20D which lens for landscape photoghraphy?

[Nikki]

I am about to buy a Canon EOS 20D, 8.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera with Canon 18-55mm "USM" Lens.

Is the lens that comes in the kit any good for lanscape photography?
or should I consider buying an additional lens?

The two lenses I have been looking at are:
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF-S 10 - 22 mm USM

I can just about afford one of these lenses but I am torn as to which is the better lens.I have spent hours trying to find a comparision (without any success) can anyboby give me some advice? do you use these lenses and how good are they?
I would welcome any help you can give.

Thanks

[iwatkins]

Nikki,

I cannot advise on those specific lenses as i don't have either.

However, I do do a lot of landscape photography with my 10D (same size sensor). At first I was using a Sigma 17-40 lens which was OK, but wanted wider so went with the Sigma 12-24. Even with both lenses, the majority of my shots are in the 12 - 25mm range, hence use the Sigma 12-24 most of the time.

Personally, out of the above, I would go for the 10-22mm as you will want the wide end if you are doing landscape work.

Oh, and welcome to the forum. :D

Cheers

Ian

[pcasciola]

At least with your 18-55mm kit lens you can get out there an see if 18mm will be wide enough for your needs, in which case you can look at maybe upgrading to a Tokina 17mm and/or Tamron 17-35mm Di which rivals the 17-40L. I personally like what the 10-22mm can do, but it's a very specialized lens and there are tradeoffs. It will most likely not perform as well in the 17-22mm range as the 17-35mm Tamron or 17-40L, but it will allow you to go super wide which neither of the other two lenses can do. The other other drawback is that it will only currently fit a 20D or Digital Rebel because of the EF-S mount. The Sigma 12-24mm is close to the range of the Canon and will fit any EF mount camera, but in my opinion the 10-22mm is slightly superior to the Sigma.

Here's a comparison done not that long ago by a POTN member, where the 10-22mm did pretty well up against Canon's 24mm f/1.4L prime, especially in terms of lens flare which is very important for landscape photography:

http://homepage.mac.com/djtowle/PhotoAlbum97.html

And here is a recent comparison of the 10-22mm vs the Sigma 12-24mm:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

Hope this helps, and welcome to the forum.

[eric1]

like Ian said, depends how wide you need. i use the 17-40, it's plenty for me on the 20D. with all wide angles, there's some distortion. i don't know about the 10-22, but there is some with the 17-40. this is most visible when shooting tall buildings (they will bend somewhat). much less visible for wildlife scapes. the 50 1.4 and1.8 make wonderfull landscape shots if you don't need wide. i've seen some naturescapes with the 70-200 that were nothing short if spectacular. you don't always need wide. it's all about composition, and patience. hope this helps.

[eric1]

here's a shot exibiting distortion at 17mm, taken with the 17-40. you can fix this in photoshop. you can expect more distortion from a 10mm lens. if you can only buy one lens the 17-40 is a more usable range. that being said, i would use the kit lens and buy a 70- 200f4 if i were you, but thats just me, and your needs may differ.

http://www.pbase.com/ericm/image/28808652

[Nikki]

Thanks for taking the time to reply I have found your replies very useful

The canon 70-200 would be nice but is a little out of my price range at the moment and I do have a Tamron AF 70-300 1:4-5.6 LD tele-macro(1:2) which i used with my rebel(sorry I should have mentioned that) which would do for the time being. So if I purchase the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM then that should give me a good range with just the two lenses.

Thanks again

[cmM]

For landscape photography, you'll most likely be in f/8 - f/22 range to get the most depth of field. At these apertures the difference in lens quality becomes smaller. I have both the 18-55 and the 17-40L and I found the difference in image quality to be quite small. The 17-40 exels in other areas such as build, AF speed, etc, but if you don't mind all that the 18-55 will do fine for landscape work.
Or if 18mm is not wide enough, you can go for the Sigma 15-30 or 12-24. I don't own either, so I can't really give you an opinion on those.

[cmM]

here's a comparisson between the 2
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40547

(the small images are no longer there, but the full resolution JPGs are still there)

[Nikki]

There isn't really that much difference that I can see.

I think I might just purchase the 20D body & the 17-40L would that work as my main lens? I don't think that I need a wider lens than that although could find out later that I do( isn't that normally what happens) but could then go with 3rd party lens if I had to.

I know that the canon costs more but in the long run I think it would have a better resell value should I ever want to get rid of it.

[DaveG]

I am about to buy a Canon EOS 20D, 8.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera with Canon 18-55mm "USM" Lens.

Is the lens that comes in the kit any good for lanscape photography?
or should I consider buying an additional lens?

The two lenses I have been looking at are:
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF-S 10 - 22 mm USM

I can just about afford one of these lenses but I am torn as to which is the better lens.I have spent hours trying to find a comparision (without any success) can anyboby give me some advice? do you use these lenses and how good are they?
I would welcome any help you can give.

Thanks

I say this often, but it's worth saying again I think: ALL LENSES ARE LANDSCAPE LENSES!!!! The example I use is a landscape in the mountains. If you use a wide angle then you diminish the huge mountains, and that's probably not what you want. If you use a telephoto you compress the composition and make the mountains look even more impressive. Or you can use a super wide angle, put a flower in the foreground and have the mountains behind. All of those shots are landscapes and all require different approaches and lenses.

Now if you are looking for a wide angle zoom (which is what you really mean) I'd see if the store would give me some credit and NOT buy the kits lens. Then I'd buy the 17-40. It's an L lens, the build quality is going to be much better, and it can be used on any Canon camera not just the DRebel and the 20D. I love super wide angles and just bought a 10-22, but the 17-40 is probably a better general use lens to start with.

[Lesmac]

There is another consideration, I have experience of using sigma lenses for landscapes (17-35mm), and although they are reasonably good glass, they are not very robust. I trek the Yorkshire Dales, and found they couldn't handle this abuse.
However I've had a canon 17-40 F4L for over a year, and is built like a proverbial brick s...t house, a peach of a lens, sharp across all apertures.
I found it wide enough on my 10D for most situations, and was the lens that stayed on my camera for most landscape shots.
Some examples of landscapes taken with this lens in my gallery.
Regards

Les

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[Nikki]

Something I have to ask about these lenses is what is the f4 etc in the lens description? I've looked at several lenses with different f- numbers,I know I probably look stupid just asking but well I'm pretty new to all this and you guys seem to know what your talking about do these make a big difference in a lens?

David thanks for for your input nice to know my decision if I decide not to go ultra wide will not prevent me from taking landscapes.

oh and Les Wow! that is some nice photography and I'm assuming that the smallest lens you used was 17mm? would that be right?

[DaveG]

Something I have to ask about these lenses is what is the f4 etc in the lens description? I've looked at several lenses with different f- numbers,I know I probably look stupid just asking but well I'm pretty new to all this and you guys seem to know what your talking about do these make a big difference in a lens?



The smaller the f number cited the more light "gets through" the lens. Inside your lens is a device - the diaphagm - that opens and closes and lets in more or less light by making a hole bigger or smaller. That hole is called the aperture.

Your lens will have apertures that can go from f2 .. f2.8 .. f4 .. f5.6 .. f8 .. f11 .. f16 and so forth. If it's an f4 lens there will be no f2.8 or f2. The reason that the SMALLER number indicates the bigger hole is that they really should be written as ratios (1:2, 1:2.8, 1:4 and so forth) but there isn't enough room.

The 17-40 f4 costs about $670 US, the 16-35 f2.8 is $1330. It's one millemetre wider (insignificant) but one stop faster, and that's what you pay for, that one stop. One stop means that you get to use one stop more shutterspeed to help freeze action; or one stop lower ISO to lower image noise.

Along with letting in more or less light the aperture also affects depth of field. When the camera is focused on something there is a point that is in true focus. But a little bit behind and in front of that point is in focus as well. The depth of that plane of "in focus" is called depth of field and the depth can be increased by making the aperture hole smaller (f number higher). If I'm shooting sports I don't care about depth of field and will use a wide aperture (f2, f2.8 ) in orderr to use a faster shutterspeed. But if I'm shooting a class shot with three rows then I do care about the depth and will use f8 or f11 in order to have all three rows sharp.

A little kid sitting in the front row of a classroom squints. He's near sighted and he (unknowingly) is creating a smaller aperture (to increase the depth of field) so he can see better. If you are near sighted remove your glasses, take a belt, put it to your eyes and look through the buckle holes. You will see better. You too have increased the depth of field.

You need to learn about the relationship between aperture, shutterspeed and ISO. That inter-relationship IS photography. It's not tough, but it is dry, so start reading.

[pehabe]

lesmac... you have a stunning gallery right there...
Did you post process those pictures or direct from the 'oven'?

[Lesmac]

Ho Pehabe

All my images are generally post processed, files from 10D (and 1DS MKII) I find are generally flat and lifeless from the camera,. My workflow differs for each image, and I'm finding 1ds files are a different workflow than 10D.
I tend to use what's available in PS, but do use Niks Color effects pro, particularly the 'skylight filter' to warm my images up.
I do like being able to shoot in RAW +small jpeg, it means I can whiz through the jpegs on computer, and cherry pick the Raw files for processing.

Les