# Wide Angle Or Ultra Wide for Grand Canyon?



## kellybell (May 25, 2011)

I am just getting into photography as a hobby and purchased the Canon 60D with 18-135mm lens.  I will be going to the Grand Canyon and would like a 2nd lens.  I'm assuming a wide angle is the way to go, and also something I'll use a lot since I travel often.

Any advice on whether I should invest in a Canon wide angle (any suggestions welcome) or Canon ultra wide zoom (EF 17-40 or EF-S 10-22)?

I've already purchased a tripod, bag, extra battery, and UV/polarizing filters for the current lens.  Any other equipment that I should consider prior to the Grand Canyon trip?

Thanks for your expertise and suggestions!


----------



## 480sparky (May 25, 2011)

I wouldn't recommend jumping to an ultra-wide right off the bat.  They're generally pricier anyway.  Maybe you could rent a lens for the trip just to 'take one for a spin'.

Another option might be pano stitching software.


----------



## Dao (May 25, 2011)

Your general purpose lens 18-135mm already cover the wide angle focal range. (The lower end range 18mm - )
So the 17-40mm lens only gives you 1 extra mm (you may not even notice the difference as far as the wide angle field of view goes).  However, I expect better image quality from the 17-40mm lens.  The 17-40mm lens is ultra wide when used with a 35mm film camera or camera with a full size sensor.  With your 60D, it is considered as wide angle due to the cropped image (smaller sensor).

Ultra wide angle lens for your camera, you have few to choose from.  
Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Sigma 10-20mm (there are 2 versions, one with variable max aperture and the other one is a fix max aperture)
Tokina 11-16mm (This one is quite popular)

Take a look at following link for a comparision.

Juza Nature Photography


----------



## Big Mike (May 25, 2011)

I'd say yes to the Ultra Wide Angle lens...something that starts around 10mm.

I have the Canon 10-22mm and I love it.  Although, the other lenses mentioned above are said to be pretty good as well, but may be cheaper.


----------



## ghache (May 25, 2011)

take a look at the tokina 12-24 F4!


----------



## Overread (May 25, 2011)

Sigma also have the 8-16mm ultra wide angle lens - gets some very good reviews and has a strong optical quality. 
Juza Nature Photography

you might also find this review of a help, it compares a wide range of the wide angle lenses on the market (it excludes the 8-16mm because it was not on the market at the time of writing):
Juza Nature Photography


----------



## thundercatz888 (Feb 1, 2012)

Im gonna be heading to the Grand Canyon in the next few weeks. I was needing help as well with lens suggestions. I currently have a D200 and the 50mm 1.8 as my only lens. Im on a budget however and can only spend a couple hundred dollars on a lens. Currently Im looking at the 18-55mm DX or the 28-200mm G. Can anyone help me out and let me know if these are good for the scope of the Grand Canyon and the budget I have?


----------



## dogusmeatus (Feb 1, 2012)

I recently purchased the 14mm 2.8 lens and it is incredible... then again so is the price.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2012)

thundercatz888 said:


> Im gonna be heading to the Grand Canyon in the next few weeks. I was needing help as well with lens suggestions. I currently have a D200 and the 50mm 1.8 as my only lens. Im on a budget however and can only spend a couple hundred dollars on a lens. Currently Im looking at the 18-55mm DX or the 28-200mm G. Can anyone help me out and let me know if these are good for the scope of the Grand Canyon and the budget I have?



18mm on a DX frame isn't all that wide, really.  It's the same as a 27m on a 35mm film camera.  If you want to take in the whole Grand Canyon view, you'll either need a wider lens or stitching software.


----------



## Edsport (Feb 2, 2012)

Yah as Sparky mentioned, stitching software will do the trick...


----------



## Garbz (Feb 2, 2012)

Neither, panoramic tripod head and motorised control, and a 300mm telephoto lens will do the trick. You'll be shooting gigapixel pictures in no time.

On a more serious note it is trivial to shoot panoramas of landscapes handheld. I typically set my lens around the standard range of 35mm-50mm, lock the settings in manual and start firing away. Stitching software is so damn good these days you'll not only get a good looking result, but you'll get it at resolutions where you could quite easily blow the image up to take half the wall. Heck just last week I shot this 174mpxl image of my city using a standard tripod and a 200mm lens. Auer & Garbz Photography

No "special" equipment needed, just some decent stitching software like AutoPano Pro. If it wasn't dark I could have done this handheld too.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 2, 2012)

nah..... no need a fancy tripod head.  Hand held stitching FTW!  I will use my 35(or longer) and stitch them.  I can sell a print as big as the largest wall at anyone's house.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 2, 2012)

No wide angle lens is wide enough for the Grand Canyon!
So my suggestion is wide angle plus panoramic.

Take the photos in portrait layout to capture as much lateral view. This means you need more shots across the view. No need tripod for this, just turn your upper body and keep the camera aiming at the same height plus maintain the correct horizon.

Better still, put it on a tripod and so HDR panoramic. You won't regret it.

North or South Rim?

When you get there, do ask the visitor's center where is the best spot for sunset shot and be there early to wait for it. I missed mine

South Rim







North Rim (20mm Full frame)


----------



## thundercatz888 (Feb 2, 2012)

Im gonna be going to the south rim, were going the first week of April so the North Rim is a no go unfortunately. So if I was to focus more on doing just on pano's/hdr should i even bother with a new lens or will the 50mm be sufficient?


----------



## thundercatz888 (Feb 2, 2012)

Or, what about the 35mm prime?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 2, 2012)

thundercatz888 said:


> Or, what about the 35mm prime?



On a DX format?  You won't get too much of a FOV.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 3, 2012)

So do panorama shots


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 3, 2012)

Garbz said:


> So do panorama shots



Yeah, some bozo already suggested that.


----------



## thundercatz888 (Feb 3, 2012)

So thats the way to go, save the money and do pano's?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 3, 2012)

thundercatz888 said:


> So thats the way to go, save the money and do pano's?



Not by default.  I WA lens will probably give you a better final image.  But if the money's not there, you can stitch a pano instead.  But there's a learning curve to it.... don't think you'll come back from Arizona and print out some 60" eye-poppers.  Get some software, and learn how to integrate your workflow (i.e., taking the images in the field) first.  If you just go out and shoot a bunch of images, you'll be struggling come May.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 4, 2012)

Stitching has it's limitations so it's worth owning an ultrawide angle. For one, the software it is easily confused with moving objects. Typically when stitching landscapes the clouds become a major problem if there's nothing on the land for the pictures to reference to and if they are moving fast enough. Then there's parallax error which becomes a problem if you have objects close to the lens and far away as well (not a problem in the grand canyon but could be for other panorama shots). But when it works it works well. I'd much prefer a well stitched together photo than a 10mpxl maybe not sharp single shot, but then I'm also the type of person who prints 4' wide prints. 

If you don't print huge prints, then it may not be worth screwing around with panoramas, and getting a ultra wide angle would be a far ... simpler option.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 4, 2012)

Garbz said:


> Stitching has it's limitations so it's worth owning an ultrawide angle. For one, the software it is easily confused with moving objects. .........



Software sometimes gets confused with _stationary _objects as well.  More than once I've had to deal with it trying to take a part of the scene on one side of the image and stitch it into another part.  Makes for some interesting outputs, though.


----------

