I just have to ask here! what lense should I?

[BeemerChef]

I have been on a slow learning curve... you know... this curve called "photgraphy"!!! Since being on the road for almost a year now, it has improved... from a Pentax A20 the camera also has improved to a Canon 30D 28-135mm IS... my vision?... I see everything in frames now!... and "that" I think is funny!!! I don't take pictures one day... I have withdrawal symptoms!!!

So we are in Big Bend, Texas, for the winter... maybe 3 months... and I keep wanting to buy another lens... has to be IS, my hands shake a bit specially during the day riding the machine with Spirit in the sidecar... I have gone around and around with no conclusion... I mainly do landscapes... and then again... close ups also!!! I keep thinking the 70-200 IS? Would that be a good choice?... and then again which one?

The pocketbook might not be quite ready... but... I could always strive for it! I know Baldy used one at West Fest mainly for close up... those are great shots!...

Thanks for listening!!!... and answering....:D

Be well...

Ara & Spirit (he is learning too...:scratch )

[Shizam]

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is an orgasmicly awesome hung of lens however its not terribly wide (and you said you like landscapes) its best suited for shooting people/events/action/sports things kinda 'tele'. I guess it depends on what you're finding you shoot most with the 28-135, are you always on the wide or long end? If you're tending towards the wide end might I suggest the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens (EF-S) which equates to about 24-70mm at full 35mm which is a great all around focal length. 24mm will give you good landscapes, 35-50 is normal and 70 is just hitting on good head-shoulder portrait or full body portrait length, plus its f2.8 IS. Course its around $1000 (but the 70-200 is pushing $1600), if you want to go easier on the wallet look at the 28-135 IS, however if you're always on the tele end, I agree, the 70-200 may be the guy for you.

Sam

[Scott_Quier]

There are three lenses I can recommend:

Canon EF-S 10-22 : This is very nice UWA for those vast vista shots. No IS, but at those wide angles, camera movement is not very noticeable. Then again, you can always mount the camera on a tripod, even a small one, to get things to steady down. Runs about $690
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - Exactly what was said above. I love this lens and it is my "go-to workhorse". Right at about $1,000
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS - One of the most awesome lenses around. $1,700


So, I just spent $3,400 of your hard-earned money. And, it was so easy!

Seriously, these are all quality lenses - you can't go wrong with any of them. But, you need to determine for yourself what kind of landscapes you want to shoot and get the lens that will meet those needs.

[claudermilk]

I'll save you $200 from Scott's list: the Tokina 12-24 in place of the Canon 10-22. :D Like he said, with these ultra-wides, IS is pointless.

The 70-200 lenses are definitely some of the best glass you can lay your hands on. I've used three of the four variations & they are all excellent. Unless you need the lowlight ability of the f2.8, save the money & weight and get the f4 (incidentally it's reputed to be the sharpest of the bunch).

The 70-200 lenses are perfectly well suited to the pick-out-a-detail landscapes. I once got chastised for mentally pigeonholing lenses for purpose (i.e., only the UWAs are suitable for landscapes and not telephotos), dont' fall into that trap.

[kdog]

I'll save you $200 from Scott's list: the Tokina 12-24 in place of the Canon 10-22. :D

It's not really a fair comparison because if you're talking super-wide, 10mm is better than 12mm. Also, I've seen a lot more "holy crap is that cool!!!" shots from the Canon than I have with the Tokina. I really, really, really like my 10-22. :D

-joel

[Scott_Quier]

It's not really a fair comparison because if you're talking super-wide, 10mm is better than 12mm. Also, I've seen a lot more "holy crap is that cool!!!" shots from the Canon than I have with the Tokina. I really, really, really like my 10-22. :D

-joelYeah, me too. I can't wait for Tuesday - Glacier here I come and the 10-22 is going to get a workout!

[BeemerChef]

Thank you guys... very nice! I love this Forum, I love SmugMug... all have helped so much! I am working 3 days a week now! 20hrs!!!... will take a decision very soon... will have to order it through the mail as there is NOTHING around here...
You be well... if ever visiting Big Bend, let me know... I am here!

Ara & Spirit

[Zanotti]

If you are shooting outdoors and in daylight, get the 70-200 f4L. Its a great lens and will save you almost $1K and you will rarely miss the one stop and IS. At only $579 its a steal in the L lens family.

Also, get a good stitching program and shoot the landscapes at 70mm. I think the panos at 70mm are better than a UWA lens since you get only the core area and not too much sky and foregrounds. Even PSE has a good pano program.

Good luck.

Z

[claudermilk]

It's not really a fair comparison because if you're talking super-wide, 10mm is better than 12mm. Also, I've seen a lot more "holy crap is that cool!!!" shots from the Canon than I have with the Tokina. I really, really, really like my 10-22. :D

-joel

That's a matter of opinion. I've used both and prefer the Tokina. Both are excellent lenses & you cannot go wrong with either.

[kdog]

That's a matter of opinion. I've used both and prefer the Tokina. Both are excellent lenses & you cannot go wrong with either.

Which one you prefer is certainly a matter of opinion. However, it is a fact that the the Tokina has a 20% smaller field of view than the Canon, and that was really my point. I find that I use that 10-12 range a lot.

Cheers,
-joel