Landscape lens - what to get?

[mikedadude]

Got a 450D at the moment with the kit lens 18-55m. I'm going to be in the Austrian Alps for around 5 months and would like to have a lens which is better suited at taking landscape pictures. With regards to pricing.. preferably up to 160 pounds, don't mind if it's used or refurbished.

Any suggestions? And sorry if this is the wrong place to post, wasn't sure where else to post.

 

[Big Mike]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Sigma 10-20mm

 

[LarryD]

There's probably nothing wrong with the lens you have.. Keep the aperture at f8 or above if you can..

Your 18mm end will be similar to the old 28mm lens that used to be considered a "wide angle" and quite suitable unless you really want to show expanse.. One thing to remember with the super-wides, they not only broaden the scene, but they also pick up more foreground and sky. There isn't much point in going to a very wide view if you only end up cropping it back down..

Mikes choices are great for superwides.

At your price point you might look into Canon's very good 17-40L f4 lens.. It isn't much wider than what you have, but it will bring home some better IQ and allows you to use a faster aperture throughout the range...........Very handy in early mornings and late afternoons.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I second the Canon 10-22. The Sigma is great also, but has been known to have some spotty quality control with them. Perhaps buying new would be fine, but if looking on the used market, go for the Canon.

 

[skieur]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Sigma 10-20mm

Those lenses would tend to visually flatten out a landscape and make it look far away and boring. They are very good, only if there are lots of verticals in the scene and the photographer is very close. Perspective distortion can however also be a problem if you are close or at a poor camera angle.

skieur

 

[icassell]

There are some good examples of ultrawide angle landscape imaging here

10-20mm.com

It is critical with UWA lenses to have an object of interest in the near foreground or, as skieur suggests, the images can be boring. Perspective distortion can add to interest if used to your advantage.

I generally divide my landscapes between my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 (by the way, I haven't heard of significant QC issues with this lens) and my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Every once and a while I will use a longer lens, but these tend to compress the DOF.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Sigma 10-20mm

Those lenses would tend to visually flatten out a landscape and make it look far away and boring. They are very good, only if there are lots of verticals in the scene and the photographer is very close. Perspective distortion can however also be a problem if you are close or at a poor camera angle.

skieur

But he has an 18-55 and wants an alternate lens for landscapes. I would say that the 10-20 range would be MORE ideal than buying a +55mm lens for landscapes. Although you make very valid points about the properties of the lens, I think BigMike was very accurate in his recommendations given the OP's original question.

 

[skieur]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Sigma 10-20mm

Those lenses would tend to visually flatten out a landscape and make it look far away and boring. They are very good, only if there are lots of verticals in the scene and the photographer is very close. Perspective distortion can however also be a problem if you are close or at a poor camera angle.

skieur

But he has an 18-55 and wants an alternate lens for landscapes. I would say that the 10-20 range would be MORE ideal than buying a +55mm lens for landscapes. Although you make very valid points about the properties of the lens, I think BigMike was very accurate in his recommendations given the OP's original question.

I would tend toward a longer lens, since a lot of ocean, canyon, and cliff scenes don't always permit you physically to get any closer than you already are. I have gone out to 450mm when moving any closer physically would have been downright dangerous.

skieur

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Those lenses would tend to visually flatten out a landscape and make it look far away and boring. They are very good, only if there are lots of verticals in the scene and the photographer is very close. Perspective distortion can however also be a problem if you are close or at a poor camera angle.

skieur

But he has an 18-55 and wants an alternate lens for landscapes. I would say that the 10-20 range would be MORE ideal than buying a +55mm lens for landscapes. Although you make very valid points about the properties of the lens, I think BigMike was very accurate in his recommendations given the OP's original question.

I would tend toward a longer lens, since a lot of ocean, canyon, and cliff scenes don't always permit you physically to get any closer than you already are. I have gone out to 450mm when moving any closer physically would have been downright dangerous.

skieur

Fair enough.

 

[pbelarge]

There are good points made in each of the posts.

The information that one would need to know first is what kind of landscape photos.
The 10-22 ultra wide type are good for expansive landscapes or closer vertical shots where the UW captures most of the image, if not all.
I have noticed on my Canon 10-22, the distortion is not too bad for expansive shots. For the close up verticals, it ranges from not bad to wild crazy distortion...which could be creative or a pain in the butt. LR3 has a good distortion control feature for the Canon lens.


If one is not taking those type landscapes, the UW is not necessary and wide angle lenses work well.