[Nikki]

What lens to you guys recommend for landscapes that won't be too much (less than $400)?

I recently got a 75-300 lens that has been great for nature shots of birds and animals, etc. and just getting things far away in general but I would like a lens that can get much more in the photo, I guess I mean a wide angle so as to capture more of a panoramic shot?

Thanks guys

[Ghunger]

You have a Canon right?

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Ghunger

You have a Canon right?

yeah a Rebel XTi

[ScBlacksunshine]

10-22mm from Canon, the best but will defintely be over $400.You can probably buy a used Tokina 12-24 for less then $400. Still a very good lens, especially for lenscape, given the 1.6x crop factor which is equivalent to 25.6mm on the wide end. The Tokina does have a higher CA compare to 10-22 EF-S

[Ghunger]

I've just been getting more serious about photography myself but I went with Nikon so I don't have too much specific advise on lenses. Seems like a prime might be best in that price range though, to get good quality glass but still not spend a mint. If you get something wide you can always crop the photos in post processing if you need.

[Gripster]

+1 on the 10-22. It's SUPER wide. You have to watch out to not get your feet into the frame sometimes.

A little above your $400 limit though. The stock lens is pretty wide at 18mm. Why not just use that? If you're starting to see the shortcomings of it, then it's time to start saving for the 17-55 f2.8 lens.

I have both the 10-22 and 17-55, but find I am using the 10-22 less and less these days.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Gripster

+1 on the 10-22. It's SUPER wide. You have to watch out to not get your feet into the frame sometimes.

A little above your $400 limit though. The stock lens is pretty wide at 18mm. Why not just use that? If you're starting to see the shortcomings of it, then it's time to start saving for the 17-55 f2.8 lens.

I have both the 10-22 and 17-55, but find I am using the 10-22 less and less these days.

The stock lens I have a problem with shooting landscapes. When it is on AF it can't focus on its own and just keeps trying and I have to put it into MF and it's annoying. Plus nothing is very clear after like 50 feet.


Here are some photos from the 75-300 btw. I got some nice shots from sooo far away and they came out pretty clear.

The first one was maybe 15 feet away but I'm bad with distance, and the bird was maybe 20 feet.




Thanks guys

[teknochild]

does cannon have the smaller sensor like the nikons... as in 100mm lens reaches out as far as a 150 mm on 35mm film

[Gripster]

Originally Posted by Nikki

The stock lens I have a problem with shooting landscapes. When it is on AF it can't focus on its own and just keeps trying and I have to put it into MF and it's annoying. Plus nothing is very clear after like 50 feet.

The stock 18-55 AF shouldn't be that bad a performer (it's IQ under scrutiny that ultimately lets it down). Perhaps you have a bad copy?? The only time mine ever really 'hunts' for focus is when there is no area of sharp contrast in the frame, which is what the Canon algorithm goes for when focussing (I think).

Can you try another copy? If you don't know anyone locally, let me know. Although I have the 17-55, I kept the stock 18-55 lens for when I sell the camera. If you need to borrow it for a few days, you're quite welcome. Either way, yours should still be under warranty, but it sounds like it might be broken to me.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Gripster

The stock 18-55 AF shouldn't be that bad a performer (it's IQ under scrutiny that ultimately lets it down). Perhaps you have a bad copy?? The only time mine ever really 'hunts' for focus is when there is no area of sharp contrast in the frame, which is what the Canon algorithm goes for when focussing (I think).

Can you try another copy? If you don't know anyone locally, let me know. Although I have the 17-55, I kept the stock 18-55 lens for when I sell the camera. If you need to borrow it for a few days, you're quite welcome. Either way, yours should still be under warranty, but it sounds like it might be broken to me.

It does it ALL of the time. I told the guy at the lens shop and he said I was probably doing something wrong, I dunno. It's f-ing annoying when someone volunteers to take a photo of me and my boyfriend and it won't focus at all and I have to tell him to aim it at the ground, hold it halfway, and then move it up to us. It's like anything more than 3 feet away it can't see.

[Nikki]

Here is a better description/rant about the stock lens.


I think there is a problem with mine. Maybe you can let me know and see if I should send it to Canon:

When it is in AF mode it "hunts" for a focus pretty much all of the time and unless I focus on something in front of me (ie the ground or something) and then move it up it will just continue to hunt or I have to turn it to MF to actually take a picture.

It started happening when I'm close to an object but that's understandable and I would just switch it to MF or step further away.

Then it started happening in low light settings and I got pissed. I'd be in a parking lot with an ok amount of light trying to take a picture of a car. I'm on a tripod with like an 8" shutter and I KNOW it can take the picture but it just keeps hunting.

When I got really fed up is when I was on vacation and I wanted to take photos of the landscape. The mountains were too far away for it to see them I guess so anytime I wanted to take a photo I had to focus on the water, move the camera up, and then take a picture.

The last straw was when some guy volunteered to take a photo of my boyfriend and I and we were literally like 10 feet away from him, if that and it wouldn't focus and after several tries I told him to focus it on teh ground, then move the camera up and take the picture and it worked.


sadfgmd;nkghsfjgjhfdjdj

I had a guy at the lens shop look at it and he said my settings were normal and he didn't know why it was doing that.

What is going on??????

[Nikki]

BTW I was recommeded a 17-40 lens that I can get for $688.28
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-40mm-...4753527&sr=8-1

What do you guys think of that one?

[remmib]

Originally Posted by teknochild

does cannon have the smaller sensor like the nikons... as in 100mm lens reaches out as far as a 150 mm on 35mm film

Yes, crop factor is 1.6 on XT and XTi (350D/400D), so 100mm is 160mm.

[Gripster]

1) Your stocker is broken. Mine definitely doesn't do that mounted on a 300D. Call Canon to see if you can have it switched out under warranty.

2) The 17-40 is an excellent lens based on reviews I have read.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx

You can't really go wrong with any 'L' lens. I spent the extra and went for the 17-55 because it is faster (f2.8) and has IS. The 17-40 is arguably the better investment being 'L' and EF mount and not EF-S. I just hate using flash, so f4 is too slow at usable ISO speeds on the 300D and IS on the 17-55 also really helps with this. Image quality is on par with any 'L'.

Neither give you the same extreme wide angle of the 10-22 which goes for similar money as the 17-40. 17mm is approximately the same as your stocker.

3) As for letting other people hold your camera to take snaps of you and your BF, you won't be doing that when you have $1000 of glass mounted. That's what your P&S is for!!

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Gripster

1) Your stocker is broken. Mine definitely doesn't do that mounted on a 300D. Call Canon to see if you can have it switched out under warranty.

Ugh he basically told me I'm using it wrong, I dunno

[diesel007]

As you know I shoot Nikon, but my favorite landscape lens has to be my 17-55mm f2.8.


nice and wide

[Gripster]

Originally Posted by Nikki

Ugh he basically told me I'm using it wrong, I dunno

Go straight to Canon. The guy at the camera shop probably thinks you're some noob that can't use a camera. They probably see a lot of this with digital SLRs. What you describe doesn't sound right and if you state that on the phone to Canon, I don't see how they could refuse a repair. You just have to be firm.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Gripster

Go straight to Canon. The guy at the camera shop probably thinks you're some noob that can't use a camera. They probably see a lot of this with digital SLRs. What you describe doesn't sound right and if you state that on the phone to Canon, I don't see how they could refuse a repair. You just have to be firm.

Same result unfortunately but you're right, I need to be firm. I come off as not knowing what I'm doing when I don't know where certain settings are.

Here is what the Canon guy told me to do, but he never really explained why. He said to rub a pencil erasor on the lens contact and use a microfiber towel on the body contact which I did. He asked me what mode I was shooting on and I said manual and he made me put it on any other setting so I did. He told me to put it on partial metering. Then he said to test it out. I did and it was still doing it and then he said to go to some tutorial on some website to learn more about the settings and that was it. Should I try calling back again and getting a differnt person?



Also, as far as the wideangle lens goes, I think I want the 10-22. Is that a good everyday lens?

[Nikki]

Tell me if this sounds good:

I have the 18-55- I'll use this for macro since I don't want to invest in a macro for now
I have the 75-300 telephoto- I'm going to use that for nature and sports
Now I really want the 10-22 for wide angle, artistic shots, landscapes, buildings, people, etc. but if I can only get one extra lens for now do you suggest the 17-40 as a better all-around everyday lens?

[rwwong]

Originally Posted by Nikki

BTW I was recommeded a 17-40 lens that I can get for $688.28
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-17-40mm-...4753527&sr=8-1

What do you guys think of that one?

Nikki, this lens looks ok. It's not very fast though, f4

[Ghunger]

Originally Posted by rwwong

Nikki, this lens looks ok. It's not very fast though, f4

The problem is, the price for the faster lenses goes up significantly. If she wants to spend more than she said at first ($400) I agree, there are probably better options. The 17-55 f2.8 IS that gripster mentioned retails for about a grand for example. That'd be a fantastic every day kinda lens but quite a bit more than the $400 limit.

[rwwong]

Originally Posted by Ghunger

The problem is, the price for the faster lenses goes up significantly. If she wants to spend more than she said at first ($400) I agree, there are probably better options. The 17-55 f2.8 IS that gripster mentioned retails for about a grand for example. That'd be a fantastic every day kinda lens but quite a bit more than the $400 limit.

Right but why spend $400 dollars on a lens that is about the quality of a "kit" lens?