Hi Roy. I have a question: what lenses do you have now?
And also an answer: until you try a really wide lens for landscapes, you don't know what you are missing. I was completely blown away when I first got a wide lens (Canon EF-S 10-22 for me, but there are several others in the same general 10 or 12mm to 20-something class). It is just so versatile and even now that the initial gloss has worn off, I still find it a joy to use. If I had to have just one lens for landscape work, that would be the one. (On a 5D or a film camera, of course, it would be the equivalent models: 16-35L and 17-40L. But I have a 20D which is essentally the same as your 350D.) If you plan to switch to a 5D anytime soon, then perhaps the 17-40 would be a better bet.
Maybe your style will differ, but I find that I use the 10-22 for around half of my landscapes, maybe a little more. I use the 18-55 and the 60mm macro about equally (i.e., around a quarter of the landscape shots I take).
I know that people always say that 50mm on a 35mm format (around 30mm on a 350D) is the "ideal length" but I don't buy that. For me, it's often a bit of an in-between length, offering neither the sweeping scope of a wide angle, nor the ability to highlight detail that a mild tele length gives (around 60mm on a 350D, or roughly 90mm in 35mm terms).
I've had the 10-22 since about Christmas time, and I'm still in love with what it does, and I've only scratched the surface of what it can do. I don't think that feeling will ever wear off. If you want that "being there" feel, then wide angle isn't everything, it's the only thing.
|