Big Bend trip == better buy toys

[jcarapet]

Alright, time to listen to the internet on how to spend my money.

Decided to do a backpacking trip to Big bend in about a month. Naturally I am using this as an excuse to satisfy GAS. Have about 1800 in my camera fund saved up from the last couple years. Don't need a better body, so what lenses should I look at.

have a general purpose, a 70-200, and a 50mm so most obvious is a wide angle is in play. I have been looking at Tamron 15-30 and Canon 16-35 f4, but each has tradeoffs that I can't decide between.

question is. What is your opinion between the two? What are my other options for wide angle? Finally what other lenses should I look at for a trip like this?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Your profile shows a crop body and FF body. Something like a Sigma ART 12-24 DG ($1599), which is a FF lens and will give you the option for wide on the crop and wide to super wide on the FF.

I'm not a fan of Sigma, but it does cover the bases for you.

The other option is to kick in a little more than your 1800 for a Canon 11-24mm L $2529 street price.

I'd give a look at these as well as the ones you mentioned. Read the reviews.

Generally, you do not need f/2.8 or IS for a wide angle, at 15mm, a shutter speed of 1/15 to 1/30 is fast enough.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I own a Canon 16-35 F4 and other than the unnecessary IS I don't see any trade-offs? Simply an excellent lens at a reasonable price considering the superb IQ.

So long as the focal range suits you then I would highly recommend it.

 

[jcarapet]

Your profile shows a crop body and FF body. Something like a Sigma ART 12-24 DG ($1599), which is a FF lens and will give you the option for wide on the crop and wide to super wide on the FF.

I'm not a fan of Sigma, but it does cover the bases for you.

The other option is to kick in a little more than your 1800 for a Canon 11-24mm L $2529 street price.

I'd give a look at these as well as the ones you mentioned. Read the reviews.

Generally, you do not need f/2.8 or IS for a wide angle, at 15mm, a shutter speed of 1/15 to 1/30 is fast enough.

I didn't realize the 12-24 was actual EF mount. I'll have to take a look at it. Crop body has been on permanent loan to a family member so it hasn't been part of my consideration, but worth noting.

The 11-24 was a consideration. My only issue with that is it means my most expensive lens in my arsenal being my least used focal length. Hard to swallow.

 

[jcarapet]

I own a Canon 16-35 F4 and other than the unnecessary IS I don't see any trade-offs? Simply an excellent lens at a reasonable price considering the superb IQ.

So long as the focal range suits you then I would highly recommend it.

For me the trade offs is the extra stop of light and image quality. I know how crazy that sounds. 16-35 is incredibly well rated on IQ, but when I have been able to shoot floor model side by side and compare images, the tamron is just better minus coma. I would also like the extra stop for any astro I might do. Though to be fair with extra $200 bucks saved I could probably just by a solid wide angle prime..

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I own a Canon 16-35 F4 and other than the unnecessary IS I don't see any trade-offs? Simply an excellent lens at a reasonable price considering the superb IQ.

So long as the focal range suits you then I would highly recommend it.

For me the trade offs is the extra stop of light and image quality. I know how crazy that sounds. 16-35 is incredibly well rated on IQ, but when I have been able to shoot floor model side by side and compare images, the tamron is just better minus coma. I would also like the extra stop for any astro I might do. Though to be fair with extra $200 bucks saved I could probably just by a solid wide angle prime..

Interesting thoughts. I am not familiar with the Tamron - though, from what I read, the IQ is pretty much a wash between the two. The extra stop? This is very much down to your personal needs/uses. My Canon 16-35 F4 L IS is often used for interiors (old churches etc) and I rarely use it more open than F5.6 + I don't even know if the IS works so F2.8 (at these focal lengths) is not something I would have even thought of!

Still the Tamron does look like a very nice lens so you should definitely consider it.

 

[ahsanford]

have a general purpose, a 70-200, and a 50mm so most obvious is a wide angle is in play. I have been looking at Tamron 15-30 and Canon 16-35 f4, but each has tradeoffs that I can't decide between.

16-35 f/4 is lighter (important consideration for backpacking) and has convenient front filtering.

The Tamron will be a much better tool for astro. That's about it.

I'd get the Canon 10 times out of 10 unless astro is important for you.

- A

 

[bholliman]

Big Bend is a beautiful park, one of my favorites. I've been fortunate to have make two trips there, but March 2013 was my last visit. It's on my short list for next a photo trip scheduled for next spring.

For me the trade offs is the extra stop of light and image quality. I know how crazy that sounds. 16-35 is incredibly well rated on IQ, but when I have been able to shoot floor model side by side and compare images, the tamron is just better minus coma. I would also like the extra stop for any astro I might do. Though to be fair with extra $200 bucks saved I could probably just by a solid wide angle prime..

All the comparisons I've read show the two being roughly the same in image quality. The two copies you compared may not be representative of the larger body of lenses available.

have a general purpose, a 70-200, and a 50mm so most obvious is a wide angle is in play. I have been looking at Tamron 15-30 and Canon 16-35 f4, but each has tradeoffs that I can't decide between.

16-35 f/4 is lighter (important consideration for backpacking) and has convenient front filtering.

The Tamron will be a much better tool for astro. That's about it.

I'd get the Canon 10 times out of 10 unless astro is important for you.

- A

+1 From what I can see, the f/2.8 for astro photography is the only significant advantage of the Tamron. For me the 16-35 f/4L IS checks all the boxes. Excellent lens and terrific value.

 

[jcarapet]

Thanks all for the responses. I had thought about copy variance being the difference but wasn't sure. The front filter element and weight did occur to me as well.

I think with the price difference, front filter, and weight I'll probably pick up the 16-35 and a cheaper wide angle prime to handle astro.