Wide-Angle Zoom for Landscapes?

I love landscape photography. I have been very, very happy with the Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 USM IS that I've been using, but the article in the latest OP has got me thinking about it.

A couple of facts before I ask my question:
- My camera is a 40D, which has a 1.6 crop factor
- I am a minimalist. I don't like to acquire hardware just for the sake of buying something new

I posted this photo (of Crystal Lkae in the San Juans) to show what the 17-85 can do at 17mm.

Here are my two question:
-Do you have any personal experience with a wider angle zoom that you think provides better results than the 17-85? I've read good things about the Canon 10-22 and Tamron 11-18. But I'm only interested in something that will look noticeably better to human eyes without an electron microscope. No eyechart tests, please.

- Is it useful to be able to go wider than 17, to 11 or 10?

Thanks in advance.

Good question, this comes up quite often with Canon owners.
You have to make a decision to stick with the APS-C, 1.6x factor bodies or if you are thinking about upgrading in the future to EOS-1D or 5D, it would make economic sense to go with a new full frame compatible lens. You wouldnt believe how many people own EF-S lenses and dont have a clue that the lens is not compatible with APS-H or FF.
I really like the 15mm Canon, and its FF compatible :) Also the sigma 12-24 and some of the Tamrons are decent performers and good values.

Robert

Thanks, Robert.

I'm definitely planning to stay with the 40D and hopefully its successors.

Isn't the 15mm a fisheye? I don't want a fisheye. It looks great (and it looked especially great on album covers and other things in the 60's) but I think it detracts from the landscape itself and starts the viewer thinking about the effect...just my opinion.

So, with this added info, is there one lens that you would recommend?

Sticking with the 40D makes things easier.

15mm is a fisheye and its not for everyone. If you keep the camera level, the horizon will stay straight though. Also the fisheye effect isnt so strong with on a 1.6X camera.

Anyway for more ideas visit http://www.photozone.de for some reviews then take a trip to a big camera store that carrys all the independant brands and try out some lenses.

Post your experiences when you pick out a lens.

Robert

Lance,

I am not as knowledgeable as Robert is, I am sure you know. But I can say that my 5D is an excellent full frame body. It can give you extremely good frames. I own the 28-135 F 3.5 USM IS and want to get the lens you are currently using, Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 USM IS, and sell my 28-135. I would think that that combination would make a terrific frame, provided one uses it right, I am sure you would. Again, your needs as stated might not make that your choice. My limited experience is just my own thought here. Please do post your results.

Hi Grady I agree your 5D is an excellent camera and really well suited for landcapes and gen nature photography.

You wont be able to go with the lens Lance is talking about the Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM, its an EF-S version of your 28-135 so it wont even mount on your 5D. The mount has a tab that stops it, and if it did mount the image circle would be too small and would have dark corners.

Robert

Best you could do with a Canon lens for the 5D in the same range on the wide end would be the EF17-40mm f/4L USM. Its about $600 and pretty good I am told but no IS.

Robert

Lance, I'm wondering if the extra mm you want couldn't be achieved by taking two images and using panoramic stitching? You would not have the issue of more lenses to carry and I think stitching is pretty easy. It seems to me in viewing photos by 17mm vs 10 or 12mm, you get more scape but its farther away.

You can always stitch and then crop where you want, but perhaps you're looking to stay within the confines of a single frame size. Beautiful photograph btw.

Hi Lance,
I own the 17-40 and am very happy with it. Canon makes a 16-35mmll version..........but cost is $1500........I've heard great things about it.......but I'm not taking the extra$$$ plunge yet. a friend owns the canon 10-20 and the 20D.............loves it.......because of crop factor..........and as long as you stay with the same series............will work in the future. Only question is..........how long?
PS Forgot to mention.......If the image looks this good with what you've got.........stick with it and save some $$$$$.
I considered the reviews on the Mark 3........tested myself.......it's love!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert O'Toole

Best you could do with a Canon lens for the 5D in the same range on the wide end would be the EF17-40mm f/4L USM. Its about $600 and pretty good I am told but no IS.

Robert

---

I hate my 17-40 and am finally selling it. . . . .I am told that the quality varies widely from lens to lens, so perhaps I own a lemon. But I think that there are more lemons than gems among the 17-40 line. The image stabilization (or lack thereof) is really of little concern on a lens like this as, more often than not, it's used on a tripod. And if it is used handheld, it's used at a faster ISO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Kurywczak

Hi Lance,
I own the 17-40 and am very happy with it. Canon makes a 16-35mmll version..........but cost is $1500........I've heard great things about it.......but I'm not taking the extra$$$ plunge yet. a friend owns the canon 10-20 and the 20D.............loves it.......because of crop factor..........and as long as you stay with the same series............will work in the future. Only question is..........how long?
PS Forgot to mention.......If the image looks this good with what you've got.........stick with it and save some $$$$$.
I considered the reviews on the Mark 3........tested myself.......it's love!

---

I'm currently in Arizona and testing out a 16-35 II from Canon Professional Services, and while it's not "perfect" (see Nikon's brand new 14-24mm or the gold standard Contax 21mm Distagon for perfection), it puts the 17-40 to shame. It's actually $1400 at Amazon, $1450 at B&H. However, it requires 82mm filters, so the "cost of ownership" is certainly higher than the list price as brand new filters have to be acquired. Its negatives aside, once I send it back to Canon next week I'm buying one!
Oh, and I thought I'd mention that the weight of the two lenses is shockingly similar. Canon's spec. on the weight of the 17-40 and the 16-35 II are totally off (their spreadsheets have a LOT of typos). I weighed both of them before flying out here: the 17-40 weighs 20 oz, the 16-35 weighs 24 oz. Not significantly different!

Lance: I would suggest picking up the 10-22. It's a surpsisingly well-made lens for the APS-C form-factor. It was not available back when I had my reduced frame cameras, so I had a Sigma 12-24 and then the Tokina 12-24. Both were fine, and for some reason the Sigma costs a lot more now than it did back in 2004 when I bought it. I paid $500 or so, and it's now an $800 lens. Talk about weird...and I wish I had waited to sell it! The Tokina was pretty good, and I generally prefer the build quality of Sigma and Tokina over Tamron. The "feel" of their lenses is just better (not necessarily the optics, of course!). So if Canon's 10-22 is out of your price range, I'd think about the Tokina.

Thanks very, very much, everyone!

The consensus sounds to me like the 10-22!!!

Hi Lance

A very popular landscape lens in the UK is the Sigma 10-20 EX for cropped sensors. It produces pin sharp images with good contrast. The retail price in the UK is around £290 no doubt cheaper over the pond? You could also take a look at Digital Rev on ebay, their prices are keen even taking into account import tax.

There have been some issued raised on bulletin boards in the Uk over colour casts when it used alongside cokin filters, this problem dosen't seem to exist if used with lee filters though...........go figure.

Si

Thanks very much, Si. I'll definitely research the Sigma 10-20.

Wouldn't you know it though, my filters are Cokins. Sigh.