Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!

[Marsu42]

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.

Good point, but then again I didn't say so. To repeat myself - and we could probably just ask the op ... he's bound to have used the 70-300L wide open at some point. And if he'd had found it lacking, he probably wouldn't have used it as his reference what a good lens is to him (see below).

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.

Come on, this is self-explanatory, isn't it? Of course I was talking zoom against zoom, prime against prime, we all know you can get excellent iq if you use an older manual prime or any newer generation.

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.

This is just what I do with the 70-300L on crop, and it's fine this way and has a very nice bokeh.You really only realize the difference with fine details, apart from the thinner dof on ff.

I mostly shoot horses and focus on their eyes - and here there's a visible difference crop vs ff. And of course to even better lenses like the 100L (which is an example of a lens that is just as good on crop).

Of course, as you wrote, if you downsize and the details happen to respond to the usual sharpening algorithms, no one see a difference. Btw that's why I didn't stretch my budget to get the larger 70-200L.

 

[Rob-downunder]

Glad you found my earlier post helpful. I understand you being committed to staying on a crop body. I found it difficult to justify the dollars when I moved. Love the image quality but it is at a big cost.
So if you are staying with the crop body then I am back to my earlier recommendation of getting the 10-22. You say that you don't shoot that wide - but you can't if you don't have the equipment. I found the very wide end great for taking shots from down very close to ground level, which changed the perspective and impact of images greatly and added a new dimension to what I was taking. Why get a lens that would only let you take the same pics as you currently do. Improve your IQ when shooting wide at 16-22 then be able to experiment with new effects from 10-16.
You will get a lot more value out of this type of lens than something like a 16-35 in my opinion.

 

[candc]

If you really don't need wider than 18 and can live with the limited range then the sigma 18-35 is without a doubt the way to go. It is the sharpest zoom lens you can get on a crop body and its f/1.8

 

[tcmatthews]

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.

The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is the only crop ultra-wide zoom that has ever had a wow factor to it for me. If I was still shooting primarily crop I would buy one to replace my drowned Sigma. I actually know someone who used to shoot with it on a 7D as a secondary to his 5DII with 70-200mm. I asked him why he did not have a full frame wide angel. He told me that it was better than all the full frame ultra-wide he had tried. (17-40,3 copies 15-35f2.8 I and 15-35 f2.8 II) The mark 15-35f2.8L II was marginally better but not enough to justify buying a full set of 82mm filters.

All of the other 10-2xmm zooms are about the same. I just bought the new Canon 10-18mm STM to on my old rebel or EOS M while kayaking. It was cheep but I think my old Sigma was sharper once you learned its quirks. I have not really used it enough to know for sure if I like it.

For landscape I would use the Sigma between 15-20mm. I actual preferred to us it over my EFs 15-85mm because of the distortion of the 15-85 at the wide end. You cannot go wrong with the 15-85 it is a very good lens for crop. But I do no know if it is wow.

It has been said that the Sigma 18-35 can replace every prime in its range for crop. It may be the better buy if you do not want to go ultra-wide. I should note that before I bought a ultra-wide and really learned how to use it I was not interested in ultra-wide lens.

 

[atticus]

Long time lurker who signed up because I found myself in a similar spot not too long ago. FF+L lens isn't an option because I do a decent amount of hiking/backpacking, and the extra weight from my tripod is already stretching things. I pulled the trigger on the 10-18 for my 70D, and I couldn't be more pleased with it.

The 18-135 STM wasn't cutting it in terms of sharpness (and I'm very careful with tripod technique), and it wasn't wide enough for the visual effect I was looking for. I've only had the 10-18 a couple weeks now, but I can already tell it will be excellent. Here's a shot I took to test it out (not particularly proud of it, but I think it does a good job demonstrating sharpness).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmouser/15243510594/sizes/l/

 

[Snodge]

If you fancied a prime lens, the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 has a good reputation as being a sharp good quality manual focus only lens at a very cheap price. Being a full frame lens, it also means that if you get a full frame body in the future, you can still use it.