Need help picking new lenses..

[bunderko]

I am planning to upgrade my lenses over the next few months. I have a Canon 20D and a Digital Rebel XT as backup. I shoot landscapes, nature, macros...mostly outdoors. I would love to hear everyone's three favorite landscape lenses and what percentage of the time you use them. Thanks for you help.

[Glenn NK]

1. You already know (two cameras + lenses) that photography is not cheap. Most advice says "invest in good glass" (lenses). I agree.

2. Your shooting habits seem very close to mine - landscapes, flower closeups (semi-macro), and occasionally macro with tubes. I started with a 24/105L, both for the IQ and ruggedness, but more importantly it covered almost the entire range in which I was interested. I then added a 17/55 EFS, to get more wide end. My next and likely last lens will be the Canon 10/22. I dont' "do" birds or other wildlife.

3. The only thing we don't know is your present lens selection.

[bunderko]

Thanks Glenn.

I am still on my first round of lenses (ie: cheaper starter lenses). I will most likely go to Canon with my new lenses and "L" glass for some that I will use more often. The Canon 10-22 is probably a definite since I don't currently have a lens with the super wide angle. Here is what I currently have:

Canon 18-55 kit
Canon 75-300 F4-5.6
Tamron 28-75 F2.8
Sigma 28-300 (Junk - never use it)
Sigma 70-200 F2.8

I usually keep the Tamron on my camera for everyday use and it's a decent lens. I definitely want to repace the kit lens and am thinking about the 10-22 and another with a wider range than the Tamron (the 24-105 you mentioned is along the lines I was thinking). I used the Sigma 70-200 for sports and it's not a bad lens but it's too heavy and bulky to pack in my backpack for a long hike in the woods. I'm looking for something a little lighter (doesn't need to be 2.8). I'm torn between a 70-200 range and a 100-400 range. I have a 2x converter for my Sigma but rarely use it. Sorry, this may be more than you needed to know. Thanks for your help.

[Punkybeth]

I am planning to upgrade my lenses over the next few months. I have a Canon 20D and a Digital Rebel XT as backup. I shoot landscapes, nature, macros...mostly outdoors. I would love to hear everyone's three favorite landscape lenses and what percentage of the time you use them. Thanks for you help.

I also have a 20D and over the summer last year I bit the bullet and bought my two favorite lenses!!! The 16-35mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L. I have to say that I use the 16-35mm more than the 70-200. Before I got the two beauties I owned the 17-40mm L f4 and the 70-200mm L f4...both were great lenses (and a heck of a lot cheaper) but I needed the extra stops for shooting in low light.
So I guess if you don't need the extra stops, you might want to consider the 17-40mm f4 and the 70-200mm f4. Otherwise, you might want to check out the lens my hubby bought...the Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3. He's taken some great shots with it!

Good luck with whatever you decide!!!

Robyn

[bunderko]

I also have a 20D and over the summer last year I bit the bullet and bought my two favorite lenses!!! The 16-35mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L. I have to say that I use the 16-35mm more than the 70-200. Before I got the two beauties I owned the 17-40mm L f4 and the 70-200mm L f4...both were great lenses (and a heck of a lot cheaper) but I needed the extra stops for shooting in low light.
So I guess if you don't need the extra stops, you might want to consider the 17-40mm f4 and the 70-200mm f4. Otherwise, you might want to check out the lens my hubby bought...the Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3. He's taken some great shots with it!

Good luck with whatever you decide!!!

Robyn

Thanks for the advice. The speed is one place that I'm really undecided. I shoot a lot of landscapes and on a windy day it's nice to have the extra stops to work with. However, I spend about 60% of my time shooting waterfalls and other moving water where it's sometimes easier to simply use a slower lens. The main reason I like to stick with the 2.8 is for those situations where I can't use a tripod. UGGHH! Sooner or later I'll figure it out. I just don't want to end up spending money on something that will sit in my bag and collect dust. Thanks again!

[Glenn NK]

Bunderko:

While the 24/105L is more aimed at FF cameras, it's range when combined with the Canon 10/22 would seem to cover the focal lengths it seems you are interested in.

I probably should have added the 10/22 to my 24/105 and had that same range, but I was swayed by the glowing reports of the 17/55 EFS lens and succumbed to it. I'm certainly not wishing I hadn't purchased it as it has easily lived up to expectations (other than the location of the zoom and focus rings, when I'm not looking at the lenses, I forget which one is on the camera - the results on the screen are virtually identical, and I often have to look at the EXIF data to tell which lens was used).

You might want to look act actual user comments about the 10/22 lens at:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

It's good to compare the different brands in one focal length range - generally I find there is a reason that Canon lenses cost more. If you look at my signature, the quote tells it all. But I think you already know this - you mention never using one piece of "junk".

You also said "UGH" about tripods - I find myself using mine quite often for landscapes and certainly for flower closeup stills. It's nice to take bracketed f/stop shots using the same focus to compare the results.

And for sunsets, which can last for an hour or so, a tripod is a godsend - set it up, level it, and fire away whenever the light and/or cloud pattern changes significantly; again the comparison of the same shot is useful. I used to hate tripods until I got my new one for Christmas (Manfrotto 190CLB + 486RC2 head).

[Rhuarc]

I also have a 20D and over the summer last year I bit the bullet and bought my two favorite lenses!!! The 16-35mm 2.8L and the 70-200mm 2.8L. I have to say that I use the 16-35mm more than the 70-200. Before I got the two beauties I owned the 17-40mm L f4 and the 70-200mm L f4...both were great lenses (and a heck of a lot cheaper) but I needed the extra stops for shooting in low light.
So I guess if you don't need the extra stops, you might want to consider the 17-40mm f4 and the 70-200mm f4. Otherwise, you might want to check out the lens my hubby bought...the Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3. He's taken some great shots with it!

Good luck with whatever you decide!!!

Robyn

Hmm, glad to hear this about the Tamron 18-200. I'm looking at a lens similar to that as my primary walk aroudn lens, as the majority of my shooting is done outside in decent lighting. I'll have the 32/f2.8 for my indoor available light shooting then.

[claudermilk]

The UWA field is a crowded one. Of course, the obvious chioce: Canon's 10-22; then there is Tokina's 12-24 and Sigma's 12-24 and 10-20.

I've used both the Canon and Tokina and ended up spending my money on the Tokina. The image quality is on par with the Canon and IMHO it's a nicer build (reminds me of my L glass). It's also $200 cheaper. :thumb

[bunderko]

Bunderko:



You also said "UGH" about tripods - I find myself using mine quite often for landscapes and certainly for flower closeup stills. It's nice to take bracketed f/stop shots using the same focus to compare the results.

And for sunsets, which can last for an hour or so, a tripod is a godsend - set it up, level it, and fire away whenever the light and/or cloud pattern changes significantly; again the comparison of the same shot is useful. I used to hate tripods until I got my new one for Christmas (Manfrotto 190CLB + 486RC2 head).

My Ugh was actually directed toward figuring out what lenses are right for me. As for my tripod, I never leave home without it - especially for landscapes. I shoot a lot of waterfalls and the tripod is an absolute must. Thanks again for the advice. Most of the lenses you mentioned are the ones I'm looking at...now I just need to decide which combination to go with.