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

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[lyxivan]

I have canon 10-22, the image quality is as good as L glass, also produce very good contrast and vibrant colour.
It almost never off from my camera.
If you shoot landscape, you will never regret buying this lens.

[David]

I have canon 10-22, the image quality is as good as L glass, also produce very good contrast and vibrant colour.
It almost never off from my camera.
If you shoot landscape, you will never regret buying this lens.

+1 : My experience agrees with this assessment.

[Regnis]

I have the sigma 10-20. scored it for $510 almost brand new with a hoya polariser. I think it is a great lens. Good solid build and is nice and sharp. Have a scout around and i'm sure you'll find a great deal on this lens.

[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.

[Regnis]

sigma 10-20 going in 1hr on ebay only at $350 now
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/10-20mm-F4-5-6-EX-DC-HSM-for-Canon_W0QQitemZ160394404656QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories?hash=item2558406330#ht_500wt_1179

[gh0st]

I have personally tried Canon 10-22mm, great lens, IQ comparable with 17-40L. My 2 cents - if you want to stick with crop factor - get Canon 10-22mm, if you plan going full frame at some point, probably 17-40L is more balanced purchase.

[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 !? :confused013

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 !? :confused013

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.

[Tannin]

Andrew, I think you must be thinking of EF-S mount lenses, not EF mount.

Genuine EF lenses are all designed for full frame. Canon is the only manufacturer. They use the EF mount and thus fit onto and work correctly with any EF Canon body - full-frame, APS-H (1.3 crop), or APS-C (1.6 crop).

Third-party EF lenses may be designed for full frame or for crop bodies. They use the EF mount, so they fit on and can safely be used with any EF Canon body - 35mm full-frame, APS-H, or APS-C. Lenses designed for full frame work correctly with APC-H and APS-C bodies. Lenses designed for APS-C bodies fit on 35mm bodies and are safe to mount and use, but usually vignette significantly, so in practice they are of little use. There are no lenses designed for APS-H bodies. Lenses designed for APS-C may or may not vignette on APS-H but are safe to use. Summary: these lenses fit on everything, may or may not vignette on 35mm and APS-H.

EF-S lenses Only made by Canon. EF-S lenses use a modified version of the EF mount. The back of the lens sticks out further than is allowable with an EF lens. In consequence, EF-S lenses do not fit onto or work with 35mm or APS-H bodies. They are only for use with AP-S C bodies. There are no third-party EF-S lenses.

Unless there is a weird lens I've never heard of, you can safely mount any third-party EF (Canon mount) lens to any EF mount Canon camera, including 35mm full frame bodies and APS-H bodies. As examples, my two Tokinas both work well on my 1D III - the 10-17 vignettes to black under about 13mm; the 35mm macro is perfect in every way.
Canon EF compat

[Tannin]

Example: Tokina 10-17mm fisheye at 10mm on a 1D III.

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/091224-190023-.jpg

As you zoom, the vignetting disappears rapidly. By 13mm is has completely gone. (Not sure about 12mm, haven't got a 12mm shot to examine. Must try one. Even zoomed in to 13mm, on a 1.3 crop 1D III, the lens is seriously wide!)


Example 2: Tokina 35mm macro on a 1D III. Like the first shot, it has not been cropped or post-processed in any way.

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/091103-084632-.jpg

[Clubmanmc]

I have a 16-35.. And a 10-22.. Both have their uses,, wouldn't get rid of either.. If you have the money.. Get the 16-35.. Other wise the 10-22.. Is a good substitute for a crop body.. Ps I don't play with non canon stuff.. Its like buying an astra door to fit a pulsar, yeah they fit.. And it will work.. Buuuuuuuuuut every one will know your just cheap.. *** puts on flame suit ***

M

[Tannin]

Ps I don't play with non canon stuff.. Its like buying an astra door to fit a pulsar, yeah they fit.. And it will work.. Buuuuuuuuuut every one will know your just cheap.. *** puts on flame suit **

And well you should, because you are way out of line. Price is not the only or even the best reason to buy non-Canon lenses. There are some truly excellent lenses out there in non-Canon land, and there are some genuine dogs with a genuine Canon label too. You have to choose on merit, not blind prejudice.

As examples, show me the Canon-branded lens that can replaced my superb little Tokina fisheye zoom. Yup: there isn't one, not at any price. And it's a brilliant lens. (With optics by Pentax, this really shouldn't surprise anyone.)

Now show me the Canon-branded 35mm macro lens. Or, indeed, any short macro lens - I'll pay anywhere between 20mm and 40mm. But no dice, Canon don't make one.

Tony. Canon owner. Not cheap.

[PerfectPicture]

Thanks Tannin for your input, WOW! l really like the Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye shoot you have taken, quite sharp, looking at the ground and car its sharp all round, and like the border effect as well, l have to tinker around in Photoshop for ages to get a result like that :) hahahaa
And as you mentioned you zoom in a bit, the vignetting is completely gone. Good Multi-purpose lenses :) Thanks for sharing,



I have a 16-35.. And a 10-22.. Both have their uses,, wouldn't get rid of either.. If you have the money.. Get the 16-35.. Other wise the 10-22.. Is a good substitute for a crop body.. Ps I don't play with non canon stuff.. Its like buying an astra door to fit a pulsar, yeah they fit.. And it will work.. Buuuuuuuuuut every one will know your just cheap.. *** puts on flame suit ***

M

Wow Clubmanmc .. l'm a big canon supporter as anybody out there, but to blindly say if its not stamped canon, its cheap and no good is being closed minded to the other Great lenses out there ... Try them mate and see the differences :) Research them, feel them, test them and you might be pleasantly surprised of the quality some other manufacturers have available. :)
And as Tannin said above, l have to agree, canon might not have the lens available for that focal length or purpose.
that said, l still love my "L" Series Lenses as well :th3:
(now, where's my commission .. canon :) l accept cheques or L lens ) wmhahaha


Opps hope were not hijacking your original post, O.P. :)

[Nige]

I recent purchased the Canon 10-22mm. I really like this lens its just fantastic for something larger I also have the 24-105mm now as well. The advantage is that both can use the same ND filters and the lens hood for the 24-105mm will fit the 10-22mm, I wish I knew that before I ordered the cheap ebay one (the cannon $77 for a bit of plastic was a bit steep).

[Audible]

I initially bought the sigma 10-20mm lens and found it very poor. Barrel distortions, Poor IQ, CA's and very poor resolution compared to the 18-55mm kit lens (at the same focal length). I took it back to the shop for another copy and found the second copy had the same faults.
Sigma are well known for their hit & miss quality. If you can get a good copy all well and good but the two copies of the sigma 10-20mm I had made the 18-55mm kit lens look good.

In the end I swapped it for the Canon 10-22mm. Well worth the extra money.

[gh0st]

For Canon crop Canon 10-22mm is a great lens, I used it on my 400D and 50D, moved to FF but still missing it sometimes.

[Clubmanmc]

And well you should, because you are way out of line. Price is not the only or even the best reason to buy non-Canon lenses. There are some truly excellent lenses out there in non-Canon land, and there are some genuine dogs with a genuine Canon label too. You have to choose on merit, not blind prejudice.

As examples, show me the Canon-branded lens that can replaced my superb little Tokina fisheye zoom. Yup: there isn't one, not at any price. And it's a brilliant lens. (With optics by Pentax, this really shouldn't surprise anyone.)

Now show me the Canon-branded 35mm macro lens. Or, indeed, any short macro lens - I'll pay anywhere between 20mm and 40mm. But no dice, Canon don't make one.

Tony. Canon owner. Not cheap.

whats the length range of your fish eye zoom??

how often do you use the fish eye?

M