Posted by Graeme Lee on August 15, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Hi All,
I am after some advice on the following. I will be using a 1d2 body.
A Wide angle lens for Landscape photography
I have seen that most people seem to be using the canon 17-40 for this stuff. Would this be the lens that people recommend?
Is there an issue with sharp copies of this lens much like the 100-400? I have seen some reviews that suggest there might be.
Would the 24-70mm be wide enough to capture good landscape shots?
Is the Sigma 10-20 not as good as the canon 17-40?
Also a Macro lens
Interested on opinions on the difference between the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and the Tamron AF 90mm Di Macro which I've seen good reviews for
I would be buying these off the net. Does anyone have experience of returning lenses via the internet for not being sharp copies?
I have limited budget and these sorts of lenses are in my price range
Although i use a 16-35 i know some pros that prefer the 17-40 especially on FF cameras which doesnt apply here, I havent heard of problems with the 17-40,I dont think the 10-20 Sigma will fit the 1 series although could be getting confused with the canon of the same size-Andy Rouse has a review on the Sigma 12-24 and that sounds like a good lens, I use a Tamron 90 macro and cant fault it,The only bonus that the canon has i feel is the internal focusing
Posted by Mike Smith on August 15, 2007 at 5:29 PM
with the 1.3x crop of the 1DII body the 17-40 is just fine, the problems of Canon wide angle lens soft edges manifests itself principally when you shoot with the full frame sensor 5D/IDs series of cameras.
I've been using the 17-40mm for two or three years and am happy with it and would recommend it. As L lenses go it's reasonibly priced,sharp and well made. I have heard it mentioned that some copies are better than others, although it's hard to know how much is fact and how much is actually down to differences between each lens.
A while back I had a brief period where I owned two 17-40mm lenses, I did some comparison testing between the two, one seemed very slightly able to resolve a fraction more detail than the other one in the center of the image but on the other hand the other copy was a fraction sharper in the corners, in the end there was virtually nothing in it and either lens was worthy of keeping.
The 24-70mm is an excellent landscape lens but whether it's wide enough really depends on the type of landscapes you like capturing, i.e. broad sweeping views or more intricate parts of the scene. I use the 17-40mm and the 24-70mm and to be honest I wouldn't want to be without either, if I absolutely had to just keep one, it'd be the 17-40mm I'd keep, at least for landscapes anyway.
I havn't used the Di version of the Tamron 90mm macro but I have used the non-Di version for quite a few years, image quality wise there wouldn't be anything in it though, it's a tried and tested design that's been around for a long time and always with glowing reviews, and rightly so. The Tamron's image quality is excellent and certainly on a par with Canon's 100mm macro.
I now use the Canon 100mm macro lens having sold the Tamron. I don't really class it as an upgrade though, I only bought the Canon because I had an oppurtunity to buy a mint one at a very good price. Now I've had a chance to thnoroughly use both lenses extensivly I'd say image quality wise there both superb and there's virtually nothing in it whatsoever. For build quality and general handling then yes the Canon is better and for this reason it's a slightly better lens than the Tamron,in fact better is probably not the correct term to use,it's a nicer lens to use, not that it matters an awful lot.
Regarding returning lenses, thankfully I've never had to but I'd be very suprised if you'd have a problem with a reputable store such as Warehouse Express. To be on the safeside I'd just give them a ring and explain you've heard of possible quality variations between lenses and will they accept it back if you're not happy.
I believe most shops have a return policy providing the item is returned within a stated period, is complete and in unmarked condition.
Posted by Paul Ashton on August 15, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I use the 16-35 on my 5D and am very happy with it. Under certain circumstance vignetting can be a problem when using wide aperture but easily corrected with PS.
Friends have the Sigma 10-22 and it's a great lens. Check out http://www.10-20mm.com/index.html to see just how effective this length of lens can be.
The Canon 100mm macro is absolutely first class and a bargain. You will not be disappointed with this lens.
Regarding the 100-400 I don't think there's an issue at all. A very portable, flexible lens at a reasonable price. I think folks tend to forget that 400mm is a long lens and needs handling with respect.
I use the 17-40 for 99% of my landscapes and am very happy with it. I have heard the new 16-35 II is even better but its way out of my budget. Tristan
Posted by Sean Bolton on August 15, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Hi Graeme
I would choose the 17-40 F4 L over the 24-70 f2.8 L for landscapes (I own both). Both are good lenses but for landscapes I would say the 17-40 has the edge on a 1.3x crop body as it gives you the ideal wide angle equivalent range of approx 20-50mm.
Image quality is excellent with the 17-40. It is smaller and lighter too which is useful when yomping with lots of kit.
For macro I would consider the Sigma 150mm f2.8. This is probably the best value nature macro on the market. If you intend to do a lot of in-the-field macro work then the longer reach of a 150mm or 180mm lens is handy when trying to get close to bugs and butterflies.
I own the Canon 180mm f3.5 L. It is a great lens but I am not sure it is really worth 2.5x the cost of the Sigma.
As you are local, I have the 16-35 and the 24-70 and the sigma 12-24 if you want to try before you buy.
Regards
John Lee
Posted by Andy Astbury on August 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Graeme - wide angle wise, and bearing in mind I was Nikon only at the time, I tried both the Sig 12-24 and the new Tokina 12-24 and ended up liking the latter a bit better - it really is quite an astonishing bit of kit (well, at least my example is).
Macro wise I think you'll be hard pressed to beat a Sig 180 myself - I'm no macro expert but the image is razor sharp, it'll take at least a 1.4 tc without any noticeable loss of sharpness - look at Juza's images off the main NPN forum.
My to'pennorth FWIW
Posted by Rob Ashton on August 15, 2007 at 7:13 PM
The Tokina 12-24 is a better lens than the Sigma. I have had both and wish I had not got rid of the Tokina. I now use a 10-20 for wide but it won't go on my 1DMkIIn.
Rob
Posted by Rene de Heer on August 16, 2007 at 3:26 AM
My vote is also for the 17-40 Canon and as an alternative the Sigma 10-20. I also think the Tokina 12-24 is worth a look at, very well built!
I only do occassional Macro photography and sometime ago i bought the Tokina 100/2.8 for STG 269 and it is a fine lens, worth consider.
I normally buy my equipment at Mifsuds and Warehouse express.
Rene de Heer
Posted by Chris Lloyd on August 16, 2007 at 3:57 AM
Hi Graeme,
For wide angle I use the Nikon 28-100mm which is fine for what I need, although I tried a Sigma 10-20 in LCE in Paignton and loved it, although a little too wide for my uses, so in that respect the 17-40mm with its extra zoom range would be my choice.
I am another happy Sigma 150mm macro user, a very sharp lens and the extra working distance is a life saver over a 90-100mm. The only small nit I have is that your technique needs to be a little better to get sharp pics, especially when in situations where handholding is the only viable option. But other than that, a superb lens!
HTH.
Regards Chris.
Posted by John Chapman on August 16, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Hi Graeme I would recommend the canon 17-40 I recently did a shoot at the Edinburgh Tattoo all images taken without a tripod and no flash. Also my landscapes at spitsbergen taken from a boat hand held. I hope this helps.
John
Aberdeen
Posted by Graeme Lee on August 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Thanks very much for all the comments and advice. The 17-40 looks pretty cool and it's a proven lens so I will have a punt on that. The macro is going to have to wait.
John Lee - thanks for the offer John, but the 16-35 is out of my price range and if I try it, I know my wife will hate me more...I've experienced this when I tried someones 500mm and ended up buying one!!!
Posted by Elliott Neep on August 17, 2007 at 5:41 AM
Hi Graeme,
You won't be disappointed with the 17-40. Its has a great reputation. I use a canon 100mm Macro. I upgraded from the Tamron 90mm because of the lack of internal focus and noisy focus drive. Neither of these are great factors for jittery insects. The sharpness of the Tamron is great though especially for the price, so you should still consider it.
Discussion
14 repliesI am after some advice on the following. I will be using a 1d2 body.
A Wide angle lens for Landscape photography
I have seen that most people seem to be using the canon 17-40 for this stuff. Would this be the lens that people recommend?
Is there an issue with sharp copies of this lens much like the 100-400? I have seen some reviews that suggest there might be.
Would the 24-70mm be wide enough to capture good landscape shots?
Is the Sigma 10-20 not as good as the canon 17-40?
Also a Macro lens
Interested on opinions on the difference between the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and the Tamron AF 90mm Di Macro which I've seen good reviews for
I would be buying these off the net. Does anyone have experience of returning lenses via the internet for not being sharp copies?
I have limited budget and these sorts of lenses are in my price range
Many thanks
Graeme
I've been using the 17-40mm for two or three years and am happy with it and would recommend it. As L lenses go it's reasonibly priced,sharp and well made. I have heard it mentioned that some copies are better than others, although it's hard to know how much is fact and how much is actually down to differences between each lens.
A while back I had a brief period where I owned two 17-40mm lenses, I did some comparison testing between the two, one seemed very slightly able to resolve a fraction more detail than the other one in the center of the image but on the other hand the other copy was a fraction sharper in the corners, in the end there was virtually nothing in it and either lens was worthy of keeping.
The 24-70mm is an excellent landscape lens but whether it's wide enough really depends on the type of landscapes you like capturing, i.e. broad sweeping views or more intricate parts of the scene. I use the 17-40mm and the 24-70mm and to be honest I wouldn't want to be without either, if I absolutely had to just keep one, it'd be the 17-40mm I'd keep, at least for landscapes anyway.
I havn't used the Di version of the Tamron 90mm macro but I have used the non-Di version for quite a few years, image quality wise there wouldn't be anything in it though, it's a tried and tested design that's been around for a long time and always with glowing reviews, and rightly so. The Tamron's image quality is excellent and certainly on a par with Canon's 100mm macro.
I now use the Canon 100mm macro lens having sold the Tamron. I don't really class it as an upgrade though, I only bought the Canon because I had an oppurtunity to buy a mint one at a very good price. Now I've had a chance to thnoroughly use both lenses extensivly I'd say image quality wise there both superb and there's virtually nothing in it whatsoever. For build quality and general handling then yes the Canon is better and for this reason it's a slightly better lens than the Tamron,in fact better is probably not the correct term to use,it's a nicer lens to use, not that it matters an awful lot.
Regarding returning lenses, thankfully I've never had to but I'd be very suprised if you'd have a problem with a reputable store such as Warehouse Express. To be on the safeside I'd just give them a ring and explain you've heard of possible quality variations between lenses and will they accept it back if you're not happy.
I believe most shops have a return policy providing the item is returned within a stated period, is complete and in unmarked condition.
Friends have the Sigma 10-22 and it's a great lens. Check out http://www.10-20mm.com/index.html to see just how effective this length of lens can be.
The Canon 100mm macro is absolutely first class and a bargain. You will not be disappointed with this lens.
Regarding the 100-400 I don't think there's an issue at all. A very portable, flexible lens at a reasonable price. I think folks tend to forget that 400mm is a long lens and needs handling with respect.
I would choose the 17-40 F4 L over the 24-70 f2.8 L for landscapes (I own both). Both are good lenses but for landscapes I would say the 17-40 has the edge on a 1.3x crop body as it gives you the ideal wide angle equivalent range of approx 20-50mm.
Image quality is excellent with the 17-40. It is smaller and lighter too which is useful when yomping with lots of kit.
For macro I would consider the Sigma 150mm f2.8. This is probably the best value nature macro on the market. If you intend to do a lot of in-the-field macro work then the longer reach of a 150mm or 180mm lens is handy when trying to get close to bugs and butterflies.
I own the Canon 180mm f3.5 L. It is a great lens but I am not sure it is really worth 2.5x the cost of the Sigma.
cheers
Sean
As you are local, I have the 16-35 and the 24-70 and the sigma 12-24 if you want to try before you buy.
Regards
John Lee
Macro wise I think you'll be hard pressed to beat a Sig 180 myself - I'm no macro expert but the image is razor sharp, it'll take at least a 1.4 tc without any noticeable loss of sharpness - look at Juza's images off the main NPN forum.
My to'pennorth FWIW
Rob
I only do occassional Macro photography and sometime ago i bought the Tokina 100/2.8 for STG 269 and it is a fine lens, worth consider.
I normally buy my equipment at Mifsuds and Warehouse express.
Rene de Heer
For wide angle I use the Nikon 28-100mm which is fine for what I need, although I tried a Sigma 10-20 in LCE in Paignton and loved it, although a little too wide for my uses, so in that respect the 17-40mm with its extra zoom range would be my choice.
I am another happy Sigma 150mm macro user, a very sharp lens and the extra working distance is a life saver over a 90-100mm. The only small nit I have is that your technique needs to be a little better to get sharp pics, especially when in situations where handholding is the only viable option. But other than that, a superb lens!
HTH.
Regards Chris.
John
Aberdeen
John Lee - thanks for the offer John, but the 16-35 is out of my price range and if I try it, I know my wife will hate me more...I've experienced this when I tried someones 500mm and ended up buying one!!!
You won't be disappointed with the 17-40. Its has a great reputation. I use a canon 100mm Macro. I upgraded from the Tamron 90mm because of the lack of internal focus and noisy focus drive. Neither of these are great factors for jittery insects. The sharpness of the Tamron is great though especially for the price, so you should still consider it.