Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!

[Sabaki]

AlwaysLearning, I would strongly recommend looking closer at the focal lengths on the wide side, between 10-11mm as you are looking to invest in a wide angle.

Remember that 10mm is effectively what 16mm is on a full frame camera.

Focal lengths of 18mm are rather common but bare in mind, its not that wide on a APS-C body.

My recommendations would be the Canon 10-22mm, Canon 10-18mm and the Tokina 11-16.

Nice thing about WA's for landscapes is that it's not dependant on AF, meaning the general concerns regarding AF with third party lenses is a moot point here, so have a good look at that Tokina, as it's widest aperture of f/2.8 is not matched by any other viable wide angle lens for a crop body.

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Rob-downunder some great thoughts there. My issue with going full frame is that I shoot a bit of sports and BIF so if I upgrade the body I'd want an improved AF system. That being the case I don't think the 6D would be suitable and a 5D is out of my budget so FF is out for the time being. Staying with Canon, 70D is the most likely upgrade body wise. Your comment about the 10-22 being a big step up in quality compared to the 18-135 was the sort of comparison I was hoping to receive.

I have to say that I am a little unsure about going the 10-22, 10-18 and 11-16 type focal lengths. There has rarely been any times that I have wished for wider for 18 so not sure how I would go using these. I actually think the 16-35 range is more suitable looking back at the shots I have been taking (couple with the 50 and 70-300 I already have).

Thanks for all the comments. Certainly gives me something to think about.

 

[Sporgon]

The trouble with focal lengths of 10 mm etc is that they are only passing a tiny amount of light for a given exposure. One of the reasons you have a 'wow' factor on your 70-300L lens is that apart from it being a very good optic you have huge magnification and light compared with a much shorter focal length.

So if you want the same 'wow' factor from a much shorter optic on APS, my advice is don't go too short, put funds into a better computer / software system if necessary and stitch. The 24 mm on APS is an ideal focal length when shooting the picture in portrait orientated sections. The 24 mm in portrait is giving you the vertical field of view of a 16 mm lens in landscape orientation, but you are using twice the volume of light to make each section of your image than you would if using a 16 mm focal length.

 

[tolusina]

40, tripod with a level base or post, nodal rail, mirror lock up or live view, tethered or remote release, stitch.

 

[StudentOfLight]

40, tripod with a level base or post, nodal rail, mirror lock up or live view, tethered or remote release, stitch.

+1

 

[Marsu42]

ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135.

In that case, your personal "wow" is cheap to come by: The 70-300L is certainly a good lens and very sturdy, but on crop wide open it's noticeably less sharp than on full frame. So any half-decent midrange lenses should satisfy your needs.

I have to say that I am a little unsure about going the 10-22, 10-18 and 11-16 type focal lengths.

The problem with these uwa lenses on crop is that they're ef-s so you if you want to go ff in the future you either have to sell them or keep dual-using crop for ultra wide angle.

For ff upgrade safety, the new 16-35L with IS is a great choice as a wide-standard zoom on crop. Otherwise I'd personally have gon with the 11-16 lens if'd stayed with crop. Note that landscape doesn't necessarily mean uwa, and you can always panorama stitch if nothing is moving in the frame.

 

[Sporgon]

ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135.

In that case, your personal "wow" is cheap to come by: The 70-300L is certainly a good lens and very sturdy, but on crop wide open it's noticeably less sharp than on full frame. So any half-decent midrange lenses should satisfy your needs.

That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.

 

[StudentOfLight]

;D

The new EFs 24 mm f2.8 pancake. If you want to go wider for landscape, stitch.

Fully agree.

For the OP's benefit, here is an APS-C comparison between the new 24mm EF-S pancake and the 24mm TS-E II at f/5.6.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[Txema]

Hi I used the EF-S 10-22 with my first digital camera, the 20D. It was a fantastic lens so I wonder why canon didn't put a red ring on it. When I bought the 5D it was the only lens I missed even though I had the 16-35L 2.8I.

 

[Marsu42]

Hi I used the EF-S 10-22 with my first digital camera, the 20D. It was a fantastic lens so I wonder why canon didn't put a red ring on it.

1. marketing
2. lack of weather sealing (which (afaik) all recent L lenses have)
3. probably general build quality, compare with the recent 16-35L.

That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.

I shot about 100k frames with my 70-300L on my 60d, so I guess some of them were in focus and without shake or motion blur, even if only by pure chance. And at least with my copy there's a distinct difference between f4 on crop vs. ff - that's why I mostly stepped down to f5.6 on the 60d. Here's exactly what I see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Nethawk]

It depends how wide you want to go. If you want to go real wide, then something like the 10-22 or 10-18 are the way to go. I have the 10-22 and I like it. Any barrel distortion is easily taken care of in Lightroom. I've heard good things about the 10-18 and it seems like an incredible value. Others also speak very highly of the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and it is probably better than the 10-22/10-18 (note: Sigma also has a 10-20mm f4-5.6 that is not quite as good.)

Since you are also considering lenses above 15mm, another possibility is Canon's 15-85mm. It is my main travel lens and the extra 3mm on a crop under the 18mm makes a HUGE difference. Certainly not as much as 10mm but it is significant over the 18mm and even the 17mm. It is not quite L quality but it is pretty darn good.

Chris

+1

If sticking with a Canon crop body this makes the most sense. The 15-85mm is, in my very humble opinion, the best all around lens for APS-C. Great range, 15mm is plenty wide, excellent (near L) IQ and great IS. The 10-18 or 10-22mm are also very good choices, but I would recommend the 15mm as a purchase and a 10-x as a rental to see if you need to go wider before buying. I own both 15-85mm and 10-22mm, very good lenses but the former fits most of my needs. Now that I also have a FF body and 16-35mm I'm selling the UWA.

Another great choice, and even though I don't need it I really want the 24mm pancake.

I don't think the 16-35mm or 17-40mm are great investments with a crop body unless a transition to FF is planned for the near future. The're both very good but not quite wide enough.

 

[dak723]

Bryan Carnathan's top 2 recommendations for a general purpose zoom for a crop body are the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6. For the latter he describes it as having excellent image quality.

Here's a link to his recommendation page:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx

In over 30 years of shooting landscapes I have never needed anything wider than 24mm on a FF - even 28mm is wide enough for 95% of my shots, so 15 or 17 should be plenty wide enough - at least in my experience.

 

[Sporgon]

That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.

I shot about 100k frames with my 70-300L on my 60d, so I guess some of them were in focus and without shake or motion blur, even if only by pure chance. And at least with my copy there's a distinct difference between f4 on crop vs. ff - that's why I mostly stepped down to f5.6 on the 60d. Here's exactly what I see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera. Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

 

[KevinSch]

Those Digital Picture A/B Comparisons always leave me lusting after a 6D. But when I download the RAW examples over at DPReview, I don't see quite as drastic a difference.

I have the 15-85 on my 60D - and stopped down to F8 for landscapes it's hard to find anything better at the wide end of it's range. To get any real improvement from there, I'd think the sensor would be the upgrade path.

 

[Sporgon]

Those Digital Picture A/B Comparisons always leave me lusting after a 6D. But when I download the RAW examples over at DPReview, I don't see quite as drastic a difference.

I have the 15-85 on my 60D - and stopped down to F8 for landscapes it's hard to find anything better at the wide end of it's range. To get any real improvement from there, I'd think the sensor would be the upgrade path.

I missed the sarcasm tag off my previous post. I think TDP crops between asp and FF are misleading, and probably shouldn't be compared against each other, in the same way as imatest results shouldn't be compared across formats.

 

[Marsu42]

The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera.

Ugh? Why would I want to do a thing like that? I'm an outspoken fan of crop cameras for macro and general low iso shooting and like my snappy 60d over my 6d. But there are some lenses that gain by being put on crop (cutting off blurry corners), and some loose (lack of sharpness wide open), and some have both effects at the same time.

Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4

Fair enough, so let me re-phrase it: The tdp comparison of the 70-300L happens to show - for whatever reason - about what I see from my copy of the lens on my 60d and my 6d. Which brings us to the all-popular "wrong afma, broken lens, bad handling" theme, but I don't think so in this case.

This was about a different point anyway: If the op is fine with the 70-300L on his crop, I don't think there is a need to look at the very best and most expensive lenses for him.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think TDP crops between asp and FF are misleading, and probably shouldn't be compared against each other, in the same way as imatest results shouldn't be compared across formats.

I agree, comparing FF and APS-C cameras against each other is not going to mean anything, except that the FF image is usually sharper at 100%. Comparing two different lenses on the same body will give a idea as to how they compare on that body.

Its a trap that many fall into.

DXO gives numerical ratings for a given lens, and the number varies all over the place depending on the body. Its not a rating of the lens in any meaningful way, just of a lens-body combination.

 

[NancyP]

EF-S 15-85mm is a great single lens for APS-C landscape photography. FOV is equivalent to 22 to 135mm on full frame, and the great majority of landscape shots can be taken in this range. Stop it down to f/5.6-f/8, and it is consistently good over its range. Plus, I believe that it shoots to 0.22 x magnification, so it is useful for many closeup nature photographs. I have a light tripod I take everywhere, so shooting at f/8 with polarizer or ND grad is no issue. Attach this lens and its SLR on a chest holster, waist pack, backpack strap, whatever, and you have both hands free for poles or scrambling.

There are probably many better lenses out there, but it is hard to beat the EF-S 15-85 for the combination of image quality, versatility, and weight.

 

[Sporgon]

The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera.

Ugh? Why would I want to do a thing like that? I'm an outspoken fan of crop cameras for macro and general low iso shooting and like my snappy 60d over my 6d. But there are some lenses that gain by being put on crop (cutting off blurry corners), and some loose (lack of sharpness wide open), and some have both effects at the same time.

Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4

Fair enough, so let me re-phrase it: The tdp comparison of the 70-300L happens to show - for whatever reason - about what I see from my copy of the lens on my 60d and my 6d. Which brings us to the all-popular "wrong afma, broken lens, bad handling" theme, but I don't think so in this case.

This was about a different point anyway: If the op is fine with the 70-300L on his crop, I don't think there is a need to look at the very best and most expensive lenses for him.

Using Photozone as a reference it looks to me as if the 70-300L cannot quite fully resolve 15 mp on APS-c when wide open at 70 mm, let alone 18, but the OP never said he was using this lens wide open. I disagree with your last sentence because the 'very best' in resolution terms doesn't have to be 'the most expensive'. These high mp asp-c cameras need really good lenses, and Canon now provide ones that are up to the job without being expensive; look at the 40/2.8 and the new EF-s 24/2.8.

 

[AlwaysLearning]

In terms of the 70-300L being wow, compared to the 18-135 on my body, it's wow There are certainly times when the image isn't quite as sharp as I would expect but I put that down more to user error and a bit of post processing can usually help. All you are doing by showing comparisons on how sharp it is on FF is making me envious! I usually shoot it at 5.6 so then I can treat it as a constant aperture lens across the zoom range.

The 15-85 wasn't one I was considering but will take a look at as well.