Which lens to buy?

[Tim Pindar]

Advice please!

My current lenses are as below. I'd like to be able to take sharper landscapes this summer, I'm getting frustrated by the softness of the 17-85mm.

For a while I've been toying with either the Canon 10-22mm or the cheaper Sigma 10-20mm. I've not got quite enough saved up yet for the Canon (c. £600 plus hood) but could get the Sigma (c. £370).

However, I'm now wondering whether to change tack and aim for the Canon 17-40mm f/4L (c. £580 incl hood). This would give me no more wide angle than currently (equiv to 28mm allowing for the 40D's crop factor) but top notch optics.

My thoughts are:

- For "ordinary" use for landscapes when out and about I'm worried I'd not want to go as wide as the 10-22 or 10-20 often enough and the spend might therefore be wasted
- The 17-40 is a better long term investment, including for a full frame body one day, but that isn't on the agenda at the moment
- I could even sell the 17-85 to recoup say £200 of the cost, making do with the 17-40, 50 and 55-250 to cover all bases, or would that be a bad idea?

Would really like to hear your advice, guys.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Having only the experience of second hand knowledge of canon lenses I find it hard to comment with any real conviction ... But, the 17-40 does seem to have a very good rep!
Also using it on a cropped sensor you will be using the centre of the frame, meaning it is likely to produce fairly exceptional photos!
The point that you make about future proofing is very valid in my books, having had a similar and sucessfull thought process!
Full frame kit is only going to become cheaper as time goes on!

 

[Larry Bolch]

A very good place to compare lenses is
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

Most lenses have a sweet spot, two to three EV down from wide open. For the sharpest landscapes, this is where the lens should be set. In order to get great depth of field, there is he temptation to go to f/16 or f/22, but by that point diffraction has more than wiped out any gain. If the sweet-spot is f/5.6, focus on the main subject. Zooms have become very good now, but in many cases a prime like your 50mm may have an edge. Consider a wide prime instead of a new zoom.

Your present lenses may be fine, but other things can soften your results. Camera movement is often to blame for what you may think is a soft lens. Shoot at the basic ISO setting for the sensor, use a tripod, lock the mirror up if the camera permits, and use the self-timer to trip it. You do not need a long delay even the poorest tripod will stop vibrating in about a second. If it is a windy day, wait for the trees to be still.

If your salesdroid scammed you into buying a UV filter "for protection" when you already have a perfectly good lens cap, realize that a lot are bought in bulk for very cheap and are marked up to the point that the store can seem to be giving you a great deal on the lens—and making it back on the filter. A lens is only as good as the poorest piece of glass in the optical path.

Sensors are flat and so are filters, and so they are perfectly parallel. On occasion, this can lead to profound ghosting as the light bounces back and forth between them. More likely it will just add a nearly imperceptible overlay—enough to kill sharpness, but nearly impossible to track down. If the salesdroid managed to instill a high-level of paranoia, just remove the filter for the exposure and then replace it so if the asteroid chooses your camera as a target, it is protected even if you are not. It should go without saying that both the filter and the lens should be clean.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I'd say 17-40 is a winner, or a used 17-35 f2.8L.

17-40 is a newer lens, and has more 'modern' optics.

17-35 is out of date, no longer in production, and hence cheap(er) - I use one for my landscape work as I'm an old git with old lenses.

Given the pricing, 17-40 looks like a winner

I avoid Sigma like the plague having had a terrible experience with a Sigma 14mm lens in the past

 

[Tim Pindar]

Thanks all for the comments.

Hamish - good point about the centre crop.

Larry - very interesting, thanks. I must own up to not owning a tripod other than a mini one I take on holidays, and using a UV (or other) filter - not because of a salesman but simply perceived wisdom that it makes sense to protect the lens. I'll try some with the filter removed. My zooms do have IS which I'm sure helps, though the 17-40 wouldn't.

Chris - I guessed you'd recommend the 17-40 option! Any thoughts on using it in place of the 17-85 and selling that on to help the funding - would I regret it?

 

[Paul Lange]

I had a hell of a time with my Tamron lens until I realised that actually very good but only between F5.6 - F16 and that the focus scale was miles (by a factory of 2!) out so all my hyperfocal focusing was **** up until I relabeled the scale. No that I understand the lens I like it.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Tim - if you take a look at recent shots you've taken, how many have used the longer end of the 17-85?

If the answer is 'not a lot' then...

You have the range covered with other lenses, and when you're tried the 17-40 lens, I doubt if you'll think you'll use the 17-85 much at the wide end.

(cough) get the L lens (cough)

 

[Ralph Thornton]

When I purchased my first DSLR I bought a Canon 400D and 17-85 mm lens. I found that lens very good and quite sharp. I've been quite happy with the sharpness.

I agree with Chris though about the other lenses. I'd have the same comments. I have the older 17-35 f2.8 L and used it some on my 400D. It provided sharp photos but the range was too limiting if that was to be an only lens. I still have the 400D but do most of my work now with a 5DMKII.

 

[Darren Bradley]

If you're set on getting a zoom, then get L glass. The quality on those lenses is good enough to [mostly] overcome the inherent softness in zooms. But a good prime (enen non L) will generally give you super sharp images (and faster- not that you'd use that for landscapes) at a fraction of the price of an L zoom.

 

[Tim Pindar]

Thanks.

Just had a look, and the Canon prime lenses (less than 50mm) don't seem to get rave reviews for sharpness Darren, and don't seem to be overly cheap now either, it looks like they have gone up in price a lot in the last year or two. The best option would seem to be the 35mm f/2, for around £200-230.

Chris, about 2/3 of my recent shots with the 17-85 have been in the 17-40 range... but I've also used the 50 1.4 a lot.

 

[Darren Bradley]

Yes, I really wasn't thinking about it in terms of wide angles. Canon has a spotty reputation for those compared to Nikon, in general. But I have the 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 (as do you) and both are excellent. As far as wide angles go, I have only used L glass - the tilt-shift primes are the sharpest and have the least distortion. The 14mm has a good reputation, as well. But factoring in cost, I'd have to say the 17-40 sounds like a good deal.

Also agree that avoiding Sigma is good advice. But Tokina's wide angle lenses are nice...

 

[Chris Dodkin]

If I remember correctly, the 17-40 gets a better spec than the old 17-35 which the senior forum members still use

And I've been very happy with my 17-35, even when steeping up to full frame and mega-pixles on the 5D2.

So whilst there will almost always be a better prime lens out there at a fixed length - you just can't beat the flexibility of a decent L zoom IMHO

This is one of the more recent outings with the 17-35 - at 17mm for comparison

 

[Glen Roberts]

I avoid Sigma like the plague

Also agree that avoiding Sigma is good advice.

I have no personal experience of any of the lenses mentioned but Darren Turner uses the Sigma 10-20mm lens and he get some excellent shots with it.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Yeah, come on guys... Let's get a but of perspective here ...
3rd party lenses have a place, they might have some limitations, but for what they set you back they often provide huge value for money!

 

[Darren Bradley]

Sure, third party lenses have a place. Guess where I'd suggest that place should be!

But in seriousness, I did say I like Tokina. And I'm sure there are good examples of Sigma lenses out there. Just that my own personal experience with them wasn't good, and involved a Sigma 10-20mm. It wasn't sharp at all. Perhaps I just had a bad copy...

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I think I qualified my experience in my post - and that this was my reason for now avoiding that brand.

Clearly years have gone by and there are lots of new lenses - I'm probably missing out, but I hate the fact that I bought a lemon.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I don't often buy them to be fair hehe ...
I did though, and my experience was mostly positive!

I'd buy the sigma 150-500 too

 

[cosmo Quercia]

I have the 16-35II and I am very satisfied with the results!! There is a site that has all of the canon lenses, a review of each and their suggested best uses - - - The-Digital-Picture.com

It is a Canon bias site but also assesses the lenses objectively for Canon users.

 

[Dennis Ernst]

Like the others above, there is a lot to like about the 17-40. However it does kind of lock you into a particular range and you'll see your shooting style focus on it's strengths.

I have the Canon 10-22 and it really gave me a whole new range to play with. While not exceptionally sharp on the edges, I have altered my shooting style and learned to really make the wide lens work for me. Even a good wide prime might be something to consider and there are some excellent choice out there for almost any budget. If you want to get very creative consider something like the TS 24. It's amazing what you can do with it and how sharp it is.

Good luck on your choice!

Dennis

 

[Tim Pindar]

Thanks Denis. Still considering the options here...