Landscape Lens

[mdaddyrabbit]

What lens or lenses do you guys use for those great landscape shots I see up here?

[Toogy]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5

[Sam]

I am looking into the Canon 17-40 L. It's not the widest but it is sub $700 and I have seen some pretty nice images taken with it.

[Dchemist]

I, too, would suggest the 17-40L. Its fast and sharp and a reasonable price.

[Hellashot]

Sigma 12-24 for film or digital $550 at www.digitalfotoclub.com

[cactusclay]

Another vote for the 17-40

[ssim]

I have the 16-35 f/2.8 L. It is incredibly sharp and fast. While it is expensive I have not regretted the purchase at all. The 17-40 is also good from what I have seen but I have not had the opportunity to use one.

[raylks]

Highly recommend 17-40mm L. Fast focus and sharp image.
I would also recommend 10-22mm if you need true wide-angle lens.

[psk4363]

For landscapes you don't need the speed of a fast lens like the 16-35L f2.8 because to get the best shots you would be using a good tripod.

I bought the 17-40L f4 15 months ago and was extremely impressed with its edge-to-edge sharpness which surpassed any of the Sigma wide-angle lenses at the time (I only upgraded to the 16-35L f2.8 when my shooting priorities changed). Remember that on most DSLR's the 'multiplication' factor actually means that you are only seeing the central part of the image (compared to its full-frame on the top-end DSLRs or film cameras) and on most lenses this central part is the sharpest area - most lenses soften as you go further out to the edge. Not so with the 17-40L!

The lens is the image taking part of any body & lens combo, the body is the recording device. So, if you're going to invest in a full-frame (D)SLR in the future you should aim for the best lens which meets your needs and for landscapes that must include edge-to-edge sharpness.

Just my two pence/cents worth.

Barry

[cmM]

17-40 over here too (for all my wide angle work, even though I haven't taken many landscapes lately).

[mdaddyrabbit]

Someone tell me beyond the quality of the 17-40mm what is the advantage of havine the 17-40mm over the kit lenses that came with the 20d which is the 18-55mm?

[foxbat]

Bang for buck the 17-40 must be the best buy. I don't think I'd want to be spending time in PS correcting the distorted perspective of the 10-22 @10mm when photographing a landscape. OTOH for architecture that might be exactly the effect you want.

[psk4363]

Spot on Foxbat!

Barry

[lomond]

Bang for buck the 17-40 must be the best buy. I don't think I'd want to be spending time in PS correcting the distorted perspective of the 10-22 @10mm when photographing a landscape. OTOH for architecture that might be exactly the effect you want.

I use, and like, the 17-40L and agree with you bang for buck it's a great buy.
I still have to straighten the verticals and correct barrel distortion at 17 mm however.

Best bang for buck has to be the 50 1.8 .........yes / no. :?

[mdaddyrabbit]

But what I dont understand is, lets say you have the 18-55mm and as these members all say the 17-40mm is the best what would be the difference in the lenses. I see that the 17 is one point lower than the 18 and the 40 is 15 points of focus below the 55, but will the shooting of the 17-40mm be a major step above the 18-55mm.I see that the lenses in size are so simular I cant understand the advantage of one over the other. Some one please educate me and get me pointed in the right direction please.

[lomond]

But what I dont understand is, lets say you have the 18-55mm and as these members all say the 17-40mm is the best what would be the difference in the lenses. I see that the 17 is one point lower than the 18 and the 40 is 15 points of focus below the 55, but will the shooting of the 17-40mm be a major step above the 18-55mm.I see that the lenses in size are so simular I cant understand the advantage of one over the other. Some one please educate me and get me pointed in the right direction please.

Fundamentally it's the quality of the optics and the build quality of the lens.
In the end you get what you pay for.
In general. So the theory goes. :?

[mdaddyrabbit]

If you rated the 17-40mm to the 18-55mm what percentage of quality does the 17 have over the 18-55mm?

[lomond]

If you rated the 17-40mm to the 18-55mm what percentage of quality does the 17 have over the 18-55mm?

Quite a lot.
It's too late for me to search, but it's there if you take the time to look.
Have a Google.

[Avalonthas]

I would support opinions on the Canon 17-40 L. Good lens

[ScottE]

I use a 17-40 on a 20D camera and find that it does not go quite wide enough to be called a great landscape lens.

I am waiting for the new Sigma 10-20 lens to become available so I can compare it to the Canon 10-22 to decide which will be my new landscape lens.

Scott

[WestFalcon]

I just got a Tokina 12-24 ( F4 ) and really like the lens. This lens is really getting some positive reviews on FM forum. My initial pictures with it are gorgeous. It is sharp and well built. This is going to make a superb landscape lens and it is $499. I have the 17-40 L Canon(and love it) but this lens is significantly wider.

[RichardtheSane]

If you rated the 17-40mm to the 18-55mm what percentage of quality does the 17 have over the 18-55mm?

Handle the two lenses, you will feel the difference in quality
Shoot with the two lenses, you will see the difference in quality
The 17-40 is sharp from F4, the 18-55 is sharp from F8-F11, than only acceptably sharp.

[Lesmac]

I'll definitely go with the flow on this, 17-40mm F4L is the way to go.
Although if you use it on a full frame camera, you need to be careful on choice of filters, medium thickness filters cause vignetting.
Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/