Looking to invest in a new lens

emiirei · Aug 5, 2009

I have a Canon Rebel XS and I was just wondering if there's a good lens that i can invest in for landscape photography. I'm not sure if its "Wide-angle" lenses i should be looking at. Is it ok to invest in a expensive lens for my type of camera? Or should I wait to invest in one when i get an upgraded camera? I'd appreciate the help.

bigtwinky · Aug 5, 2009

A beginner camera will definatly benefit from a high quality lens. A lens will last a lifetime, a body will be routinely upgraded.

A wide angle is normally what you need for landscapes. There are some great ones out there.

Canon 10-22, Sigma 12-24, Tokina 11-16 are usually the ones people reference.
You dont need an ultra wide (10-12mm) for most landscapes. I've heard that a good focal range for landscapes is 24-28mm (full frame), but I find its very subject dependant.

I have the Canon 10-22 and love it

emiirei · Aug 5, 2009

9518A002 Canon EF-S 10mm - 22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Zoom Lens for EOS 20D and Digital Rebel Cameras - U.S.A. Warranty.
200101 Sigma 12mm-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM Autofocus Super Wide-Angle Zoom Lens, for Canon EOS Cameras.
ATX1116PRODXC Tokina 11mm - 16mm F/2.8 ATX Pro DX Autofocus Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras.

these the ones you were talking about? and should i buy a lens hood for the canon?

Samanax · Aug 6, 2009

Here's a review for 2 of those lenses: Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM v. Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM

Here's another review: Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM v Tokina 11-16 F2.8 ATX DX PRO

emiirei · Aug 6, 2009

thanks sam.

anyone else have any suggestions?

tirediron · Aug 6, 2009

Consider a 28mm or 35mm prime. I do most of my landscape photography using a 35mm f2 prime, shooting panoramic.

choudhrysaab · Aug 6, 2009

look into Sigma lenses as well ... i just bought one and i LOVE it.

bmrust · Aug 6, 2009

tirediron said:
Consider a 28mm or 35mm prime. I do most of my landscape photography using a 35mm f2 prime, shooting panoramic.

newbie question... I have an 18-55mm lens (typical canon lens)... why would you go with a 35mm prime, instead of using the 35mm setting on that lens, especially for landscapes where (personally) i would use a higher f-stop to increase the DOF? I have a 50mm prime that is a f1.8 but I only use it when I want to get that extremely shallow DOF. I would assume I would do the same with a 35. What am I missing?

bigtwinky · Aug 6, 2009

Image quality.

Just because a lens goes to 1.8 doesnt mean it should always be shot at 1.8
A prime lens typically has higher image quality over a zoom lens. So 35mm with a good prime shot at f/11 will probably net a higher image quality than the 18-55mm set to 35mm and shot at f/11

If all lenses gave the same image quality, then everyone would have an 18-300.

I have been told to keep in mind the "jack of all trades, master of none" thing. The more range you have in focal lenghts on a lens, the lesser the image quality. There are exceptions to the rule though, as some lenses are just made better (see Canon L series over its consumer series).

And also keep in mind that all lenses have a sweet spot, a specific aperture where it gives the crispess image, and this is almost never at its widest. I believe the 50mm 1.8's sweet spot is at f/4.

bmrust · Aug 6, 2009

that makes perfect sense... thanks for that response

Samanax · Aug 6, 2009

bmrust said:
newbie question... I have an 18-55mm lens (typical canon lens)... why would you go with a 35mm prime, instead of using the 35mm setting on that lens, especially for landscapes where (personally) i would use a higher f-stop to increase the DOF? I have a 50mm prime that is a f1.8 but I only use it when I want to get that extremely shallow DOF. I would assume I would do the same with a 35. What am I missing?

Try doing a comparison experiment with your 18-55mm @ 50mm vs your 50mm and use similar aperture (say about f/8.0) and then shoot the a scene or subject with the same quality light and then compare the images. Which image looks better?