Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!

[AlwaysLearning]

I have a 650D with the the 18-135 STM kit lens. Its a pretty decent lens and I have taken some good photos with it. However, I bought a 70-300 L lens and it was like wow! A quite noticeable difference in image quality. I've also got the 50 1.8 II from which I also get some fantastic images (when it nails focus which it doesn't always seem to do especially in low light). Now I want a lens at the wider end for landscape photos which will make be go wow!

I've read about the EF-S 10-18 and the EF-S 10-22 lens but are they much of a step up quality wise from the 18-135 I am already using? I am trying not to equate $ with quality but these seem quite inexpensive so not sure they will give me the wow.

Other lens under consideration are the 17-40L, 16-35, Sigma 18-35. I was leaning towards the Sigma but the inconsistent focus issues I've read about are cause for concern. Also here in Australia Canon are running a cashback offer - buy a camera body and get up to $200 back, buy another Canon product in same trans and get the same value cashback. Since I was looking to upgrade to a 70D ($150 rebate), buying a Canon lens would get me a further $150 rebate. EF-S lens are ok since I am not looking to upgrade to FF any time soon.

Any thoughts? What will make me go wow?

 

[Sporgon]

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

 

[Ryan85]

For me the canon 16-35 f4L is lens is a wow lens. It's extremely sharp. If you want to get as wide as possible with top quality lenses eventually you'll have to go to a ff. I've never shot one of the canon ef-s ultrawides but the 16-35 f4is is awsome and a fair price IMO. I wouldn't get the 17-40 since the 16-35 is only 300.00 U.S. dollars more or so. Although it is a very good lens. So if I was you I'd go with the 16-35. If you ever go to ff it'll be great there too where the ef-s lenses won't work on ff. I think it's the best bang for the buck for a ultrawide lens. Canon makes a 14mm 2.8 prime but it's 2000 + dollars.

Ryan

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Which means Wow you?

Something that your standard zoom can not do, as extremely selective focus, extremely wide viewing angle?
Or extremely high image quality?

Sigma 8-16mm seems to satisfy both of these desires.

 

[Coz]

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

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Thanks for comment so far.

Sporgon - I had considered the 24mm as a lens to play around with it. I take a lot of seascapes though so stitching won't really work for me although the 24mm might just work for me (see below).

Ryan85 - The 16-35 f4 is starting to get a little out of my budget. Might have trouble getting that one past the financial controller, especially since I am looking to update my 650D as well. Although it certainly looks nice and it is one I have on my list for further consideration

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.

Coz - Yeah I don't want to go really wide. I often have trouble composing at 18mm so not sure how I would go at 10mm. That's a reason why I have been a little unsure about the 10-18 and 10-22 lens. They may just be too wide. It's why I am probably tending more the 16ish-35ish range. But then again, maybe its an opportunity to learn some new composition skills!

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

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.

Coz - Yeah I don't want to go really wide. I often have trouble composing at 18mm so not sure how I would go at 10mm. That's a reason why I have been a little unsure about the 10-18 and 10-22 lens. They may just be too wide. It's why I am probably tending more the 16ish-35ish range. But then again, maybe its an opportunity to learn some new composition skills!

The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 has very impressive image quality, as well as Canon 15-85mm.

 

[Botts]

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

Pro-tip: stitch in portrait as you'll get 1.3x more resolution than stitching in landscape for free! (This should have been obvious to me, but it wasn't when I started shooting panos.)

 

[Ryan85]

Two other good lenses if you're on a budget and want zooms are the tamron 28-75 2.8 and the Tokina 11-16 2.8. They are 500 to 525 at b&h photo. Check out the reviews there pretty good lenses for the price IMO

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Ryan85, if I read the B&H reviews the 18-135 STM I already have rates even better than the tamron one! (It rates 5 stars) I wonder whether I might be better upgrading the body first then using AFMA to ensure all my lens are spot on before I go looking for more lens.

 

[candc]

i would try the new 10-18 stm. it takes filters and has "is"

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Ryan85, if I read the B&H reviews the 18-135 STM I already have rates even better than the tamron one! (It rates 5 stars) I wonder whether I might be better upgrading the body first then using AFMA to ensure all my lens are spot on before I go looking for more lens.

AFMA makes more accurate autofocus by phase detection, when shooting with the eye in the viewfinder. On the other hand, the auto focus by contrast detection in live view does not use AFMA. If the auto focus in live view is not accurate, then your lens is not good enough.

Take a test photographing the same object in the same lighting (good light), with only the activated central focal point. Repeat 3 pictures in live view, and 3 other looking at optical viewfinder. If pictures by optical viewfinder does not have as accurate focus as live view, so AFMA in the camera will help you get the best performance of your lenses.

 

[TexPhoto]

My first though for landscape is, tell me about your tripod. You are using a cable release? 2 second delay? Mirror lock? (OK, I don't the ink the 650 has that). Shooting at the lenses sweet spot f8-f11 usually?

Great lenses are a great addition to your kit, but good lenses used in a great way can make fantastic photos too.

That said, you need a wide lens. 17-50. or EF-S 10-18 would be my recommendation.

 

[AlwaysLearning]

ajfotofilmagem - that's a good point. I usually shoot landscapes in live mode but with manual focus. I would have to say on past experience, its not going to be the AFMA but would need to do your suggested test to prove it.

TexPhoto - yes I have a good solid tripod, I do use either a cable release or 2 second timer, have mirror lock engaged (the 650D does have it ) and shooting in the f8 to f11 range. I *think* my technique is reasonably good after a couple of years of practicing. Don't get me wrong, the 18-135 is a pretty good lens and I have taken some great shots with it. It's just I have seen what my other lens are capable of so would like to step it up a notch at this lower focal range if possible.

 

[Ryan85]

Texphoto makes a great point about a quality tripod. That's very important for landscapes and getting tack sharp photos. As for lenses even the 18-55 is stm will be slightly sharper than the 18-135 or other all in one zooms. The 18-135 is a very good lens for what it is but its just not going to be as sharp as lines like a 16-35 or a few of the others people have mentioned. The tamron and tokina I mentioned earlier are very good for there price points if your on a budget and will be sharper than your 18-135. You said you read the reviews on B&H but they weren't rated as high as your 18-135, remember there not comparing the 18-135 to those other lenses. I think for a budget those are good lenes. The canon 16-35 f4is is my favorite for a ulrawide landscape lens. You mentioned a wow lens in your original post amd that's how I felt with that lens when I got it. If that's out of your price range maybe consider saving longer or there's still the 17-40L lens that's very good. You could always rent a lens or two and try out too. If you look at lens rentals click on certain lenes and Roger Cicala gives a brief opinion on the lenses that's worth a read. He also has a good blog. He seems honest and not a fan boy just because it's canon gear. You can read he's opion of the 18-135 then check out his opion of the 17-40 etc. you can check out there sales sight lens authority they have a good Black Friday sale going if you don't mind buying used gear. And if you rent at lens rentals they have the purchase program now so you can keep and buy a lens you rent if you really like. I hope that helps a little. I'm sure you'll make a good choice and be happy with whatever you get. It's fun just getting out there and shooting! Good luck.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Canon 70D is said to be one of the few cameras that the Sigma 18-35mm lens focuses accurately on (While using liveview). However, 18mm is not wide on a crop body. A 15-85mm lens when stopped down will work well. The 16-35mm f/4 is also getting good reviews.

There is always a new lens around the corner. Since Landscape requires a deep depth of field, you should look for different attributes in a lens. Shooting at f/11, f/16, or even f/22 does not require a expensive lens. You want to look out for flare issues in a ultra wide, the curved front glass can reach out and grab flare.

 

[Nelu]

"Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!"

A lens will not make you go WOW!...a photo might.

Nelu

 

[preppyak]

Tokina 11-16 is the way I'd go. Sharp lens that gives you a decent range for wide-angle. And its the only lens that works at f/2.8, which if you ever decide to get into night photography, is the difference between getting useable shots and not (the 10-18 starts a full stop slower, and even the 2/3 stop of the 10-22 makes a difference).

My sense is that the 10-22, 10-18, Tokina 11-16 are all about equal in sharpness in standard landscape apertures (f/5.6-f/11). But, only the Tokina can do f/2.8.

Sigma 18-35 would also be a nice lens, but, I think you'll find going from 18mm to 10-11mm opens up your repertoire more than going from 18mm f/3.5 to 18mm f/1.8 does.

 

[Rob-downunder]

Hi,

I thought my experiences might help you out. I had a 550D with a canon 10-22, 18-135 STM, 50 1.8, and the 2 kit lenses 18-55 and 55-250.

I got the 18-135 STM as I found the 18-55 didn't have enough reach for a general walk around lens, and when out on holidays I didn't want to be changing lenses all the time.

Although the focal length of the 18-135 was great, I was disappointed with the overall quality, lens and sensor. The 10-22 was a significant step up in quality compared to the 18-135.

First I went in search of better glass to improve my picture quality, but came to the conclusion that except for the longer telephotos, the focal lengths of the rest of the L lenses just didn't make sense on a crop body. So I went the whole hog, sold off my crop sensor stuff, got a 6D, the 16-35 F4, 24-105, 70-300 L and added an 85 1.8.

So I had similar gear to what you have or are contemplating, and now have some of the others.

I can say that I am very pleased with the IQ improvement I have achieved. As far as advice goes - buy the 10-18 or 10-22. You will be very happy with the results and they will be a jump up from the 18-135. I certainly went WOW when I first used the 10-22! But after that you may left wanting to improve on the 18-135, but then find that there is no sensible upgrade that covers the most used general purpose focal lengths. For me using a 24-105 on a crop was not going to be wide enough at 24 mm. Similarly using a 16-35 F4 on a crop isn't wide enough either.

In the end I decided that I wanted better IQ than I could get on a crop body with EFS lenses, so went FF and L series glass. Using the 10-22 on the 550D was as good or better than the 50 1.8, so if your are happy with the 50 mm you will be happy with the 10-22 or 10-18.

The 16-34 F4 is sharper than the 10-22, but as I said doesn't make sense on a crop, and like you I love the 70-300L !!!!!!

 

[e17paul]

I have a 70-300L too and know what you mean, though my 24 IS comes close. The 16-35/4L reviews well, I'm tempted as a more versatile alternative to the 24, and suspect that you would be wowed by it too.

I have a colleague with a Sigma 10-20 on his Nikon, he likes it enough to keep it on the camera.

If you are looking for landscape, the options open up considerably with full frame, and the entry price drops every year. Maybe 16-35/4L for the 650D now, and consider adding a full frame body down the line. The 70-300L is excellent on a 6D, though it wouldn't have the reach you are used to on the 650D.