Results 1 to 6 of 6

10-22 mm or 16-35 mm for 7D

This is a discussion on 10-22 mm or 16-35 mm for 7D within the Camera equipment & accessories forums, part of the Education & Technical category; Hello everyone! The dilemma i have is whether to purchase 10-22 mm or 16-35 mm canon lens for my 7D ...

  1. #1
    photogambit is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    5
    My Photos
    Please ask before editing my photos

    Default 10-22 mm or 16-35 mm for 7D

    Hello everyone!

    The dilemma i have is whether to purchase 10-22 mm or 16-35 mm canon lens for my 7D for landscape photography. If we do not consider the price diff, which one would you choose ? I know the 16-35 is much greater lens, especially if i eventually move to FF sometime, but as i heard, with CF of 1.6 it wouldn't be useful at all as a landscape lens. Is it true, or those 6mm doesn't really matter that much ?

  2. #2
    Iguanasan's Avatar
    Iguanasan is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Halifax, NS
    Posts
    10,866
    My Photos
    Please feel free to edit my photos
    Critiques
    Critique my photos anywhere in the forum

    Default

    The widest lens I have is an 18-55mm which is the kit lens I got with my camera. While I'm not particularly happy with the sharpness I find the 18mm perfectly adequate for landscape shooting. I don't do much landscape shooting but I think the 16-35mm would be the best choice of those two. 10-22mm is pretty wide angle and you may not always want that kind of angle. But what do I know?
    “If you are out there shooting, things will happen for you. If you’re not out there, you’ll only hear about it.” – Jay Maisel
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Feel free to edit my shots ONLY for use on this forum and critique my shots in ANY discussion area.
    Flickr | PicasaWeb | Blog | Google+

  3. #3
    Andrew is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Victoria, BC. Canada
    Posts
    444
    My Photos
    Please ask before editing my photos

    Default

    I think a 10-22 is pretty extreme for a wide angle to use for landscape photos if you don't have experience with one. Unless you've used one before you might find the distortion more than what you wanted for landscapes. Verticle lines on the sides will be bent quite a bit. The 16-35 is a bit narrower view, the distortion won't be as much and a big consideration also has to be that it is a much faster lens. If you can't borrow or rent one to check, see if the store will offer to exchange the lens if you don't like it. You can't lose that way but I still think yould be better off with the longer one. You don't say what other lenses you have so I have to assume there's no other wide angle and your closest would be a 50. Stay close unless you've seen examples of what you want to do creatively. Less disappointment that way.

  4. #4
    Hillbillygirl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Muskoka, Ontario
    Posts
    5,612
    My Photos
    Please do NOT edit my photos
    Critiques
    Only critique photos posted in the critique forum

    Default

    I would tend to agree wholly with Andrew on this one. The 16-35 "is" that much better of a lens for quality and build, and as you yourself said, will work with FF "when" you get there. I shoot with Canon also, and I have nothing but "L" lenses in my bag.(learned that lesson long ago). I shoot outside 90% of the time, so I cannot afford to have a lens without the build to stand up to the elements. If you can afford it, do not cheap out on glass especially.
    On a side note. Do not overlook the 17-40 f4 L either. it is an excellent lens for an amazing price with L quality. I know this as I also use this, along with my 24-70 f2.8 L for landscape. With the 7D this would also work well, as that camera is excellent in low light, and how fast of glass do you really need for landscape.
    Reality is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!

  5. #5
    scorpio_e's Avatar
    scorpio_e is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Easton Pa
    Posts
    524
    My Photos
    Please do NOT edit my photos
    Critiques
    Only critique photos posted in the critique forum

    Default

    Another for the 16 to 35. If you go full frame you are all set. The 17 to 40 is another good choice.
    www.steelcityphotography.com

    My mistake has been seeking new landscapes. I should have been seeking new light.

  6. #6
    AcadieLibre's Avatar
    AcadieLibre is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    2,151
    My Photos
    Please do NOT edit my photos
    Critiques
    Only critique photos posted in the critique forum

    Default

    I have both lenses and had the 10-22 mm first then I bought the 16 - 35 L f/2.8 and just love it I use it much more than the 10-22 mm when I need the extra wideness but if I had to choose one it would be the 16-35 an the bonus is the faster glass. I like the 10 - 22 and found it to be a good lens but a huge price point between the two lenses.
    “I take photographs with love, so I try to make them art objects. But I make them for myself first and foremost - that is important.” Jacques-Henri Lartigue

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

    "Vive L'Acadie, Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ou la mort!"




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36