Lanscape lens advice

[Roy C]

I am looking for a lens to shoot landscapes/villages on my 350d. Initial thoughts are the 17-40 L (27-64 equivalent). Anyone with any thoughts or advice on this or any other lens I should be considering.

[robski]

The 17-40 L is a very good lens but as with the kit lens you may not find it not wide enough for some subjects. If you are prepared to spend this sort of money do look at the Canon 10-22. The only bad thing I hear about it is it is a bit soft at the 22 end.

[Tannin]

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.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Tannin

Hi Roy. I have a question: what lenses do you have now?

At the moment I have 50mm 1.8 , 70-200 f4 L and the Kit lens (plus a few older cheapies) - it is the kit lens that I am looking to upgrade/replace.
Intial thoughts were that the 10-22 would be to wide for my needs (16-35 on 350d) but I have just been reading the reviews of this lens on the Fred Miranda site and must say they are mighty impressive (almost everyone raves about it). This has given my a lot to think about!

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by robski

The 17-40 L is a very good lens but as with the kit lens you may not find it not wide enough for some subjects. If you are prepared to spend this sort of money do look at the Canon 10-22. The only bad thing I hear about it is it is a bit soft at the 22 end.

Thanks for the info Rob. I was impressed with your Speldhurst Village shot - if this was the Sigma 10-22 and you think the Canon is even better, then that could seal it for me.

[Tannin]

Thanks Roy. Actually, I think the kit lens gets more bad press than it deserves. Sure it's a bit ordinary and I plan to replace mine too one day but in reality it still produces perfectly decent images nearly all the time. (And for the price, it's almost a miracle.) Sure, I'd rather have a Canon 17-40L or a Tamron 28-75 or a Sigma 17-70 or perhaps the new Canon 17-55 when it arrives .... but only when I've filled up the holes where I don't have anything at all to do the job. (Not too many left now - a proper macro flash, maybe another macro lens or two, perhaps a TS-E.) What I'm saying, I guess, is that you will probably miss a lot more shots by not having a wide angle than you will gain by having a better equivalent to the kit lens.

By the way, I've never quite worked out what to do with a ... No, I'll start a new thread for that - it's way off topic.

[jammie*dodger]

What about the Sigma 12-24mm lens? There are some very good used deals around if you look.

Rob.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by jammie*dodger

What about the Sigma 12-24mm lens? There are some very good used deals around if you look.

Rob.

Also check out the Tokina 12-24mm lens. I would not normally recommend www.KenRockwell.com, as it is a bit too individual and subjective, but on this occasion I will as he has a very good review of 4 wide angle zooms. Leif

[jseaman]

The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 is a very fine lens. Excellent color and very well built.
Sample photo: http://www.jbs-blog.com/images/offsi...10-05-2311.JPG
It's the side yard of the chapel at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, USA
It's an original full size photo from a Canon 20D using the Tokina lens - it's 3.8 meg in size
1/1000 sec f/7.1 ISO 200 Focal length of 12mm (that's on a 1.6x crop camera body ... so more like 19mm)

I love this lens!

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by jseaman

The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 is a very fine lens. Excellent color and very well built.
Sample photo: http://www.jbs-blog.com/images/offsi...10-05-2311.JPG
It's the side yard of the chapel at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, USA
It's an original full size photo from a Canon 20D using the Tokina lens - it's 3.8 meg in size
1/1000 sec f/7.1 ISO 200 Focal length of 12mm (that's on a 1.6x crop camera body ... so more like 19mm)

I love this lens!

Sample is very impressive Jim, thanks for sharing- gives me even more to think about.