Post by: Craig on July 05, 2013, 12:15:39 PM
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?
Post by: Johnb317 on July 05, 2013, 01:31:23 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 05, 2013, 02:14:35 PM
Post by: elkaholic123 on July 05, 2013, 02:39:41 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 05, 2013, 02:53:52 PM
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...
Post by: grandpawrichard on July 05, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
Dick
Post by: huntnphool on July 06, 2013, 10:53:49 AM
Post by: Arrow Head on July 06, 2013, 01:03:45 PM
Post by: jyerxa on July 07, 2013, 08:12:40 PM
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! :tup:
Post by: Craig on July 07, 2013, 08:20:04 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 07, 2013, 08:35:46 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 07, 2013, 09:54:31 PM
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. :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on July 07, 2013, 10:18:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on July 07, 2013, 10:20:40 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 07, 2013, 11:51:08 PM
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. :dunno:
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. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on July 08, 2013, 07:34:19 PM
Point taken, however the OP did not have the kit lens or a full frame camera option in his original post. ;)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. :dunno:
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. :twocents:
Post by: timberghost72 on July 08, 2013, 11:53:27 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 10, 2013, 08:17:57 AM
Post by: Don Fischer on July 10, 2013, 08:58:27 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 10, 2013, 09:29:34 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 10, 2013, 05:49:50 PM
I have a question. The OP has a 70-200mm and a 300mm. Why wouldn't he be better off getting something like the 15-85mm or the 17-85mm? If he did it seem's the over lap at 70mm to 85mm is a good thing? maybe it doesn't matter?
I don't think 23-69mm is that important in yellowstone. There is distortion in the 10-22, but nothing that lens calibrations can't fix with just a click. It's sharp and can get all those cool hot springs in. Waterfalls, etc. 17mm is wide enough to get it done but he's asking for the best fit and if you are doing landscapes and hot springs, the 10-22 gets it done the best in that range and for a crop camera. Getting cool hot springs that run all the way to your feet and having a mountain in the background is great. I've shot Yellowstone with a 10-22 and it works perfect. If you are going to just shoot the family standing in front of Old Faithful, bring whatever. That 300mm will come in useful for elk and watch out, they get nasty...