Lenses

[Kingfish65]

Hi, I'm new to forums, and fairly new to photography. I have a Canon 40D digital SLR and my main interest is in landscape photopraphy. I"m interested in buying a quality "L" series lens. Is there any advantage to a f2.8 lens to a f4.0 lens for doing landscapes?

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

It's rare that you would want to shoot landscapes at F2.8...unless maybe you are shooting hand held in dim light...but if someone isn't going to the trouble to use a tripod...then why bother with L quality glass in the first place? So, having the larger aperture probably isn't an issue.

Another issue is build quality and optical performance. The best lenses are often the fast L lenses...so if quality is an issue, you might as well buy the best lens...and if that happens to be an F2.8 (or faster) lens...then so be it. It really comes down to a lens by lens comparison...and likely even a comparison at smaller apertures where you will be for shooting landscapes.

From what I gather from a lot of photographers, their favorite 'landscape' lens is the EF 17-40mm F4 L and not the 16-35 F2.8 L. Maybe this is partially because the 17-40mm is a great deal less expensive but it's optically outstanding as well.

There is also the issue of lens flare. I've heard that the 16-35mm is prone to flare, the 17-40mm is said to be better but I've also heard that the EF-S 10-22mm is better yet.

On the topic of the EF-S 10-22mm...that is my favorite landscape lens (on crop bodies). To me, 16 or 17mm just isn't wide enough sometimes. If I had a 5D, then I'd have a 17-40mm right away...but I shoot with 20Ds...so I love my 10-20mm for landscapes.

I've heard several photographers say that the EF-S 10-22mm and the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, are both on par with L quality lenses...they just don't get the L designation because they are EF-S.

 

[Kingfish65]

Thanks, that answers alot of my questions.