Finally saving up to take my 90D on a hiking trip to the Rockies next month, but my current kit lens just isnt cutting it for these massive landscapes. Im on a super tight budget, like maybe 350-400 bucks tops, so Im currently torn between the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II and the Canon EF-S 10-18mm. I know the Tokina is faster but that Canon lens is just so light for backpacking and way cheaper. Im worried the Tokina might be too heavy to lug around for five days straight though. Is the image quality difference really worth the extra weight or should I just grab the cheaper Canon option and call it a day?
Honestly, skip the Tokina for backpacking. In my experience, weight is everything when you're hitting the trail for days. The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is just better suited for your situation.
- Sharp enough for landscapes
- Significantly lighter pack
- Incredible image stabilization Save the cash for extra batteries or gear. The Canon is the practical choice here, no question about it.
> Is the image quality difference really worth the extra weight or should I just grab the cheaper Canon option and call it a day? Honestly, grab the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM and never look back! For the Rockies, you're gonna be doing so much walking that the weight difference is absolutely huge. The Canon lens is super sharp for landscapes and the stabilization is a total lifesaver when you're tired and your hands are shaking. Quick tip for the trip: bring a decent circular polarizer. It makes the blue skies and rocky textures pop like crazy! Also, keep your gear in a dry bag inside your pack. The weather turns fast up there, and you dont want any moisture getting in. You're gonna have an amazing time, seriously!
^ This. Also, honestly, when I hiked the Rockies years back, I just grabbed a cheap used prime for versatility. You dont want heavy gear bogging you down when the air gets thin.
Good to know!
