Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl911
Without gate crashing this thread, I also enjoy taking landscapes and have decided to sell my Canon 17-85 to upgrade to better landscape lense.
I have been really torn between the 17-35 L series lense or the 10-22 ES lense as mentioned in this thread.
Given that my camera is a 40D with a cropped sensor I want as close to 17 as possible on the wide end so the 10-22 works out nearly spot on. The 17-35 becomes nearer 26-64 from memory.
Does anyone have experience with both of these lenses and if so which would you most likely opt for given its main use as landscape.
They can both be bought for about the same price so it just comes down to which is best for the job.
Also, I assume the 10-22 is not classed as a fisheye lense. I cannot see anything indicating this despite being able to get some rather interesting results if too close taking a portrait.
I dont really want out of shape landscapes.
Cheers in advance, hope this is not hijacking too much but it seemed silly to post a new post given that this one is more or less on the same topic.
Carl
|
I shoot a 400D with a Canon 10-22 and it is the one lens that is affixed to my camera the most! Sure...I use it for landscapes/seascapes, but I love it for closer work too. Love shooting from lown down angles with it and creating some interesting looking pictures. The build quality on it is excellent (far superior to the Sigma) and the quality of image is stunning. Not the best lens for close up portrait work...the distortion can just make someone look horrid, but for static objects or portraits at 22mm, it is very good.
Check my stream for examples.