Same old question...which lens?

[siejones]

OK OK you have heard this story so many times but I need help!

It's the old story of which wide to standard zoom to choose to replace the kit lens.

Let me tell you what I have and what I would require from said lens.

My current setup:

- Canon 350D
- 18-55 kit lens
- Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro

The lenses I have been looking at:

- Canon 17-40 4L
- Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG
- Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG
- Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (out of breath)

I would mainly use it for landscape shots and by that I mean mountain landscape type shots. I am a hill/mountain walker
in the UK and the stunning views I sometimes see just have to be captured. Even if it just my benefit alone for that
perfect memory.

I have had a few digital compacts in the past from "fuji 2600 zoom" to G5 and have taken many many landscapes but
although they were a nice they were never really had the IQ and detail I wanted. Especially considering I would really
like to print out to A3 size to adorn my walls. So what I want is a lens that delivers sharpness and resolution enough
to produce the kind of put it on the wall and pick out the detail type quality.

This kind of photography I aspire to is the work of Colin Prior and to produce anywhere near his work would be my
ulitmate goal. I understand he uses large format cameras and expensive gear to produce his masterpieces and I don't
pretend this think I could match that kind of quality but I would like to get as near as I could.

I do not require a super wide and I feel the 17-18 is wide enough for the 1.6 crop sensor. Well for my needs anyway and
besides which I really would want to keep the a 2 lens solution. This being for reasons of lightweight and I know I
would end up not taking a shot just because I couldn't be arsed to get another lens out the rucksack.

Don't get me wrong I do also take other types of shots and would ideally love the lens to cater for all circumstances
but I know thats a little too much to ask.

What I have learnt so far:

Canon 17-40 4L - I know many of you will not hesitate to automatically suggest this lens. I know it has a huge following
and it is an L lens after all. One of the problems is that its a bit short and I really don't want to feel my self
needing that extra length in the middle of no where about the capture that once in a life time shot. Another is the
price of coarse. This would really really stretch my already choked credit card to the limits I shouldn't be in. I could
only do this if this lens was perfect for my needs and no other lens came close and from comparisons I have seen to the
other lenses I have mentioned. It seems it is not leaps and bounds ahead.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DG - I have read many good and bad things about this lens. Mainly that it is sharp and contrasty but
suffers alot from CA and the corner sharpness is nothing to write home about. I also understand that like the other
choices in my list that it is a crop factor only lens. If I were to move to full frame later I would have to loose it.

Simga 17-70 2.8-4.5 DG - If only this lens was perfect. I mean look at that range...so..so useful. Although I have seen
a few fans of this lens. The images I have seen taken with it do not impress as far as sharpness is concerned. I have
even read that it is good for close up's but falls down for distant landscape shots. Which of coarse is no good for me.

Great low price but being the cheapest of the bunch offerinf the greater range this kind of raises alarm bells for me. I
find it strange to bring out a lens that can only be F2.8 between 17-20 as well. Why would you need it to be that wide
in that range?. Certainly not for portrait shots.

Tamron 17-50 e.t.c - I have again read mixed reviews and opinions of this lens. Mainly that it is sharp but suffers from
a lot of barrel distortion on the wide end and corner sharpness less that perfect.

I apologise to have droaned on for so long but I wanted you all to understand what I was looking for in a lens before
asking the question of which I should go for.

I have read review after review of all the lenses mentioned and I am still struggling to make a decision that will be
right for me.

Thanks to all and your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Sie

[drew_viii]

personally i would recommend the sigma 18-50 f2.8 DG EX or canon 17-40 f4L. Have you tried the site from fredmiranda? they have lots of user experience reviews and also some ratings. if you are serious about your landscape photos why dont you try to wider focal range? since you have the budget to for the lens. get like a sigma 12-24 then accompany with sigma 17-70 or if you have extra money for it, get the sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DG then. sigma 12-24 is a good lens and it also won several awards for its value and image quality, so you might as well consider this especially for landscape photographers.

well thats just my opinion or comments, later on more canon users will give you more definite comments. good luck on your decision! :) by the way, share some of your photos here, would really love to see great landscape locations and shots! :)

[MomoTheCow]

I'm really stuck on this one too, though specifically in regard to the Sigma 18-50mm 28 and the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.
Things get stickier when I try, and fail, to seek comparisons between the newer Macro Sigma 18-50mm and its predecessor mentioned here.
I love that the web gives me more than just my one or two photographer buddies' opinions, but when you get EVERYONE'S opinion, nothing seems certain anymore. Taste and shooting style aside, it seems like any lens, and these two exceptionally so, have their fans and detractors and everyone seems to have good reason.

Damn this cacophonous democracy of opinion!

[adam75south]

out of those, tamron all the way. it's crazy sharp, cheaper than the canon, and f/2.8!

[DonSchap]

Adam ... you the man! :D

TAMRON has been berry berry good to me. Nice and reliable shots, at a price we all should be able to stomach.

[kjosker]

has been very positive. I use mine on the original 300D and the 20D, meaning that, my experience with it is on 1.6 cameras. I find it to be sharp, with that "pop" that makes photography fun. I like the feel of it, and being weather-sealed, I don't worry about it in marginal to unfavorable conditions.

Nothing I've indicated here should be considered a denigration of your other possibilities, as I have no experience with them.

[DonSchap]

on the wild side.

I would suggest that if almost everyone were to buy the TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD lens ... and shoot through it, the results would lean toward favorable.

Given that general trend, go with me, here ...

Now, since more than 50% of the users would then be using this lens ... using it would be, literally, "normal" to do so.

Anyone not using it or using something else would be, by definition, "abnormal."

So, in conclusion, what do you shoot? :D

Come on ... you've heard worse justification. Anyway, it does turn out some dandy images and I can guaranty that I am not the only one with that estimation.

Remember, I don't get paid for this ... this kind of boring claptrap is free for the taking.

[michaelb]

I shoot lots of landscapes and I agonized over this decision for months, so I know how you feel.

In the end I felt that, although the Tamron 17-50 is a fantastic lens, I just didn't need the constant f/2.8.

The 17-40 gets great reviews for the most part, although some claim that their "copies" have soft edges. I just thought that this lens didn't have enough reach for me, plus it was hard to justify the cost for such a limited range and f/4.

I also considered the new Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro as well, but again I wanted the reach and didn't really need the constant f/2.8.

In the end I purchased the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-f4.5 and so far I love it. It seems very sharp and the build quality is excellent. Plus when I'm headed out for a hike and I don't want to bring my macro lens, the "pseudo-macro" ability of this lens is very nice.

Here are some nice examples (not mine!) with the 17-70.....
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma1770&s=int

So now when I go out for a hike I have my 17-70 mounted and bring along my 10-22 and my 50mm 1.8 (or my Sigma 50mm macro) and I'm set.

Good luck with the decision.



By the way, I know you said that you don't think you need wider than 17mm, but 10mm is so much fun......(I finally figured out how to combine two exposures in PP; I've been working on this blend for a while)......10mm

[Nickcanada]

Nice version of that pic! You did a great job!

Wooo Weeeee, Love those pics in that link! dangit!

I agree a super wide angle is a good idea for landscape stuff. It's on my want list!

[michaelb]

Thanks Nick.

Sorry to hijack your thread Sie, but here is another recent shot at 10mm......

[cwphoto]

Michael, the colours are so rich and the composition inspiring.

[cdifoto]

I'm gonna go against the grain here a bit and say get a good solid yet lightweight tripod (Carbon Fiber perhaps) and use the kit lens. Stopped down to f/8 (which you want to do for landscapes) and rock solid on a tripod, it might surprise you.

A good solid tripod can be had for about $200-ish (even less if you go with a non-CF and don't mind the weight).

If you go this route you'll be able to get some good stuff while saving your pennies until you can afford a real solution - Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. There are fewer compromises that way, and you'll still be able to make use of the tripod no matter what lens/camera combination you have. I think everyone should have a good tripod in their kit whether they use one a lot or not.

[GaryS]

Michael, great job on the blending of your swamp shot. This version looks awesome!

What was your method for blending it?

[adam75south]

I'm gonna go against the grain here a bit and say get a good solid yet lightweight tripod (Carbon Fiber perhaps) and use the kit lens. Stopped down to f/8 (which you want to do for landscapes) and rock solid on a tripod, it might surprise you.

A good solid tripod can be had for about $200-ish (even less if you go with a non-CF and don't mind the weight).

If you go this route you'll be able to get some good stuff while saving your pennies until you can afford a real solution - Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. There are fewer compromises that way, and you'll still be able to make use of the tripod no matter what lens/camera combination you have. I think everyone should have a good tripod in their kit whether they use one a lot or not.

great advice. why didn't i think of that.

i need to get a good tripod, i really do.

hey don, how important is the tripod over the head? i was thinking of getting a top of the line ball head and a semi cheap bogen manfrotto 3221 or whatever it is. i've never used a tripod, so i honestly don't know what the differences are. what do you think?

[cdifoto]

great advice. why didn't i think of that.

i need to get a good tripod, i really do.

hey don, how important is the tripod over the head? i was thinking of getting a top of the line ball head and a semi cheap bogen manfrotto 3221 or whatever it is. i've never used a tripod, so i honestly don't know what the differences are. what do you think?

I'm not a tripod expert. Not even close...I have a "cheap" Dynatran from eBay. I put cheap in quotes because it's pretty solid but I paid about $60 for it brand new by patiently bidding.

What I do know is the head can be the weaker link if not chosen carefully. Most good legs have pretty good weight ratings - 13.3lbs in the case of the Bogen 3021BPro legs ($156 @ B&H). The heads are what can get you in trouble. The Bogen 488RC2 head ($100) has a rating of 17.6lbs but the cheap 482 ($34) has a rating of only 4.4lbs.

As far as what's absolutely rock solid without compromise...I really don't know. My Dynatran is decent but even it has a little "wobble" to it when you start to push it's load threshold.

[michaelb]

Michael, great job on the blending of your swamp shot. This version looks awesome!

What was your method for blending it?

Thanks for the compliment.

This is how I did it:

I took two exposures, I think about 2 stops apart and then blended them in Paint Shop Pro. It took me a fair amount of time to figure out how to accoplish this.

I pasted the image with the properly expoded sky on top of the image with the properly exosed foreground, using layers. Then I created a forground to background gradient mask which allowed only the foreground of the bottom layer to "bleed through" the top layer, thus giving a properly exposed foreground and background. (A mask is a layer between the images that you create which only allows a portion of the bottom layer to show through the top layer.)

The trick is setting the gradation and level of the mask so it looks the way you want it to. Now that I know how to do it, it should only take me a few minutes to accomplish this type of PP in the future.

I tried several other methods as well, but this yeilded the best results.

I also recently purchased a Hitech 2 stop ND grad filter (rectangular), which I use when I don't want to take two exposures and blend them (you almost have to use a tripod when blending for the shots to be identical); although I did hand-hold the shots for the blend posted here using bust mode and bracketting.
So far I really like this filter - I have a Cokin holder for it, but I often just hand-hold it in front of my lenses.

[michaelb]

I'm gonna go against the grain here a bit and say get a good solid yet lightweight tripod (Carbon Fiber perhaps) and use the kit lens. Stopped down to f/8 (which you want to do for landscapes) and rock solid on a tripod, it might surprise you.

A good solid tripod can be had for about $200-ish (even less if you go with a non-CF and don't mind the weight).

If you go this route you'll be able to get some good stuff while saving your pennies until you can afford a real solution - Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. There are fewer compromises that way, and you'll still be able to make use of the tripod no matter what lens/camera combination you have. I think everyone should have a good tripod in their kit whether they use one a lot or not.


I agree, this is decent advice. I shot with the kit lens and the 50mm 1.8 alone for over a year and got many shots that I love; stopped down its really not that bad, especially for landscapes.

And I just saw a used kit lens on FM buy/sell for $65!!!

[Rontech1]

I'm not a tripod expert. Not even close...I have a "cheap" Dynatran from eBay. I put cheap in quotes because it's pretty solid but I paid about $60 for it brand new by patiently bidding.

What I do know is the head can be the weaker link if not chosen carefully. Most good legs have pretty good weight ratings - 13.3lbs in the case of the Bogen 3021BPro legs ($156 @ B&H). The heads are what can get you in trouble. The Bogen 488RC2 head ($100) has a rating of 17.6lbs but the cheap 482 ($34) has a rating of only 4.4lbs.

As far as what's absolutely rock solid without compromise...I really don't know. My Dynatran is decent but even it has a little "wobble" to it when you start to push it's load threshold.

Watching this thread with a LOT of interest:cool:
I was advised to get the Bogen/Mofrotto 3021 and the ARCA 488rc2.
Link: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28254
Carry on please:cool:
Ron