What wide angle lens Yellowstone

[Craig]

Going to Yellowstone in a couple weeks. I have Canon 40D, I have the long range lenses covered. own a EF 70-200mm L and a EF 300mm L.

Looking to rent a Wide angle lens for the trip. Here are a couple lenses I am thinking about. Any Thoughts?

Canon EFS 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
Canon 16-35 f2.8
Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Any other Ideas?

[Johnb317]

Given you don't have a 50 I'd lean towards the 17-55 that if memory serves is a very sharp lens.  If looking for ultra wide angle I'd go for the 10-22 which would give you a 16-35 mm lens.   

[pianoman9701]

PM Boneaddict for sure. Grandparichard, as well.

[elkaholic123]

+1 for the 17-55 

[Bean Counter]

I would recommend buying instead of renting. I bought the 10-22mm used, in excellent condition, for $500. I wound up selling it for $600. The 10-22mm is great if you like showing foreground interest. but if you're wanting to "get it all in" you're going to have your mountains and what not in the background uber tiny. If you do wind up buying it be sure you put a multicoated UV filter on it. Filters don't rotate on that lens but it will suck in dust without a filter.  I wound up selling my 10-22mm because I wasn't using it that much, particularly for landscapes.

I have the 17-55 but I'm not 100% convinced that the optical quality significantly exceeds the regular old kit lenses. I mainly bought it because I found it for a steal of price ($700 with hood, caps, and a multicoated UV filter) and I can sell it for at least what I bought it for if not more. The two things I like best about it is that a circular polarizer doesn't rotate on the front element like it would on the cheap kit lens, and the image stabilization occasionally comes in handy for some sunrise/sunset shots.

I took shot with the 10-22mm...

[grandpawrichard]

I highly recommend the Canon 17-55 IS lens or better yet the Canon 17-40 F4 L lens! My wife says a 24-105 F/4 L is another great choice!

Dick

[huntnphool]

I really like my 17-55mm, the 10-22 is a nice lens as well.

[Arrow Head]

I love my 10-22mm, but since you don't have anything under 70mm, I would go with the 16-35 f/2.8 or the 17-40 f/4 L. These are more versatile choices. I love my 24-105mm, but just not quite wide enough on a crop sensor for me to consider it, "wide".

[jyerxa]

I would recommend buying instead of renting. I bought the 10-22mm used, in excellent condition, for $500. I wound up selling it for $600. The 10-22mm is great if you like showing foreground interest. but if you're wanting to "get it all in" you're going to have your mountains and what not in the background uber tiny. If you do wind up buying it be sure you put a multicoated UV filter on it. Filters don't rotate on that lens but it will suck in dust without a filter.  I wound up selling my 10-22mm because I wasn't using it that much, particularly for landscapes.

I have the 17-55 but I'm not 100% convinced that the optical quality significantly exceeds the regular old kit lenses. I mainly bought it because I found it for a steal of price ($700 with hood, caps, and a multicoated UV filter) and I can sell it for at least what I bought it for if not more. The two things I like best about it is that a circular polarizer doesn't rotate on the front element like it would on the cheap kit lens, and the image stabilization occasionally comes in handy for some sunrise/sunset shots.

I took shot with the 10-22mm...

That's a cool pic! 

[Craig]

Ended up renting the 17-55. Thanks for the input. Leave on the 16th hope I can take some good pictures.

[Bean Counter]

Right on, Craig. Be sure you take a good circular polarizer if its going to be hot and hazy!

[huntnphool]

I have the 17-55 but I'm not 100% convinced that the optical quality significantly exceeds the regular old kit lenses.

You may have a bad lens, I have found mine to be quite a bit sharper than the 18-55mm kit lens.

[huntnphool]

A few 17-55mm shots

[huntnphool]

Canon 10-22mm

[Bean Counter]

I have the 17-55 but I'm not 100% convinced that the optical quality significantly exceeds the regular old kit lenses.

You may have a bad lens, I have found mine to be quite a bit sharper than the 18-55mm kit lens.

I haven't made any bad images with the 17-55 other than those attributed to operator error--like focusing on my kids face, then they move and I take the shot and the face looks unsharp, or not properly stopping down the lens for a scenic landscape. Granted it sure is more versatile than a 3.5-5.6 variable aperture, and is sharper more wide open than the kit lens.

My point is that when stopping down the kit lens, it produces sufficiently sharp images for what the OP wants to do. Granted it wont have the versatility than the 17-55 will since the 17-55 has constant f/2.8 throughout its whole zoom range. So some shots, say low light, will be harder or maybe impossible with the kit lens that would be in reach of the 17-55 since its faster and has IS. And as I noted earlier its nice that the front lens element doesn't rotate for using graduated neutral density filters or circular polarizers.

Those three features (IS, f/2.8 aperture, and fixed front element) are great, but the OP could still take plenty of nice landscape shots at Yellowstone with the kit lens if proper settings, technique, and  a little more patience are employed. Having the 17-55 f/2.8 might make it easier to get the results you want because you might not need the tripod or to fiddle with a filter on the front of your lens as much, but don't think that your images are automatically going to suck if you can't afford $1,000 for the higher end glass. The artists technique, skill, and overall eye for detail matter far more than the tools he or she uses IMHO.

To get significantly 'sharper' images I think one would first want to step up to a full frame camera before splitting pixels.