Rocky Mountain Trip

I have a Rebel XT and XTi with a Tamron 28-75 and a Sigma 70-300 Macro super.

I will be getting a new lens for the trip I am debating between a Canon 17-40

f/4L or a Canon 70-200 f/4L.

If you had to choose 1 lens (in this price range) what would it be. I will be

taking family and landscape pictures.

The 17-40 f/4L will give some of the wide angle perspective that you are missing with your current lens lineup. I would consider, as an alternative, the Canon 10-22mm or the Tokina 12-24mm for wide angle landscape photos.

For landscape type stuff, I have used everything from a fisheye to a 500mm, and there's a place for all of it. And, whatever you see will demand the lens you didn't bring.

 

I guess my favorite (on film, IE, full frame) is a 24mm.

Jim,

 

Tough call. There's a good chance that both will get good use on a trip to the Rockies. The question comes down to more than what you need for the trip, but what you need in general.

 

You have a 70-300, so you don't NEED the 70-200, as you already have coverage in that range. You don't have coverage from 17-28, which the 17-40 will provide you.

 

Unless you need the higher quality at 70-200 (which you probably do with the Sigma, but do you need it now, or can it wait) I would suggest that you buy the 17-40 and round out your coverage. Then worry about replacing weak links.

 

Plus, with the 17-40, you could pick up a used film body for almost nothing and have a wonderfully wide lens, too.

I live in the Rocky Mountains near Calgary, AB, Canada and a wide angle is a must! I have a Canon EF-S 17-85 IS , Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 70-300 IS. The 70-300 is by far the best for the wildlife shots, but I usually end up with the 17-85 for general scenery and sunsets. Even the 17mm sometimes doesn't seem wide enough. I sometimes resort to a series of panoramic shots to splice later.

Well, the 17-40 would probably be a better choice, and also, I think, a better lens. Just remember that it takes a certain amount of skill to use a wide angle lens effectively for mountain pictures. Wide lenses emphasize foreground, and they tend to flatten the view looking UP a mountain slope. If you are not careful you will make those majestic peaks seem a little smaller, flatter. On the other hand, looking DOWN with a wide angle lens gives a vertiginous feel, making the slope feel steeper and higher than it really was.

 

I would also take along a film camera for backup and for more focal length depth on the wide side.

 

Dave

If it is one or the other and for the subjects you describe I would take the 17-40. 28mm is

not likely to be wide enough for all landscape shots. On the other hand 40mm is a (very)

slight telephoto on the XTi, which should get you closer than a traditional "normal" lens.

 

If your main interest was, for example, wildlife photography I might feel differently about

this.

I concur with the most common answer of 17-40. Recently moved from Calgary I do know those landscapes. On your camera 17-40 is similar to 27-64mm. Standard wide angle is 28mm, nice for landscape. 64mm I think would be good for 3/4 portrait, or group/family portrait stuff. Generally thought of as a great value lens.

 

Unless you are shooting wildlife, you don't need the 70-200 lens. If you were shooting wildlife I would get a 70-200 f2.8 IS, or a 300 f2.8.

 

I had a friend with a Canon cropped body who had a Sigma 12-24 which he bought for indoor architecture - he seemed to like it -> 20mm - 38mm on your body, a great landscape focal leghth. This lens will also work on full frame - but as was mentioned before, you have to know what you are doing with a lens that wide. I tried on a film camera, and thus got an actual 12-24 focal length - I hated most of the photos I took.

 

Good luck! And enjoy your trip - don't forget a circular polarizer!

The Sigma 70-300 is not a great lens. The macro setting can be useful, and it's not bad up until somewhere past 200mm, but it's soft at 300mm, and has a slow focus and slow aperture. The APO version is better optically, but not greatly so. I'm not sure which one you have. In either case the Canon 70-200 f/4L is significantly better optically, but only goes out to 200mm, and has no macro. Depending on what you use it for, it may or may not be worth upgrading to you.

 

But what you certainly need is a wider than 28mm lens. I would think that far more important than changing out your tele.

 

If you are planning on staying with crop frame cameras then the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS might be a better choice than the 17-40 f/4L. It's faster, has a wider zoom range, is at least as sharp, and includes IS. There are down sides to it too: not built quite as well, sucks up dust in some cases, and won't work with full frame cameras.

 

I have always had a hard time adjusting to a "28 to anything" lens on a crop frame camera like the digital Rebels. They're great on film or FF cameras, but to get the same field of view on your cameras, you would need a 17-50 or so. That's what makes the 17-40 attractive -- it fills the "normal zoom" range, or at least most of it. I just think the 17-55 is a better choice.

 

If you sold the 70-300, and the 28-75, and included what you've saved for this, would you have enough to buy both?

Wide, wide, wide. Pick up a 10-22. That and the 28-75 will comprise nearly all of your shooting. Stopped down, the Sigma's just fine for the few times you'll want telephoto.

 

DI

Here are my two cents. I'm another one of those Calgarians who regularly visits the

mountains for hiking and skiing. I usually take a Digital Rebel and the kit 18-55mm lens.

My experience is that this lens is sometimes not wide enough for landscape photos in the

mountains--those big hunks of rock can often overwhelm the limited field of view of the

lens. Thus, you will find the 17-40mm limiting.

 

You already have the mid to telephoto range covered by your existing lenses. For example,

your 70-300mm will be good for wildlife. If you are planning on sticking with cropped

sensor DSLR's, perhaps you would be better served by the Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5

USM. It is very close to the price point of the lenses you are debating.

 

Otherwise, go with the Canon EF 17-40mm F4.0 L USM.<div></div>

Interesting. Three of the ten responses so far are from Calgarians, and also I live just south of there in Lethbridge. Your post must have struck a resonant chord, as we love our Rocky Mountains.

You are well covered from 28mm and up so the next logical step is an UWA. The fact that you are going to shoot landscapes only strengths my perspective. While all UWA lenses are good, the Canon seems to be the best. Therefore my recommendation goes to the 10-22 USM.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

All the landscapes image at the following link are taked with 17-40 on the rocky mountain... I think that this lens is more usefull of the 70-200, even if you already have the 70-300.

Enjoy

 

http://www.photonature.it/Waterton%20Glacier.html

Buy a 35mm. I went to Rocky Mtn National Park and my shutter on D60 went out. My son laughed at me for getting an EOS Elan for about nothing and fixing the Command Dial myself, but it would have been a long day wasted without it. Put the 28-75 on it. Get a wide angle for the digital. I have now added a 30D and Elan 7e to the collection. Have fun.

Go for standard wide (17-40) or really wide (10-22, 10-20 etc.). I think you would regret not haveing a lens that goes to at least 18mm unless you have a specific need for telephoto.

 

It can take a while to get used to using a very wide lens as you can end up with a lot of things you don't want in the photo and things like that but I love my 10-22mm for landscape.

Jim, get off the pot make a decision and only take one lens, thats all you need.

Myself and my wife hiked around the alps last summer, i had the brain wave in thinking i needed three cameras and several lenses, well one day into the hike the camera bag weighing a tonne a decision had to made, one camera one lens. I chose my eos 1n and 16-35mm f2.8l, which brings me to the second point.

Highly consider the 16-35 to the 17-40, like a previous post forget the 70-200 you have that covered. Also you are slightly hampered with the xt/xti crop factor 1.6, turning your ultra wide into just a wide. Seriously consider a 35mm and some transparency film, the colours will far exceed your expectations.

The photos attached were taken on eos 1n fuji velvia iso 50, f8 (i think) and it had a polarising filter attached.

Thank you for your responses. I do have an ELAN 7 that has sat on the shelf since I bought my XT. I am still learning and I tend to waste a lot of film. So I have been shooting only digital.