|
All images © Bob Atkins
This website is hosted by:
|
 Author
|
Topic: Question about Canon 15-85 and 10-22 (Read 9377 times)
|
buffy1270
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
Hi. I am debating between purchasing these 2 lenses. I am looking for a lens for landscape photography. This is my hobby and not my profession. I own the following lenses: Canon 28 1.8, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 50 1.8, Canon 70-200 f4L is. I would like to add either the 15-85 or the 10-22. I was leaning toward the 10-22 because of the ultra wide angle and because I already have some primes that cover some of the focal lengths included with the 15-85 zoom. However, I do like the 15-85 because it seems like a good walkaround lens which also includes a pretty wide lower end at 15 for landscapes. I cannot afford both right now so it has to be one or the other. What is your recommendation?
Thanks.
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bmpress
|
Ask ten photographers and get ten different opinions. That said, my own solution is the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM.
Unless you are going to shoot close-quarters landscapes like in the canyons, the 10-22 may be too wide. And I had chosen the 17-55 because it is terrific for both landscapes and indoor grab-shots.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oldtool
Newbie
Posts: 13
|
Karen,
You do not say what camera you are using so I am going to assume it is a 1.6 crop sensor camera. I looked at yor impressive list of lenses and the reviews of both the lenses you are considering. All things considered you do not have a good walk around lens. The 10-22 is the wider lens but not one I would want on my camera at a family gathering or party. My personel opinion would be to go with the 15-85mm, I think you would get more use out of it in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
Speaking for myself and the type of photography that I do, I suspect that the EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6IS would get a lot more use than the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5, simply because it covers a focal length range that I tend to shoot in more. However if your goal is to add more wideangle capability and you are a fan of the ultrawide look, then obviously the EF-S 10-22 would be better. I have both the 10-22 and a 17-85 and the 17-85 gets more use. However there are some situations in which an ultrawide is the right lens and the 17-85 just won't cut it. So nobody can really help you in your choice. I'm sure you understand the issues involved and in the end it comes down to the way you "see" in terms of the need for an ultrawide lens. Some photographers use them all the time, while others rarely use them at all. If you are unsure, then maybe the 15-85 is a decent compromise. Wide, but not ultrawide. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KeithB
|
Well, at 10 mm the 10-22 gives you a field of view of 107 degrees, which is pretty impressive. At 15 mm. the 15-85 gives you a field of view of 84 degrees. (And probably a bit more distortion - which won't matter for most landscapes).
You can get an equivalent panoramic with two images from the 15-85 with 50 degrees of overlap, which would make for a fine shot - especially if you use a tripod.
Unless you see yourself shooting at the wide end of the 10-22 all the time - and it would clearly make the better wide angle shots - you can easily duplicate the effect of the 10-22 by stitching together a panoramic, and get an excellent walking around lens with the 15 - 85.
At least, this is the way I would approach it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcfs
|
I also have a 10-22 and 17-85. Both lenses are very good and different. I find the 10-22 helps create very unique and impactful images. Both lenses produce very good IQ, with the 10-22 being stronger IMHO. There are times when the 17-85 is extremely useful, especially when you are not using a tripod. On my website noted below, the slide show contains images created with both lenses: • Grand Central Terminal – 10-22 • Third hot air balloon image – 10-22 • Stormy clouds over conservatory – 10-22 • View of Central Park – 17-85 • First hot air balloon – 17-85 • Second hot air balloon image – 17-85 • Sunset Seascape (last image) – 16-35 Website: www.marcschoenholz.comImage details in feature gallery titled NY and NJ Wonders. Good luck, Marc |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
