/f2.8


> Tokina 12-24 f/4


> Sigma 10-20/ f/4-5.6


> Sigma 17-50 f/2.8





Now, I would very much appreciate it if someone could give me advice or help me with eliminating lenses that are for sure not worth buying, seen my demands on it. That would make my choice process a lot easier! I'm planning to buy (or order) the lens within a week from now, due to the time I need to get used to it.





Thanks in advance!!


Cheeers,


Leo

[Fast Glass]

I'd check off the 17-40mm, it's softer on a 1.6 than your kit lens. It was designed for full frame as an ultra wide zoom and not for 1.6.


The Tokina 11-16mm is an excelent choice and gets my vote for a low light wide angle lens.


The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be my choice for a standard range lens which is not on this list.


I don't see any 70-200mm or the like so I assume you don't care for that focal length range right now. But if you do the Canon 70-200mm f/4 is an excelent choice for landscape on the budget. The Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm are attractive choices because of there fast f/2.8 aperture, but they have focus calibration issues. Don't be suprised that you have to send it back because it focuses in front or behind the subject.

Some small things might be that I'd like get a lot of colour in the pictures

Different lenses haveslightly different contrast, but to get a lot of color in your photo's you need to postprocess them. That means adjusting the colors in the computer, preferably in RAW.

and I like to create panorama pictures (but I think possible softness in the corners are easy to get rid off in after processing - but correct me if I'm wrong!)

All you can do about lens softness is sharpen them to an extent, but if you have soft corner such as in ultra wide they wil always be soft. There is software such as DxO that has lens softness correction which basically sharpens the corners more than the center. But it only has a limited affect and will not corret very soft corners.


I'd HIGHLY recomend DxO for it's noise reduction and powerfull editing tools. I use it all the time and love it! Here is a link to the demo http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/free_trial_confirm/win.


I'd go with the 11-16mm right now and get a 70-200mm of some sort later on. But that's just me.


Hope that helps,


John.

[Jon Ruyle]

For your purposes, it sounds like you made the right choice by saving some money for your lens.


I don

[LeoDePeo]

Thanks for the quick replies! As for the telezoom lenses, I know that those are also very useful for landscape photography, but since I do not have many to buy a proper zoom lens, indeed I have focused on the wide angle lenses at the moment, since everything is a compromise The telezoom would be something to continue saving for. Maybe I will succeed in that before next winter.


No, I think I forgot to put the Tamron 17-50 on the list, but I think since I

[Fast Glass]

And for the soft corners, I guess than I just have to make more pictures so that I just need the center of each individual image that is gonna be part of the panorama, like I used to do with my older pocket camera

DSLR have far superior IQ to your pocket camera and is not nessary. The only reasons to shoot a pano is to gain a wider field of view or for higher resolution, if for resolution you will stop down (use a narrow aperture) and low ISO to gain maximum IQ and DOF (if you want deep DOF).Reason #2, wider field ofvew.Unless you want to go wider than your ultra wide of choice then this reason dosen't havea pratical application you.

1. Do I really need a minimum of f/2.8 if I want to shoot in lowlight conditions, for example, in Lapland? Or is something higer (f/3.5 or f/4) also still acceptable and do-able?

The wider aperture is really helpfull for low light if the scene has moving elements in it, ex, snow, leaves or people. If not then a narrow aperture is ideal for deep DOF and sharper images, just plant your tripod and use a low ISO and narrow aperture. Unless you want to have some background blur by staying very close to your subject, then f/2.8 is helpfull again.

2. Is there a big difference between the canon 10-22 and the tokina 11-16 in image quality?

No, I would notmakeIQ biga deciding factor between these two. They are bothvery goodlenses. Aperture and focal length would be a higher priority. IQ would be a higher priority if the latter are not so important.


If you don't absolutely need a wide aperture than the Sigma 8-16mm has the best IQ and is much wider.


Here is a link to the Tokina 11-16mm review which has a comparison to the other ultra wides also http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx.


John.

[Lars]

Tamron also has a 10-24 mm 3.5-4.5 that seems to fit your needs. However, I have the older Tamron 11-18 4.5-5.6 (discontinued, I think), and it is soft and has substantial chromatic abberations not only in the corners. They might have improved this in the newer versions, but I would probably go for Tokina if I were to buy today, unless I came over some test showing stunning performance of the Tamron. The Tamron17-50, on the other side, is a very sharp lens, that also fit for landscape photography where you don't need fast (USM) autofocus.


Lars

[andnowimbroke]

I wish you could borrow a 10-22 and a 17-55ish lens to see the difference in width. So long as you are just taking pics of mountians and stuff the lens in the 10-22 range is fine, but if you are wanting a lens to hang around your neck and not swap out all the time, the 17-55 range is better. Swapping out lenses gets old and you

[Fast Glass]

, unless I came over some test showing stunning performance of the Tamron.

Bryan has ISO 112233 crops and a review with reall life 100% crops on all the ultra wides for 1.6.


Here it is http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-10-24mm-f-3.5-4.5-DI-II-Lens-Review.aspx.


Hope this helps,


John.

[btaylor]

The Canon 10-22mm gets my vote. It

[Fast Glass]

The Sigma 8-16mm according to Bryan