Landscape Lens

[GIrven]

I'm just wanting to get the last couple of items for my kit bag. I'm planning a trip to Scotland to do a Landscape course in Sky and need a lens that will do the job. As this will be a lens that will not be used that often it still needs to cut the mustard.

I have Canon, Sigma & Tamron lenses already so I'm after the best bang for my buck rather than a branded model.

Camera is a EOS 300D soon to be a 20D.

Was considering this one Sigma Lens for Canon EF - 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG HSM (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_4_409_40911&products_id=99510&PHPSESSID=a3d4d60495d8fdcdab15ea5907bf0ca3)

May have an option on a Canon 17- 40L so tempted but need to be sure???

[Andy_T]

Of course, the 17-40 immediately comes to mind, but it has its price, as you know.

What about the Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro (350 $?)

Other than that, the Russian (M42, so it's only manual) Zenitar 16 mm Fisheye might be an option (150 $ new).

Even cheaper ... at f/5.6, my 18-55 kit lens takes quite decent photos... but maybe you have that and are not happy with it.

Best regards,
Andy

[lomond]

I have the 17-40L and can't fault it for landscapes. However the Sigma is half the price of the Canon on Warehouse Express ( £280 against £560).
If you don't intend using the lens that much I would go for the Sigma.
It has an 82mm thread as opposed to a 77mm thread on the Canon, so filters will be a bit more expensive (eg Circ polarisers, UV etc). The Cokin P series of filters goes up to 82mm max. On the 300D and the 20D vignetting shouldn't be a problem with the Cokin (although flaring might).

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

OK for general purposes 17-40 but why do not buy some primes e.g 20, 28, 35, 50, 85

http://www.dziechciarz.art.pl (http://www.dziechciarz.art.pl/):)

[lomond]

OK for general purposes 17-40 but why do not buy some primes e.g 20, 28, 35, 50, 85

http://www.dziechciarz.art.pl (http://www.dziechciarz.art.pl/):)

Perhaps because he says "As this will be a lens that will not be used that often", so something versatile might be a better choice.
Also it's for lanscape work and with the 1.6 factor most of the above primes are non starters.

[Lesmac]

Please. please go for the Canon 17-40L. I had the sigma 17-35mm f 2.8, and while the glass wasn't so bad, it just could not put up with the punishment entailed in landscape photography (bouncing around the Yorkshire Dales mainly), I had to send it back to Sigma twice for reapair.
I now have the 17-40L, and is built like the proverbial brick s...t house, clean and clear over all apertures. A dream of a wide angle.
Buy this you won't regret it.
Some samples in my gallery with this lens

Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[mdr]

Go for the 17-40mm L lens. I got it for £499 from 7dayshop on Guernsey incl. UK taxes. You may be able to get it even cheaper from them since you're in Guernsey yourself.

[DaveG]

I'm just wanting to get the last couple of items for my kit bag. I'm planning a trip to Scotland to do a Landscape course in Sky and need a lens that will do the job. As this will be a lens that will not be used that often it still needs to cut the mustard.

I have Canon, Sigma & Tamron lenses already so I'm after the best bang for my buck rather than a branded model.

Camera is a EOS 300D soon to be a 20D.

Was considering this one Sigma Lens for Canon EF - 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG HSM (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_4_409_40911&products_id=99510&PHPSESSID=a3d4d60495d8fdcdab15ea5907bf0ca3)

May have an option on a Canon 17- 40L so tempted but need to be sure???


Not to beat this around much more, but I'd like to point out, once again, that ANY lens is a landscape lens. It just means that it gets used for shooting landscapes.

Within that use I may want to use a long lens - 200mm - to compress the compositon in order, say, to make the mountains large. If I use a "landscape" wide angle then the mountains are diminished. If I want to photograph a flower in an alpine meadow perhaps I'll use a super wide angle, put the flower in the foreground and have the mountains in the background framing the composition. Both of those shots are landscapes and both require the opposite focal lengths to match what I have in my head.

What you are looking for is a wide angle, NOT a landscape lens, and that's an important lens to add to your collection. Once you have a few lenses then you get to select the tool that will do the job. A lot of people are suggesting the 17-40 and that's be a great lens as long as speed isn't critical, and it probably isn't. You might even want to have a look at the 10-22. But keep an open mind about the landscapes you are about to shoot, and what you need to get what in your mind's eye.

[mdr]

I agree with Dave, there is no landscape lens. If you had said a wide angle for taking landscapes, that would have saved Dave an hour typing his epic http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif.

... what in your mind's eye.
... to quote the famous lanscape photographer Charlie Waite http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif.

You can't beat the 17-40mm L for a wide angle landscape lens, as speed is not of the essence because of using a tripod most of the time to get the greatest depth of field out of your lens. Unless, of course you need a super wide angle.

[cmM]

Perhaps because he says "As this will be a lens that will not be used that often", so something versatile might be a better choice.
Also it's for lanscape work and with the 1.6 factor most of the above primes are non starters.

What does focal length have to do with landscape work? Yes, most of the work is wide angle, but not all of it. My last landscape shot was taken with the 50mm f/1.8

[lomond]

Geez, lets not be pedantic about this.
The guy is looking for a lens to shoot landscapes. He mentioned 17-35 and 17-40 so we're talking wide angle.
Yes I could shoot landscapes with my 100-400 but 99.9% of the time I'll use my 17-40.
He has a 28-135, 70-300 and 90 prime at his disposal, I took the time to check his website, so he's looking for wide angle.
The fact he used landscape lens as his title instead of wide angle may be imprecise but I got the picture, so to speak. ( excuse the pun )

[lomond]

What does focal length have to do with landscape work? Yes, most of the work is wide angle, but not all of it. My last landscape shot was taken with the 50mm f/1.8

See above.

[cmM]

lomond, someone mentioned primes to which you replied :
Also it's for lanscape work and with the 1.6 factor most of the above primes are non starters..
I was simply implying that those primes can be used for landscape, to clear the common confusion.

[lomond]

OK. I take your point.
Yes, of course they can be used for landscapes, and it was wrong of me to suggest otherwise.
I stand corrected. :o:

[mdr]

7dayshop has just dropped the prices of all their Canon lenses. The 17-40mm L lens is now only £469.

[DaveG]

I agree with Dave, there is no landscape lens. If you had said a wide angle for taking landscapes, that would have saved Dave an hour typing his epic http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif.


... to quote the famous lanscape photographer Charlie Waite http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif.

You can't beat the 17-40mm L for a wide angle landscape lens, as speed is not of the essence because of using a tripod most of the time to get the greatest depth of field out of your lens. Unless, of course you need a super wide angle.


If you use the phrase "landscape lens" to mean wide angle then you've pigeon holded your shooting. My point wasn't the pedantic definition of landscape lens, but that it's important to let go of the mind-set that says that a landscape len MUST equal wide angle.

By the way if I poached a quotation from Charlie Waite it was inadvertant, especially since I've never heard of him. But I do think that neither he nor I would have been the first to use those words.

[mdr]

Check out the book 'In my mind's eye' by Charlie Waite, and discover one of world's great landscape photographers.

[GIrven]

Such a great debate peeps. Glad it got you all posting your opinions and giving me your informed choice. I warming to the 17-40L as its give me other options for use other than landscape. It has to be said that this is a quality lens of the highest standard produced by Canon. You get what you pay for I guess. Us locals have a real issue with 7-Day at the moment. They refuse to remove the VAT for locals as we don't pay VAT here in the Channel Islands, but that's not for this thread.

Some great images there Les, really are the type of image that I would like to get with this lens, so thanks for that. Also thanks to those that took the time to look at my site. It's new like me but I have one or two images that I'm proud off. Considering I bought my first SLR in June I can't grumble :D

[mdr]

You can see another picture showing the sharpness of Canon L glass using the 20D/17-40mm L in very low light on www.marcderidder.com.

[Ballen Photo]

I'm just wanting to get the last couple of items for my kit bag. I'm planning a trip to Scotland to do a Landscape course in Sky and need a lens that will do the job. As this will be a lens that will not be used that often it still needs to cut the mustard.

I have Canon, Sigma & Tamron lenses already so I'm after the best bang for my buck rather than a branded model.

Camera is a EOS 300D soon to be a 20D.

Was considering this one Sigma Lens for Canon EF - 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG HSM (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_4_409_40911&products_id=99510&PHPSESSID=a3d4d60495d8fdcdab15ea5907bf0ca3)

May have an option on a Canon 17- 40L so tempted but need to be sure???

I've got the Sigma 17-35 F2.8-4 EX lens that you mention, and love it.
Now here's the problem, I bought mine from a local camera shop and had the option of returning it in the case of problems with it. I have heard of some folks having trouble with their copy of this lens. It would be ideal if you can walk in with your camera and try it out first hand before buying. Check the return policy of the online store before you buy.
-Bruce

[CyberDyneSystems]

I tried this lens out when I was in my "Sigma phase" (17-35mm) and looking for a wide angle zoom.

I did not like it at all...

FYI,. this lens was NOT and "EX" when I tried it out... and I do not know whether it's change in name is a result of actual physical changes to the lens,. or if it,. like a few other Sigma lenses ,.. was merely "bumped up to EX status" fairly randomly as a marketing excercise.

I also looked at the 15-30mm which at the time WAS rated an EX...

I found it better,. but still was not satisfied.

Eventually I decided on the 17-40mm which ended up being my first L,.. and well,. I love the lens .. but beware! Getting your first L is dangerous! ;)

[GIrven]

Well I bought the 17-40L after good consideration and opinions posted here. I've not used it yet and hope to get out over the weekend and give it a good test. Am I right in saying this is top notch kit you can buy? If so why? I just want to make sure when I tell people that this is what the professional use I will it least understand why :D

[mdr]

It's all about the red stripe :D .

I got myself a EW83DII lens hood (meant for the 24mm f1.4 L) for it as this give more protection for flare than the one that comes with the lens itself. It doesn't vignette due to the 20D's 1.6 factor, although it would on full frame.

[DaveG]

Well I bought the 17-40L after good consideration and opinions posted here. I've not used it yet and hope to get out over the weekend and give it a good test. Am I right in saying this is top notch kit you can buy? If so why? I just want to make sure when I tell people that this is what the professional use I will it least understand why :D

Well it built to the Canon L standard, and that standard is very high. It's robust and should have much longer life than the non L lenses, and those lenses aren't telecrappers either! Optically I don't really think that there's too much difference between the quality of new L lens and a new Canon EF lens (excepting the low end kit and kit-like stuff). But that's today. Come back in five years and see which one performs better the L or the EF. Most professional photographers who use Canon will be using and be very happy with any L lenses that they have.

Oh, buy a good quality UV filter for the new lens. I use the Canon 77mm filter on my 16-35 f2.8 L and it's been great. You need something to protect that front element.

[mdr]

I got the Hoya Pro1 UV for mine.

[DaveG]

I got myself a EW83DII lens hood (meant for the 24mm f1.4 L) for it as this give more protection for flare than the one that comes with the lens itself. It doesn't vignette due to the 20D's 1.6 factor, although it would on full frame.

You'd be surprised about that. I put the lens hood from my 70-200 f2.8L on my 16-35 and it only vignetted when I got down to about 21 or 22mm! This was on a 20D of course but I doubt that the lens hood that you mentioned would vignette at all on a full frame camera! A lens hood of some kind is better than nothing, but the ones that are lens specific are usually too short to be really useful.

[GIrven]

I've bought a sky filter with the lens, at a special price. It comes with a canon hood and bag. Very please with the lens the early signs are good.

[paulhillion]

Sorry Glen but I've changed my mind again.......only joking ;-) I guess I should remove it from my signature eh!

[DaveG]

I've bought a sky filter with the lens, at a special price. It comes with a canon hood and bag. Very please with the lens the early signs are good.

What kind of filter is it? Not all are the same.

I had a Nikkor 300 mm f4.5 once and I could tell the difference between shots taken with it and my Nikkor 180 ED lens by glancing at the negs, as there was such a difference in contrast. I just thought that it was the difference between ED glass and the regular stuff.

Then for whatever reason I took the cheap UV filter off of the 300 and the negs picked up a grade of Polycontrast filtration. If you have ever printed black and white film you'll know what I mean. Anyway I bought a new Nikon L37C filter (a UV filter in anything but Nikon speak) and everything remained good.

The bad filter by the way looked pristine. It wasn't scratched and didn't seem to have any visable defects. If you just bought an "inexpensive" filter do some shots with your new filter and then some without. Just check to make sure that it's OK.

[Tom W]

Eventually I decided on the 17-40mm which ended up being my first L,.. and well,. I love the lens .. but beware! Getting your first L is dangerous! ;)

Coincidentally, the 17-40 was also my first "L" lens. And I agree that it can be dangerous. :)