# Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!



## AlwaysLearning (Nov 25, 2014)

I have a 650D with the the 18-135 STM kit lens. Its a pretty decent lens and I have taken some good photos with it. However, I bought a 70-300 L lens and it was like wow! A quite noticeable difference in image quality. I've also got the 50 1.8 II from which I also get some fantastic images (when it nails focus which it doesn't always seem to do especially in low light). Now I want a lens at the wider end for landscape photos which will make be go wow! 

I've read about the EF-S 10-18 and the EF-S 10-22 lens but are they much of a step up quality wise from the 18-135 I am already using? I am trying not to equate $ with quality but these seem quite inexpensive so not sure they will give me the wow. 

Other lens under consideration are the 17-40L, 16-35, Sigma 18-35. I was leaning towards the Sigma but the inconsistent focus issues I've read about are cause for concern. Also here in Australia Canon are running a cashback offer - buy a camera body and get up to $200 back, buy another Canon product in same trans and get the same value cashback. Since I was looking to upgrade to a 70D ($150 rebate), buying a Canon lens would get me a further $150 rebate. EF-S lens are ok since I am not looking to upgrade to FF any time soon.

Any thoughts? What will make me go wow?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 25, 2014)

The new EFs 24 mm f2.8 pancake. If you want to go wider for landscape, stitch.


----------



## Ryan85 (Nov 25, 2014)

For me the canon 16-35 f4L is lens is a wow lens. It's extremely sharp. If you want to get as wide as possible with top quality lenses eventually you'll have to go to a ff. I've never shot one of the canon ef-s ultrawides but the 16-35 f4is is awsome and a fair price IMO. I wouldn't get the 17-40 since the 16-35 is only 300.00 U.S. dollars more or so. Although it is a very good lens. So if I was you I'd go with the 16-35. If you ever go to ff it'll be great there too where the ef-s lenses won't work on ff. I think it's the best bang for the buck for a ultrawide lens. Canon makes a 14mm 2.8 prime but it's 2000 + dollars. 

Ryan


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 25, 2014)

Which means Wow you?

Something that your standard zoom can not do, as extremely selective focus, extremely wide viewing angle?
Or extremely high image quality?

Sigma 8-16mm seems to satisfy both of these desires.


----------



## Coz (Nov 25, 2014)

It depends how wide you want to go. If you want to go real wide, then something like the 10-22 or 10-18 are the way to go. I have the 10-22 and I like it. Any barrel distortion is easily taken care of in Lightroom. I've heard good things about the 10-18 and it seems like an incredible value. Others also speak very highly of the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and it is probably better than the 10-22/10-18 (note: Sigma also has a 10-20mm f4-5.6 that is not quite as good.)

Since you are also considering lenses above 15mm, another possibility is Canon's 15-85mm. It is my main travel lens and the extra 3mm on a crop under the 18mm makes a HUGE difference. Certainly not as much as 10mm but it is significant over the 18mm and even the 17mm. It is not quite L quality but it is pretty darn good.

Chris


----------



## AlwaysLearning (Nov 25, 2014)

Thanks for comment so far.

Sporgon - I had considered the 24mm as a lens to play around with it. I take a lot of seascapes though so stitching won't really work for me although the 24mm might just work for me (see below).

Ryan85 - The 16-35 f4 is starting to get a little out of my budget. Might have trouble getting that one past the financial controller, especially since I am looking to update my 650D as well. Although it certainly looks nice and it is one I have on my list for further consideration

ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135. 

Coz - Yeah I don't want to go really wide. I often have trouble composing at 18mm so not sure how I would go at 10mm. That's a reason why I have been a little unsure about the 10-18 and 10-22 lens. They may just be too wide. It's why I am probably tending more the 16ish-35ish range. But then again, maybe its an opportunity to learn some new composition skills!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 26, 2014)

AlwaysLearning said:


> ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135.
> 
> Coz - Yeah I don't want to go really wide. I often have trouble composing at 18mm so not sure how I would go at 10mm. That's a reason why I have been a little unsure about the 10-18 and 10-22 lens. They may just be too wide. It's why I am probably tending more the 16ish-35ish range. But then again, maybe its an opportunity to learn some new composition skills!


The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 has very impressive image quality, as well as Canon 15-85mm.


----------



## Botts (Nov 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The new EFs 24 mm f2.8 pancake. If you want to go wider for landscape, stitch.



Pro-tip: stitch in portrait as you'll get 1.3x more resolution than stitching in landscape for free! (This should have been obvious to me, but it wasn't when I started shooting panos.)


----------



## Ryan85 (Nov 26, 2014)

Two other good lenses if you're on a budget and want zooms are the tamron 28-75 2.8 and the Tokina 11-16 2.8. They are 500 to 525 at b&h photo. Check out the reviews there pretty good lenses for the price IMO


----------



## AlwaysLearning (Nov 26, 2014)

Ryan85, if I read the B&H reviews the 18-135 STM I already have rates even better than the tamron one! (It rates 5 stars) I wonder whether I might be better upgrading the body first then using AFMA to ensure all my lens are spot on before I go looking for more lens.


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2014)

i would try the new 10-18 stm. it takes filters and has "is"


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 26, 2014)

AlwaysLearning said:


> Ryan85, if I read the B&H reviews the 18-135 STM I already have rates even better than the tamron one! (It rates 5 stars) I wonder whether I might be better upgrading the body first then using AFMA to ensure all my lens are spot on before I go looking for more lens.


AFMA makes more accurate autofocus by phase detection, when shooting with the eye in the viewfinder. On the other hand, the auto focus by contrast detection in live view does not use AFMA. If the auto focus in live view is not accurate, then your lens is not good enough.

Take a test photographing the same object in the same lighting (good light), with only the activated central focal point. Repeat 3 pictures in live view, and 3 other looking at optical viewfinder. If pictures by optical viewfinder does not have as accurate focus as live view, so AFMA in the camera will help you get the best performance of your lenses.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 26, 2014)

My first though for landscape is, tell me about your tripod. You are using a cable release? 2 second delay? Mirror lock? (OK, I don't the ink the 650 has that). Shooting at the lenses sweet spot f8-f11 usually?

Great lenses are a great addition to your kit, but good lenses used in a great way can make fantastic photos too.

That said, you need a wide lens. 17-50. or EF-S 10-18 would be my recommendation.


----------



## AlwaysLearning (Nov 26, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem - that's a good point. I usually shoot landscapes in live mode but with manual focus. I would have to say on past experience, its not going to be the AFMA but would need to do your suggested test to prove it.

TexPhoto - yes I have a good solid tripod, I do use either a cable release or 2 second timer, have mirror lock engaged (the 650D does have it  ) and shooting in the f8 to f11 range. I *think* my technique is reasonably good after a couple of years of practicing. Don't get me wrong, the 18-135 is a pretty good lens and I have taken some great shots with it. It's just I have seen what my other lens are capable of so would like to step it up a notch at this lower focal range if possible.


----------



## Ryan85 (Nov 26, 2014)

Texphoto makes a great point about a quality tripod. That's very important for landscapes and getting tack sharp photos. As for lenses even the 18-55 is stm will be slightly sharper than the 18-135 or other all in one zooms. The 18-135 is a very good lens for what it is but its just not going to be as sharp as lines like a 16-35 or a few of the others people have mentioned. The tamron and tokina I mentioned earlier are very good for there price points if your on a budget and will be sharper than your 18-135. You said you read the reviews on B&H but they weren't rated as high as your 18-135, remember there not comparing the 18-135 to those other lenses. I think for a budget those are good lenes. The canon 16-35 f4is is my favorite for a ulrawide landscape lens. You mentioned a wow lens in your original post amd that's how I felt with that lens when I got it. If that's out of your price range maybe consider saving longer or there's still the 17-40L lens that's very good. You could always rent a lens or two and try out too. If you look at lens rentals click on certain lenes and Roger Cicala gives a brief opinion on the lenses that's worth a read. He also has a good blog. He seems honest and not a fan boy just because it's canon gear. You can read he's opion of the 18-135 then check out his opion of the 17-40 etc. you can check out there sales sight lens authority they have a good Black Friday sale going if you don't mind buying used gear. And if you rent at lens rentals they have the purchase program now so you can keep and buy a lens you rent if you really like. I hope that helps a little. I'm sure you'll make a good choice and be happy with whatever you get. It's fun just getting out there and shooting! Good luck.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 26, 2014)

The Canon 70D is said to be one of the few cameras that the Sigma 18-35mm lens focuses accurately on (While using liveview). However, 18mm is not wide on a crop body. A 15-85mm lens when stopped down will work well. The 16-35mm f/4 is also getting good reviews.

There is always a new lens around the corner. Since Landscape requires a deep depth of field, you should look for different attributes in a lens. Shooting at f/11, f/16, or even f/22 does not require a expensive lens. You want to look out for flare issues in a ultra wide, the curved front glass can reach out and grab flare.


----------



## Nelu (Nov 26, 2014)

"Landscape Lens for Crop To Make Me Go Wow!"

A lens will not make you go WOW!...a photo might.

Nelu


----------



## preppyak (Nov 26, 2014)

Tokina 11-16 is the way I'd go. Sharp lens that gives you a decent range for wide-angle. And its the only lens that works at f/2.8, which if you ever decide to get into night photography, is the difference between getting useable shots and not (the 10-18 starts a full stop slower, and even the 2/3 stop of the 10-22 makes a difference).

My sense is that the 10-22, 10-18, Tokina 11-16 are all about equal in sharpness in standard landscape apertures (f/5.6-f/11). But, only the Tokina can do f/2.8.

Sigma 18-35 would also be a nice lens, but, I think you'll find going from 18mm to 10-11mm opens up your repertoire more than going from 18mm f/3.5 to 18mm f/1.8 does.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Nov 26, 2014)

Hi,

I thought my experiences might help you out. I had a 550D with a canon 10-22, 18-135 STM, 50 1.8, and the 2 kit lenses 18-55 and 55-250.

I got the 18-135 STM as I found the 18-55 didn't have enough reach for a general walk around lens, and when out on holidays I didn't want to be changing lenses all the time. 

Although the focal length of the 18-135 was great, I was disappointed with the overall quality, lens and sensor. The 10-22 was a significant step up in quality compared to the 18-135.

First I went in search of better glass to improve my picture quality, but came to the conclusion that except for the longer telephotos, the focal lengths of the rest of the L lenses just didn't make sense on a crop body. So I went the whole hog, sold off my crop sensor stuff, got a 6D, the 16-35 F4, 24-105, 70-300 L and added an 85 1.8.

So I had similar gear to what you have or are contemplating, and now have some of the others. 

I can say that I am very pleased with the IQ improvement I have achieved. As far as advice goes - buy the 10-18 or 10-22. You will be very happy with the results and they will be a jump up from the 18-135. I certainly went WOW when I first used the 10-22! But after that you may left wanting to improve on the 18-135, but then find that there is no sensible upgrade that covers the most used general purpose focal lengths. For me using a 24-105 on a crop was not going to be wide enough at 24 mm. Similarly using a 16-35 F4 on a crop isn't wide enough either. 

In the end I decided that I wanted better IQ than I could get on a crop body with EFS lenses, so went FF and L series glass. Using the 10-22 on the 550D was as good or better than the 50 1.8, so if your are happy with the 50 mm you will be happy with the 10-22 or 10-18. 

The 16-34 F4 is sharper than the 10-22, but as I said doesn't make sense on a crop, and like you I love the 70-300L !!!!!!


----------



## e17paul (Nov 26, 2014)

I have a 70-300L too and know what you mean, though my 24 IS comes close. The 16-35/4L reviews well, I'm tempted as a more versatile alternative to the 24, and suspect that you would be wowed by it too.

I have a colleague with a Sigma 10-20 on his Nikon, he likes it enough to keep it on the camera.

If you are looking for landscape, the options open up considerably with full frame, and the entry price drops every year. Maybe 16-35/4L for the 650D now, and consider adding a full frame body down the line. The 70-300L is excellent on a 6D, though it wouldn't have the reach you are used to on the 650D.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 26, 2014)

AlwaysLearning, I would strongly recommend looking closer at the focal lengths on the wide side, between 10-11mm as you are looking to invest in a wide angle.

Remember that 10mm is effectively what 16mm is on a full frame camera.

Focal lengths of 18mm are rather common but bare in mind, its not that wide on a APS-C body.

My recommendations would be the Canon 10-22mm, Canon 10-18mm and the Tokina 11-16.

Nice thing about WA's for landscapes is that it's not dependant on AF, meaning the general concerns regarding AF with third party lenses is a moot point here, so have a good look at that Tokina, as it's widest aperture of f/2.8 is not matched by any other viable wide angle lens for a crop body.


----------



## AlwaysLearning (Nov 26, 2014)

Rob-downunder some great thoughts there. My issue with going full frame is that I shoot a bit of sports and BIF so if I upgrade the body I'd want an improved AF system. That being the case I don't think the 6D would be suitable and a 5D is out of my budget so FF is out for the time being. Staying with Canon, 70D is the most likely upgrade body wise. Your comment about the 10-22 being a big step up in quality compared to the 18-135 was the sort of comparison I was hoping to receive. 

I have to say that I am a little unsure about going the 10-22, 10-18 and 11-16 type focal lengths. There has rarely been any times that I have wished for wider for 18 so not sure how I would go using these. I actually think the 16-35 range is more suitable looking back at the shots I have been taking (couple with the 50 and 70-300 I already have). 

Thanks for all the comments. Certainly gives me something to think about.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

The trouble with focal lengths of 10 mm etc is that they are only passing a tiny amount of light for a given exposure. One of the reasons you have a 'wow' factor on your 70-300L lens is that apart from it being a very good optic you have huge magnification and _light_ compared with a much shorter focal length.

So if you want the same 'wow' factor from a much shorter optic on APS, my advice is don't go too short, put funds into a better computer / software system if necessary and stitch. The 24 mm on APS is an ideal focal length when shooting the picture in portrait orientated sections. The 24 mm in portrait is giving you the vertical field of view of a 16 mm lens in landscape orientation, but you are using twice the _volume_ of light to make each section of your image than you would if using a 16 mm focal length.


----------



## tolusina (Nov 26, 2014)

40, tripod with a level base or post, nodal rail, mirror lock up or live view, tethered or remote release, stitch.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 26, 2014)

tolusina said:


> 40, tripod with a level base or post, nodal rail, mirror lock up or live view, tethered or remote release, stitch.


+1


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2014)

AlwaysLearning said:


> ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135.



In that case, your personal "wow" is cheap to come by: The 70-300L is certainly a good lens and very sturdy, but on crop wide open it's noticeably less sharp than on full frame. So any half-decent midrange lenses should satisfy your needs.



AlwaysLearning said:


> I have to say that I am a little unsure about going the 10-22, 10-18 and 11-16 type focal lengths.



The problem with these uwa lenses on crop is that they're ef-s so you if you want to go ff in the future you either have to sell them or keep dual-using crop for ultra wide angle.

For ff upgrade safety, the new 16-35L with IS is a great choice as a wide-standard zoom on crop. Otherwise I'd personally have gon with the 11-16 lens if'd stayed with crop. Note that landscape doesn't necessarily mean uwa, and you can always panorama stitch if nothing is moving in the frame.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> AlwaysLearning said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem - 'Wow' as in image quality/sharpness. That's what I particularly noticed in using the 70-300L and the 50mm over the 18-135.
> ...



That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 26, 2014)

;D


Sporgon said:


> The new EFs 24 mm f2.8 pancake. If you want to go wider for landscape, stitch.


Fully agree. 

For the OP's benefit, here is an APS-C comparison between the new 24mm EF-S pancake and the 24mm TS-E II at f/5.6. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## Txema (Nov 26, 2014)

Hi I used the EF-S 10-22 with my first digital camera, the 20D. It was a fantastic lens so I wonder why canon didn't put a red ring on it. When I bought the 5D it was the only lens I missed even though I had the 16-35L 2.8I.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2014)

Txema said:


> Hi I used the EF-S 10-22 with my first digital camera, the 20D. It was a fantastic lens so I wonder why canon didn't put a red ring on it.



1. marketing
2. lack of weather sealing (which (afaik) all recent L lenses have)
3. probably general build quality, compare with the recent 16-35L.



Sporgon said:


> That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.



I shot about 100k frames with my 70-300L on my 60d, so I guess some of them were in focus and without shake or motion blur, even if only by pure chance. And at least with my copy there's a distinct difference between f4 on crop vs. ff - that's why I mostly stepped down to f5.6 on the 60d. Here's exactly what I see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Nethawk (Nov 26, 2014)

Coz said:


> It depends how wide you want to go. If you want to go real wide, then something like the 10-22 or 10-18 are the way to go. I have the 10-22 and I like it. Any barrel distortion is easily taken care of in Lightroom. I've heard good things about the 10-18 and it seems like an incredible value. Others also speak very highly of the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and it is probably better than the 10-22/10-18 (note: Sigma also has a 10-20mm f4-5.6 that is not quite as good.)
> 
> Since you are also considering lenses above 15mm, another possibility is Canon's 15-85mm. It is my main travel lens and the extra 3mm on a crop under the 18mm makes a HUGE difference. Certainly not as much as 10mm but it is significant over the 18mm and even the 17mm. It is not quite L quality but it is pretty darn good.
> 
> Chris



+1

If sticking with a Canon crop body this makes the most sense. The 15-85mm is, in my very humble opinion, the best all around lens for APS-C. Great range, 15mm is plenty wide, excellent (near L) IQ and great IS. The 10-18 or 10-22mm are also very good choices, but I would recommend the 15mm as a purchase and a 10-x as a rental to see if you need to go wider before buying. I own both 15-85mm and 10-22mm, very good lenses but the former fits most of my needs. Now that I also have a FF body and 16-35mm I'm selling the UWA.

Another great choice, and even though I don't need it I really want the 24mm pancake.

I don't think the 16-35mm or 17-40mm are great investments with a crop body unless a transition to FF is planned for the near future. The're both very good but not quite wide enough.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 26, 2014)

Bryan Carnathan's top 2 recommendations for a general purpose zoom for a crop body are the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6. For the latter he describes it as having excellent image quality.

Here's a link to his recommendation page:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx

In over 30 years of shooting landscapes I have never needed anything wider than 24mm on a FF - even 28mm is wide enough for 95% of my shots, so 15 or 17 should be plenty wide enough - at least in my experience.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > That might be true in your case, but it doesn't mean it is universally true. Nailing every one of those 18 mp on your 60D with a 70-300 takes some doing. With really sound technique the only difference will be the amount of post shot magnification required.
> ...



The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera. Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5


----------



## KevinSch (Nov 26, 2014)

Those Digital Picture A/B Comparisons always leave me lusting after a 6D. But when I download the RAW examples over at DPReview, I don't see quite as drastic a difference.

I have the 15-85 on my 60D - and stopped down to F8 for landscapes it's hard to find anything better at the wide end of it's range. To get any real improvement from there, I'd think the sensor would be the upgrade path.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

KevinSch said:


> Those Digital Picture A/B Comparisons always leave me lusting after a 6D. But when I download the RAW examples over at DPReview, I don't see quite as drastic a difference.
> 
> I have the 15-85 on my 60D - and stopped down to F8 for landscapes it's hard to find anything better at the wide end of it's range. To get any real improvement from there, I'd think the sensor would be the upgrade path.



I missed the sarcasm tag off my previous post. I think TDP crops between asp and FF are misleading, and probably shouldn't be compared against each other, in the same way as imatest results shouldn't be compared across formats.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera.



Ugh? Why would I want to do a thing like that? I'm an outspoken fan of crop cameras for macro and general low iso shooting and like my snappy 60d over my 6d. But there are some lenses that gain by being put on crop (cutting off blurry corners), and some loose (lack of sharpness wide open), and some have both effects at the same time.



Sporgon said:


> Here's a link to 60D with Zeiss Otus and 1D with Canon 50 f1.4



Fair enough, so let me re-phrase it: The tdp comparison of the 70-300L happens to show - for whatever reason - about what I see from _my_ copy of the lens on _my_ 60d and _my_ 6d. Which brings us to the all-popular "wrong afma, broken lens, bad handling" theme, but I don't think so in this case.

This was about a different point anyway: If the op is fine with the 70-300L on his crop, I don't think there is a need to look at the very best and most expensive lenses for him.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I think TDP crops between asp and FF are misleading, and probably shouldn't be compared against each other, in the same way as imatest results shouldn't be compared across formats.


 
I agree, comparing FF and APS-C cameras against each other is not going to mean anything, except that the FF image is usually sharper at 100%. Comparing two different lenses on the same body will give a idea as to how they compare on that body.

Its a trap that many fall into.

DXO gives numerical ratings for a given lens, and the number varies all over the place depending on the body. Its not a rating of the lens in any meaningful way, just of a lens-body combination.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 26, 2014)

EF-S 15-85mm is a great single lens for APS-C landscape photography. FOV is equivalent to 22 to 135mm on full frame, and the great majority of landscape shots can be taken in this range. Stop it down to f/5.6-f/8, and it is consistently good over its range. Plus, I believe that it shoots to 0.22 x magnification, so it is useful for many closeup nature photographs. I have a light tripod I take everywhere, so shooting at f/8 with polarizer or ND grad is no issue. Attach this lens and its SLR on a chest holster, waist pack, backpack strap, whatever, and you have both hands free for poles or scrambling. 

There are probably many better lenses out there, but it is hard to beat the EF-S 15-85 for the combination of image quality, versatility, and weight.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The digital picture ISO crop comparisons between asp and ff are one sure way of putting someone off buying a crop camera.
> ...



Using Photozone as a reference it looks to me as if the 70-300L cannot quite fully resolve 15 mp on APS-c when wide open at 70 mm, let alone 18, but the OP never said he was using this lens wide open. I disagree with your last sentence because the 'very best' in resolution terms doesn't have to be 'the most expensive'. These high mp asp-c cameras need really good lenses, and Canon now provide ones that are up to the job without being expensive; look at the 40/2.8 and the new EF-s 24/2.8.


----------



## AlwaysLearning (Nov 26, 2014)

In terms of the 70-300L being wow, compared to the 18-135 on my body, it's wow  There are certainly times when the image isn't quite as sharp as I would expect but I put that down more to user error and a bit of post processing can usually help. All you are doing by showing comparisons on how sharp it is on FF is making me envious! I usually shoot it at 5.6 so then I can treat it as a constant aperture lens across the zoom range.

The 15-85 wasn't one I was considering but will take a look at as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Using Photozone as a reference it looks to me as if the 70-300L cannot quite fully resolve 15 mp on APS-c when wide open at 70 mm, let alone 18, but the OP never said he was using this lens wide open.



Good point, but then again I didn't say so. To repeat myself - and we could probably just ask the op  ... he's bound to have used the 70-300L wide open at _some_ point. And if he'd had found it lacking, he probably wouldn't have used it as his reference what a good lens is to him (see below).



Sporgon said:


> I disagree with your last sentence because the 'very best' in resolution terms doesn't have to be 'the most expensive'. These high mp asp-c cameras need really good lenses, and Canon now provide ones that are up to the job without being expensive; look at the 40/2.8 and the new EF-s 24/2.8.



Come on, this is self-explanatory, isn't it? Of course I was talking zoom against zoom, prime against prime, we all know you can get excellent iq if you use an older manual prime or any newer generation.



AlwaysLearning said:


> In terms of the 70-300L being wow, compared to the 18-135 on my body, it's wow  There are certainly times when the image isn't quite as sharp as I would expect but I put that down more to user error and a bit of post processing can usually help. All you are doing by showing comparisons on how sharp it is on FF is making me envious! I usually shoot it at 5.6 so then I can treat it as a constant aperture lens across the zoom range.



This is just what I do with the 70-300L on crop, and it's fine this way and has a very nice bokeh.You really only realize the difference with fine details, apart from the thinner dof on ff.

I mostly shoot horses and focus on their eyes - and here there's a visible difference crop vs ff. And of course to even better lenses like the 100L (which is an example of a lens that is just as good on crop). 

Of course, as you wrote, if you downsize and the details happen to respond to the usual sharpening algorithms, no one see a difference. Btw that's why I didn't stretch my budget to get the larger 70-200L.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Nov 26, 2014)

Glad you found my earlier post helpful. I understand you being committed to staying on a crop body. I found it difficult to justify the dollars when I moved. Love the image quality but it is at a big cost.
So if you are staying with the crop body then I am back to my earlier recommendation of getting the 10-22. You say that you don't shoot that wide - but you can't if you don't have the equipment. I found the very wide end great for taking shots from down very close to ground level, which changed the perspective and impact of images greatly and added a new dimension to what I was taking. Why get a lens that would only let you take the same pics as you currently do. Improve your IQ when shooting wide at 16-22 then be able to experiment with new effects from 10-16. 
You will get a lot more value out of this type of lens than something like a 16-35 in my opinion.


----------



## candc (Nov 27, 2014)

If you really don't need wider than 18 and can live with the limited range then the sigma 18-35 is without a doubt the way to go. It is the sharpest zoom lens you can get on a crop body and its f/1.8


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 27, 2014)

preppyak said:


> Tokina 11-16 is the way I'd go. Sharp lens that gives you a decent range for wide-angle. And its the only lens that works at f/2.8, which if you ever decide to get into night photography, is the difference between getting useable shots and not (the 10-18 starts a full stop slower, and even the 2/3 stop of the 10-22 makes a difference).
> 
> My sense is that the 10-22, 10-18, Tokina 11-16 are all about equal in sharpness in standard landscape apertures (f/5.6-f/11). But, only the Tokina can do f/2.8.
> 
> Sigma 18-35 would also be a nice lens, but, I think you'll find going from 18mm to 10-11mm opens up your repertoire more than going from 18mm f/3.5 to 18mm f/1.8 does.



The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is the only crop ultra-wide zoom that has ever had a wow factor to it for me. If I was still shooting primarily crop I would buy one to replace my drowned Sigma. I actually know someone who used to shoot with it on a 7D as a secondary to his 5DII with 70-200mm. I asked him why he did not have a full frame wide angel. He told me that it was better than all the full frame ultra-wide he had tried. (17-40,3 copies 15-35f2.8 I and 15-35 f2.8 II) The mark 15-35f2.8L II was marginally better but not enough to justify buying a full set of 82mm filters. 

All of the other 10-2xmm zooms are about the same. I just bought the new Canon 10-18mm STM to on my old rebel or EOS M while kayaking. It was cheep but I think my old Sigma was sharper once you learned its quirks. I have not really used it enough to know for sure if I like it. 

For landscape I would use the Sigma between 15-20mm. I actual preferred to us it over my EFs 15-85mm because of the distortion of the 15-85 at the wide end. You cannot go wrong with the 15-85 it is a very good lens for crop. But I do no know if it is wow. 

It has been said that the Sigma 18-35 can replace every prime in its range for crop. It may be the better buy if you do not want to go ultra-wide. I should note that before I bought a ultra-wide and really learned how to use it I was not interested in ultra-wide lens.


----------



## atticus (Nov 27, 2014)

Long time lurker who signed up because I found myself in a similar spot not too long ago. FF+L lens isn't an option because I do a decent amount of hiking/backpacking, and the extra weight from my tripod is already stretching things. I pulled the trigger on the 10-18 for my 70D, and I couldn't be more pleased with it.

The 18-135 STM wasn't cutting it in terms of sharpness (and I'm very careful with tripod technique), and it wasn't wide enough for the visual effect I was looking for. I've only had the 10-18 a couple weeks now, but I can already tell it will be excellent. Here's a shot I took to test it out (not particularly proud of it, but I think it does a good job demonstrating sharpness).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmouser/15243510594/sizes/l/


----------



## Snodge (Nov 27, 2014)

If you fancied a prime lens, the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 has a good reputation as being a sharp good quality manual focus only lens at a very cheap price. Being a full frame lens, it also means that if you get a full frame body in the future, you can still use it.


----------

