Wide Angle Lens Recommendation?

[amorrison]

Going out west soon and wanted to find a good sharp wide-angle lens for my D60 to do landscapes. Looked at the MTF graphs Canon has but I don't see a lot of difference between the lenses in that range. Have the 28-135 but thought a prime in the 24-35mm category might be sharper. Any particular recommendations? Is the L glass that much better than non-L in that range? It sure is a lot more money! Thanks in Advance.

[nosquare2003]

1. For landscapes, the 28-135 is good especially stopping down.
2. Will it be wide enough for 24-35 x 1.6 crop factor?
3. The 24-35mm prime lenses are better than 28-135 (contrast, sharpness esp. wide open, resistant to flare...)

[Belmondo]

The canon 17-40L has no peers in the price range. The Sigma 12-24 also looks promising; I recently bought one but have not really put it through its paces, so I'll hold my praise for the moment. Initial results look good, though.

[Canuck]

Going out west soon and wanted to find a good sharp wide-angle lens for my D60 to do landscapes. Looked at the MTF graphs Canon has but I don't see a lot of difference between the lenses in that range. Have the 28-135 but thought a prime in the 24-35mm category might be sharper. Any particular recommendations? Is the L glass that much better than non-L in that range? It sure is a lot more money! Thanks in Advance.

L glass glass gives you the less CA but at a cost and yes, you pay a lot more but the results are in the pics. That said, here are a couple of ideas:
Canon 16-35mm F2.8L
Canon 24-70mm F2.8L
I have both and they both are awesome! L glass is one option, or Sigma EX is another way in the value for money area.

[PekkaM]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29253

Here's my thoughts on the older version of Sigma EX 17-35 with some samples. It might suit your needs as it does mine. It's just (at least mine) not very useable under f/4.

[scottbergerphoto]

I use the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L. It is a great lense for landscapes. Many people have been happy with the 17-40 f/4.
http://www.pbase.com/image/20018460/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/20018465.jpg
Scott

[Whaler]

If I could only take one lens to a desert island it would be my 17-40 L. One CD? "Kind of Blue" Miles Davis :D :D

[Cadwell]

Canon EF 17-40 F/4.0L. A fine lens and even a bit of a bargain price wise. At least compared to some of the other Canon "L"s.

[Vegas Poboy]

I enjoy using my 17-40mm for landscapes. I just left Death Valley CA. and there is alot of open range to shoot @ at here is just one of my pics.http://image.pbase.com/u43/vegas_poboy/medium/27741539.EOS10D_1_Sacopy.jpg

This is Ubehebe Crater it's 600' deep from a volcanic explosion more than 3000 years ago.

[Canuck]

I use the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L. It is a great lense for landscapes. Many people have been happy with the 17-40 f/4.
http://www.pbase.com/image/20018460/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/20018465.jpg
Scott

Scott,
Just an observation or 2 or 3...you know about the rule of thirds. Well this isn't it, but it seems to work well, showing depth. You might put a mountain in there in the back to have some fun. I have found usually the 1/2 split pics like the ones above are missing something. However once in awhile we hit it right. That said, I like the way this one worked out.

[scottbergerphoto]

I thought the rule of thirds was:
1/3 of the shots gets tossed before conversion, 1/3 gets tossed after conversion, and 1/3 makes it to post processing :lol:
Regards,
Scott

[Tom W]

I thought the rule of thirds was:
1/3 of the shots gets tossed before conversion, 1/3 gets tossed after conversion, and 1/3 makes it to post processing :lol:
Regards,
Scott

:)
And that may be digital's greatest feature!

[DaveG]

Going out west soon and wanted to find a good sharp wide-angle lens for my D60 to do landscapes. Looked at the MTF graphs Canon has but I don't see a lot of difference between the lenses in that range. Have the 28-135 but thought a prime in the 24-35mm category might be sharper. Any particular recommendations? Is the L glass that much better than non-L in that range? It sure is a lot more money! Thanks in Advance.

Get over the idea that wide angles are "landscape lenses". Any lens is for
landscapes, it just depends on what the landscape is.

Wide angles, especially super wide angles, need something prominent in the
foreground. An example - and I use it a lot - would be something like flowers
close up in an alpine meadow with the mountains in the background. But if you
take the flowers away, look how diminished the mountains are with that wide
angle “landscape lens”.

Without the flowers, a better choice of lenses would be a telephoto, which would
compress the perspective and get rid of the foreground and extra sky. This in
turn makes the mountains larger and more impressive. But both shots are
landscapes.

Now if you are looking for a wide angle that's a different question and the 16-35
or 17-40 would be excellent choices, based on how much money you want to
spend and whether lens speed is important to you. Either one of those lenses
will give you excellent photographic results.

[PhotosGuy]

Get over the idea that wide angles are "landscape lenses". Any lens is for landscapes, it just depends on what the landscape is.
and
...telephoto, which would compress the perspective and get rid of the foreground and extra sky.
So, try both, & don't forget to shoot some with a "normal" setting to PhotoStitch together, too. Then tell us what you think worked the best!

[Tom W]

And, read DaveG's advice a couple of times - its usually very good.

[Canuck]

I thought the rule of thirds was:
1/3 of the shots gets tossed before conversion, 1/3 gets tossed after conversion, and 1/3 makes it to post processing :lol:
Regards,
Scott

I like it and know what you mean! LOL! I know you know what I really meant!

By the way, about larger lenses not being landscape lenses, well this was one of the first few pics taken in Wales of Tenby beach with a Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX lens at 120mm. Here it is: http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2162050&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&no stamp=1

[amorrison]

Just wanted to thank you all for your taking time to respond and for the information. Last time I went out west was over 20 years ago, took Sinar F view camera, tripod, trunk full of 4x5 film holders and 2 Rodenstock lenses. It took about 30 minutes per shot to drag the equipment from the car, set up the tripod, assemble the camera, compose the scene, focus on ground glass back, use hand held magnifier to check focus, meter the light, set the f stop, attach the film holder, remove the dark slide, and make the exposure.... and just about as many steps to pack everything away. I used that equipment for 10 years and sold it for more than I paid for it (not uncommon for view camera equipment either).

Whatever I decide to get, will post some side-by-side crops comparing with 28-135 in case anyone is interested. Thanks again for your help. It's nice to have a place to go to talk photography. Best Wishes.