What lens to buy

[lj4bes]

Typically you want to go wider than 55mm for landscapes,but It would be fine if you make panoramic photos.

OK Thankyou, I purchased a 10-22mm, don't think that's gonna work either. I definitely need to learn more about lenses

 

[jcdeboever]

Great, I'll look into info on that..

I'm curious, why is the 55-250 not a good lens for scapes??

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

 

[lj4bes]

Great, I'll look into info on that..

I'm curious, why is the 55-250 not a good lens for scapes??

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

I was looking into them, but too pricey at $1000 maybe someday down the road or even refurbished

 

[jcdeboever]

Great, I'll look into info on that..

I'm curious, why is the 55-250 not a good lens for scapes??

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

I was looking into them, but too pricey at $1000 maybe someday down the road or even refurbished

I am not a Canon shooter but I seem to recall reading a 70-xxx recomendation by either @zombiesniper or @ZombiesniperJr that was very inexpensive but had good image quality.

 

[robbins.photo]

Great, I'll look into info on that..

I'm curious, why is the 55-250 not a good lens for scapes??

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

I was looking into them, but too pricey at $1000 maybe someday down the road or even refurbished

I am not a Canon shooter but I seem to recall reading a 70-xxx recomendation by either @zombiesniper or @ZombiesniperJr that was very inexpensive but had good image quality.

Well not a canon shooter either, but for the op you might want to see if you can find a used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM I in the canon mount. The older versions without OS are pretty inexpensive, I picked one up in the Nikon mount for right around $400 or so a while back.

 

[lj4bes]

Great, I'll look into info on that..

I'm curious, why is the 55-250 not a good lens for scapes??

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

I was looking into them, but too pricey at $1000 maybe someday down the road or even refurbished

I am not a Canon shooter but I seem to recall reading a 70-xxx recomendation by either @zombiesniper or @ZombiesniperJr that was very inexpensive but had good image quality.

Well not a canon shooter either, but for the op you might want to see if you can find a used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM I in the canon mount. The older versions without OS are pretty inexpensive, I picked one up in the Nikon mount for right around $400 or so a while back.

Is there much difference between 70-200 & the 55-750 I already have??

 

[robbins.photo]

Is there much difference between 70-200 & the 55-750 I already have??

Well not a canon guy so not sure how good the lens you have is as far as sharpness, etc - but my guess is during the day you probably wouldn't see a huge difference. The faster glass could come in really handy for cityscapes at night, or astro photography, that sort of thing.

But if your mostly shooting during the day, well then I'd probably stay with what you have. If you only do the occasional night shot then a good tripod and a longer shutter time could achieve much the same results.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm curious, why is the 55-250 not a good lens for scapes??

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

I was looking into them, but too pricey at $1000 maybe someday down the road or even refurbished

I am not a Canon shooter but I seem to recall reading a 70-xxx recomendation by either @zombiesniper or @ZombiesniperJr that was very inexpensive but had good image quality.

Well not a canon shooter either, but for the op you might want to see if you can find a used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM I in the canon mount. The older versions without OS are pretty inexpensive, I picked one up in the Nikon mount for right around $400 or so a while back.

Is there much difference between 70-200 & the 55-750 I already have??

Not really in terms of focal length but not sure on quality. I tagged the zombies so they will probably chime in later.

 

[lj4bes]

It is good for landscapes. There is a current fashion for using excessively wide-angle lenses for landscapes producing boring, empty vistas but it is far from universal. I prefer a focal length around 90 mm for landscapes.

I agree. I thought I needed to go wide for landscapes but @Derrel suggested the use of a 70-300 or 70-200, as many landscape artists used this focal length. A lot of what I read online was wide, wide, and wider. In the end, I preferred the compressed look and composition flexibility the 70-xxxmm offered.

I was looking into them, but too pricey at $1000 maybe someday down the road or even refurbished

I am not a Canon shooter but I seem to recall reading a 70-xxx recomendation by either @zombiesniper or @ZombiesniperJr that was very inexpensive but had good image quality.

Well not a canon shooter either, but for the op you might want to see if you can find a used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM I in the canon mount. The older versions without OS are pretty inexpensive, I picked one up in the Nikon mount for right around $400 or so a while back.

Is there much difference between 70-200 & the 55-750 I already have??

Not really in terms of focal length but not sure on quality. I tagged the zombies so they will probably chime in later.

Thanks, I appreciate it

 

[lj4bes]

Is there much difference between 70-200 & the 55-750 I already have??

Well not a canon guy so not sure how good the lens you have is as far as sharpness, etc - but my guess is during the day you probably wouldn't see a huge difference. The faster glass could come in really handy for cityscapes at night, or astro photography, that sort of thing.

But if your mostly shooting during the day, well then I'd probably stay with what you have. If you only do the occasional night shot then a good tripod and a longer shutter time could achieve much the same results.

Great, thanks ..

 

[Maui Photographer]

One thing to notice when you get your 10-22mm is that when you take photos really wide the outsides will most likely get a little distorted. Kind of like a fish eye, when you go too wide the outside of the photos get stretched a bit. It is easiest to tell when you take a photo with say a 35mm, then take one with the 10-22mm zoomed all the way to 10mm, then compare the two. Put the two photos side by side and you will be able to see the photo stretch on the outside edges of the photo taken with the 10mm. Just something to be aware of.

 

[fmw]

with all due respect I don't think you are ready for another lens because you obviously don't know what you need and why. Spend some time doing photography instead of equipment shopping. In time you will know what you should buy without any outside influence.

 

[robbins.photo]

with all due respect I don't think you are ready for another lens because you obviously don't know what you need and why. Spend some time doing photography instead of equipment shopping. In time you will know what you should buy without any outside influence.

Right..because coming to a photography forum and asking questions about what lenses other people use for landscapes and why is just silly....

Umm.. ok, no actually now that I think about it that actually sounds like a pretty good idea. Its like.. doing research.... or something.

Huh.

Never mind OP - carry on...

 

[lj4bes]

with all due respect I don't think you are ready for another lens because you obviously don't know what you need and why. Spend some time doing photography instead of equipment shopping. In time you will know what you should buy without any outside influence.

Wow, and I thought this was the place to come and get some more insight and suggestions, hence that's why it's a photography forum.. and you're right I don't know what I want, I got a lens for Christmas the same one as i already have, so I've been researching online what to get when I return it, also thought I'd get some opinions here.. but thanks for yours.., with all due respect

 

[fmw]

with all due respect I don't think you are ready for another lens because you obviously don't know what you need and why. Spend some time doing photography instead of equipment shopping. In time you will know what you should buy without any outside influence.

Wow, and I thought this was the place to come and get some more insight and suggestions, hence that's why it's a photography forum.. and you're right I don't know what I want, I got a lens for Christmas the same one as i already have, so I've been researching online what to get when I return it, also thought I'd get some opinions here.. but thanks for yours.., with all due respect

You're welcome.