Posted by Tim Stenning on June 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I am heading off to S. America for a few months with a Canon 40D (and a G9). I need to limit weight but get the best I can out of the camera, so--question: What is the one best lens for landscapes? I'm thinking Andes and Amazon Jungle. Thanks a lot for any comments. (maybe 2 lenses)
I second that. I upgraded from the 10D to the 40D a little while ago, and took it and the 10-22 to Death Valley for a week. Couldn't be happier with the lens.
If you are looking for 2 lenses, you might add the 28-300 if you can afford it. Other than that, look at some of the other 28 to something options. It's always nice to have something other than ultra wide.
I recommend the Sigma 10-20 lens and the Canon 24-105L lens.
The Sigma costs $200 less than the Canon lens, and possesses the exact same quality (see this comparison of the two lenses for details).
The Sigma lens includes a beautiful case and a lens hood, which Canon fails to include with their much more expensive lens for some odd reason.
The Sigma 10-20 has proven to be one of my best purchases for my 40D!
However, it's not an ideal lens for 'everyday' type situations, which is why I also recommended the 24-105L lens. That lens stays on my camera most of the time as a 'walkaround' lens, and is the only lens I brought to Colombia last month.
Ken Rockwell did a review on the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Nikon superwides. In that review, he says the Canon beats them all. In fact, in his review of the Canon, he states "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens." When a Nikon guy makes this kind of statement, it holds some weight!
When I was looking to buy the superwide, I debated over the 3 third party lenses. But in the end, I realized I am building up my good glass, and for a couple hundred extra decided that the Canon was the way to go.
To be fair, I have never shot the Sigma, and have heard very good reviews of it (if you don't get one that didn't meet quality control, which seems to be a big complaint). But I can say that the Canon is a stunning lens, with darn near no distortion.
I agree with you about the iritation of Canon not including a lens hood. That seems really nickle and dime on their part.
I also agree with you about the 24-105L. I didn't think of that one when I posted earlier. As much as I love the ability to go that wide, I find that it is often too wide.
When a Nikon guy makes this kind of statement, it holds some weight!
Unless that Nikon guy happens to be Ken Rockwell.
Ken Rockwell's site is full of so much misinformation and outright mistakes that I can't stomach visiting it. A perfect example of somebody being viewed as an "expert" simply because he put up a web page, not because of the quality of the content.
My all time favorite is when he once criticized the Sigma SD9 as a worthless camera after allegedly taking some sample photos without a CF card inserted. "I'll be honest and admit that I didn't even bother to pop in my CF cards when I used this, sorry."
Ken Rockwell provides good practical information. For instance, he tests equipment in real world, not test lab, conditions. Bottom line, all these critiques are mere opinions, unless measurements are made. If you read the literature, blogs and tests that are all over the internet, you will find that the Sigma lens is widely variable as it comes from the factory. It is either perfect (rare) or really terrible, or anywhere inbetween. I purhcased a used copy which was terrible, then had the previous owner send it to Sigma for "adjustment" and got it back in "pristine" condition - probably the sharpest lens I own. The bad thing is it can be bad, the good thing, if you buy a new one, is that it can be easily rectified, usually with a 10 day turnaround. You are likely to get the best results by sending a bad copy back to Sigma than to play russian roulette with a hapless vendor. Some people actually buy 4 lenses and keep the best one, which still may not be within spec, only representing the best of a sample of 4.
While I don't agree with everything he says all the time, there is no arguing that he gets great professional results from his gear and technique. And he does make a living from shooting pictures. Would I follow his advice on shooting RAW, or in sRGB color space - probably not. My approach is different and my performance criteria is different from his. Different - not better or worse.
Whatever lens you get, make sure that if you get a bad copy you have a reliable procedure to rectify your problem. You can't do wrong with good copies of either the Canon or the Sigma. Another lens worth considering is the 18-250 Tamron, which seems to give the Nikon a run for its money in terms of general overall performance, and it is a nice complement to either ultrawide zoom. It's great at shorter focal lengths, and capable of reasonable, but not stellar performance at the longer end.
Posted by David A Bliss on June 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
John, you are absolutely right. His review and $4.05 will buy a gallon of gas...
Tim, my suggestion would be whatever lens (or lenses) you decide on, get them with enough time to go out and put them through their paces, so that if you have any problems, you can get it resolved before you go on your trip.
I agree totally with John regarding Ken Rockwell. No credibility there IMO.
The lenses mentioned are all excellent, and I might add the Tokina ATX 12-24 as well. I chose it over the Nikon 12-24 after reading the Nikonians review and have been extremely pleased with it. Superb build quality, excellent glass, and half the price of the Nikon model. It also comes in a Canon mount. There's a good review of several wide angle lenses on the Nikonians site - http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html. The review is a couple of years old but is still worth reading.
Posted by Tim Stenning on June 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I am enjoying the various opinions and the debate about Ken Rockwell.
I'm currently using a Sigma 10-20, a Canon 17-40L and a Canon 24-105L they seem to be the best mix for me but everyone has their own ideas on glass. I did compare the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 and at least for my uses, the Sigma seemed to be the best buy, I used to use a Canon EFS 17-85 but replaced it recently with an eye toward replacing my 40D with a full frame in the near future. I think the EFS 17-85 IS is excellent glass for the 40D.
Landscape photos can be taken with lenses from 180 degree fisheye to 1200mm telephotos. This topic has focused almost exclusively on the ultra wide solutions which is a very limited subset.
My own preference leans towards moderate wides to normal focal lengths and on the 40D, that equates to the 16-35mm range. With that in mind, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS, Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and Tamron and Sigma equivalents would be really good choices for me. But your experience may be different. I personally own the 17-40L, but I bought it before these EF-S f2.8 lenses came to market.
However, I do occasionally like/need to shoot with an ultrawide and in that case I chose the Canon 10-22. It was close between this lens and the Tokina 12-24. The Canon won because it was significantly lighter and I like to take it backpacking and hiking.
For my 35mm system I have the 10-22, 17-40L, Tokina 28-70 f2.8, Canon 50 f1.4 and Canon 70-300IS lenses. I tend to carry only 2 of them when hiking.
I've also considered various 2 piece solutions, including the 10-22 and a lightweight longer lens. The Tokina 28-70 f2.8 I own is quite heavy and not great for close up focus. I've specifically looked at the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5. I lean towards the second choice because it has better macro capability. The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 versus the 24-105L is a case of diminishing returns, especially on a crop body where the corners don't matter.
The 10-22 and 28-105 would provide a 2 lens kit that covers a great deal of subject matter with high quality at a very low weight. And you can have both lenses for under $850.
Discussion
12 repliesTim Stenning
Pacific Coast, Washington
USA
If you are looking for 2 lenses, you might add the 28-300 if you can afford it. Other than that, look at some of the other 28 to something options. It's always nice to have something other than ultra wide.
The Sigma costs $200 less than the Canon lens, and possesses the exact same quality (see this comparison of the two lenses for details).
The Sigma lens includes a beautiful case and a lens hood, which Canon fails to include with their much more expensive lens for some odd reason.
The Sigma 10-20 has proven to be one of my best purchases for my 40D!
However, it's not an ideal lens for 'everyday' type situations, which is why I also recommended the 24-105L lens. That lens stays on my camera most of the time as a 'walkaround' lens, and is the only lens I brought to Colombia last month.
When I was looking to buy the superwide, I debated over the 3 third party lenses. But in the end, I realized I am building up my good glass, and for a couple hundred extra decided that the Canon was the way to go.
To be fair, I have never shot the Sigma, and have heard very good reviews of it (if you don't get one that didn't meet quality control, which seems to be a big complaint). But I can say that the Canon is a stunning lens, with darn near no distortion.
I agree with you about the iritation of Canon not including a lens hood. That seems really nickle and dime on their part.
I also agree with you about the 24-105L. I didn't think of that one when I posted earlier. As much as I love the ability to go that wide, I find that it is often too wide.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
Unless that Nikon guy happens to be Ken Rockwell.
Ken Rockwell's site is full of so much misinformation and outright mistakes that I can't stomach visiting it. A perfect example of somebody being viewed as an "expert" simply because he put up a web page, not because of the quality of the content.
My all time favorite is when he once criticized the Sigma SD9 as a worthless camera after allegedly taking some sample photos without a CF card inserted.
"I'll be honest and admit that I didn't even bother to pop in my CF cards when I used this, sorry."
While I don't agree with everything he says all the time, there is no arguing that he gets great professional results from his gear and technique. And he does make a living from shooting pictures. Would I follow his advice on shooting RAW, or in sRGB color space - probably not. My approach is different and my performance criteria is different from his. Different - not better or worse.
Whatever lens you get, make sure that if you get a bad copy you have a reliable procedure to rectify your problem. You can't do wrong with good copies of either the Canon or the Sigma. Another lens worth considering is the 18-250 Tamron, which seems to give the Nikon a run for its money in terms of general overall performance, and it is a nice complement to either ultrawide zoom. It's great at shorter focal lengths, and capable of reasonable, but not stellar performance at the longer end.
Tim, my suggestion would be whatever lens (or lenses) you decide on, get them with enough time to go out and put them through their paces, so that if you have any problems, you can get it resolved before you go on your trip.
The lenses mentioned are all excellent, and I might add the Tokina ATX 12-24 as well. I chose it over the Nikon 12-24 after reading the Nikonians review and have been extremely pleased with it. Superb build quality, excellent glass, and half the price of the Nikon model. It also comes in a Canon mount. There's a good review of several wide angle lenses on the Nikonians site - http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html. The review is a couple of years old but is still worth reading.
My own preference leans towards moderate wides to normal focal lengths and on the 40D, that equates to the 16-35mm range. With that in mind, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS, Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and Tamron and Sigma equivalents would be really good choices for me. But your experience may be different. I personally own the 17-40L, but I bought it before these EF-S f2.8 lenses came to market.
However, I do occasionally like/need to shoot with an ultrawide and in that case I chose the Canon 10-22. It was close between this lens and the Tokina 12-24. The Canon won because it was significantly lighter and I like to take it backpacking and hiking.
For my 35mm system I have the 10-22, 17-40L, Tokina 28-70 f2.8, Canon 50 f1.4 and Canon 70-300IS lenses. I tend to carry only 2 of them when hiking.
I've also considered various 2 piece solutions, including the 10-22 and a lightweight longer lens. The Tokina 28-70 f2.8 I own is quite heavy and not great for close up focus. I've specifically looked at the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5. I lean towards the second choice because it has better macro capability. The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 versus the 24-105L is a case of diminishing returns, especially on a crop body where the corners don't matter.
The 10-22 and 28-105 would provide a 2 lens kit that covers a great deal of subject matter with high quality at a very low weight. And you can have both lenses for under $850.
Mel-