Hopefully Last Landscape Lens Question!!

[garyhun]

Was just going to go and buy the 20D with the 17-40 f/4 L when someone tells me that the EF-S 10-22mm f/4.-5.6 USM would be better for landscapes!!!!!

Commnts/help/guidance/slap round face - needed!!!!!

[blue_max]

You are in luck, there are a few wide angle threads going on at the moment that have everything you need to know.

Not everybody has the same idea of landscape – it's a general term, so each person will have their preferred lens. If you dig around, you should be able to find some samples of each and that will give you an idea of what is possible with each lens. Basically, it comes down to how wide do you want to go – and will you have other lenses to take over when it runs out.

Graham

[foxbat]

Basically, it comes down to how wide do you want to go – and will you have other lenses to take over when it runs outThat's very true. Some of the most impressive landscape shots I've seen have been with a 35mm lens. Composition was the most important thing.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Well, think about this, the 10-22 has some pretty noticable distortion between the 10 and 14mm range. Now, a lot of people like this because it adds a very cool, unique, artistic look and feel to the photo, but there are others who hate this. If your the kind of person who wouldn't like that sort of affect, you'd be completely wasting your money in buying it. There'd only be a 3mm difference on the wide end, and a 18mm loss on the longer end. I'm not sure what your doing, but to me 17mm even on a 20D is more than wide enough! Plus, that lens is 150 bucks more! For what? 7mm? Still lose 18 on the long! I don't think it's a very versitile lens, and if it's your first, I think you'd be better off with the 17-40mm L Just my opinion.

Like blue said, there are plenty of other threads going on about this. Check a few out.

[mdr]

I fully agree. Landscape doesn't mean ultra wide is best. I find that my 17-40mm f4 L and 70-200mm f4 L lenses combo suit me extremely well for landscapes. Yes, I use my 70-200mm f4 L lens quite regular for landscapes, and not just at the 70mm end. Composition and detail is key.

For the wider panorama landscapes, I take a sequence off shots and stitch them together using dedicated software. This gives much better quality an ultra wide angle shot cropped to letterbox format.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Exactly mdr! And also I've seen test results showing that the 17-40L is even sharper and more flare resistant than the 16-35 at the super wide angle end (17-20). So, it really is a superior, fantastic lens.

Unless your going to get the 10-22 and 24-70L combo. The 10-22 would be such a waste. DEFINATELY don't get it as your starter lens though! If your going for that combo, get the 24-70 first, or both together.

Just my opinion, again.

[mdr]

The 16-35mm would be a waste of your money. For cracking landscapes you need to use a tripod to maximise depth of field, so the extra stop is of no use. I would recommend starting with the 17-40mm f4 L or 24-70mm f2.8 L. I choose the first, and I don't regret it. I have the 24-70mm f2.8 L on my shopping list, although I expect to use it more with my EOS 3 for Velvia colour and Scala B&W slides, than with my 20D.

[garyhun]

Thank you knowledgeable and helpful people!! I'm going for the 17-40L now and the 70-200 later.

Just one lens to start with better too as I can focus (excuse the pun!) on really getting to know it and the 20D.

Gary

[rdenney]

Well, think about this, the 10-22 has some pretty noticable distortion between the 10 and 14mm range.

What kind of distortion? Barrel? All Canon wide-angle zooms seem to have some barrel distortion at the wide end.

I gravitate to compositions that challenge the normal perspective, and that often leads me to ultra-wides and even fisheye lenses for my landscape photographs. But, as with all things, those choices have to serve your artistic intent.

I have a Canon 20-35 that I bought as a walking-around lens. It's not as wide as the 17, of course, but it was grossly not wide enough for my purposes. Fortunately, I had a 14mm rectilinear wide lens and a 16mm fisheye to go along with it, and I used those when I wanted more wide. But when the Sigma EX 12-24 came out (my 10D won't accept the 10-22 and even if it did it wasn't available at the time), I bought it and for many types of work it's my new default lens. On the 10D, it gives me a range of 0.42 times normal to 0.86 times normal, which in 24x36 format would be served by an 18-35. And, sure enough, that was my walk-around wide zoom when I shot film (that lens would not work on the 10D and it wasn't good enough to be worth getting it rechipped). Thus, the 12-24 matched what I had already established as my own way of seeing landscapes--I just had to wait for someone to make a decent one.

The 17-40 and the 10-22 are so different in their coverage that they each demand a way of seeing the photographs that is different from the other. Thus, recommendations are based on the wrong things--the way others see their own work.

Rather than change the way you see images to fit someone else's idea of a good lens, you should buy the lens that lets you see images your way. If you don't have those visualization skills, then I would not make long-term buying decisions just yet. I might even consider getting a cheapie 18-35, use it for a few months, and then sell it on ebay when you have a better idea of what you need. Phoenix sells one in that range for under $150, and you'll get at least half that when you sell it. Even if you lost $75, that's a might inexpensive way to test your needs before committing to a lens closer to a grand in cost.

Rick "who thinks too many people buy lenses out of momentum rather than purpose" Denney

[garyhun]

Rick


Very wise words! Obviously I'm confused even further, but hey!!! It's a shame I can't borrow both lenses to see what my way of taking landscapes will be.

[Jon]

Well, what do you use now? I gather this will be your first DSLR, but do you shoot film now, or P&S digital? Any Canon EF lenses already? You might consider getting the 20D with kit lens and the 10-22 (either right away or later). The kit lens won't be as good as the 17-40, obviously, but it'll give you a feel for that f. l. range. Then you can decide if it's worth getting the 17-40, or if you really want w i d e r like the 10-22.

[garyhun]

OK.....Question. Can you tell the type of lens used here?


http://www.thelensflare.com/large/dunesea_125.jpg
This is the way I view landscapes so interested as to what lens would achieve this. Or could it be any lens after being photoshopped??

[Jon]

I'd suspect either a panorama stitch or a very carefully-framed fisheye (post-cropping).

[mdr]

I would take three or four shots with my 17-40mm or 70-200mm depending on how far away the view is, and then stitch the files together (in PanoStitcher, not in PS), resulting in a 2336x6791 image.

Alternatively, crop one single shot with a 10-22mm lens, resulting in 1205x3504 image. Result is the same at this size, but when you print it at 300dpi, the first gives you a much, much bigger print.

To me it's a no brainer.

[rdenney]

OK.....Question. Can you tell the type of lens used here?


http://www.thelensflare.com/large/dunesea_125.jpg
This is the way I view landscapes so interested as to what lens would achieve this. Or could it be any lens after being photoshopped??

Without a known object in the foreground, or a round object in the corners, it's quite difficult to tell focal length from an image. I don't think this image was made with a fisheye even though fisheyes can be pretty subtle.

What do you think is the focal length for this shot?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/1007-lighthouse-and-clouds-.jpg

Or this one?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/pacific-city-beach-1-loresd.jpg

Both provide a sweeping view of something, but the first was made with a 14mm rectilinear wide and the second with the 35mm end of the 20-35mm zoom. Thus, the second is actually a hair telephoto on the 10D.

But you can tell this image is made with wide angle:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/fort-niagra-moat-lores.jpg

The angles are extreme because of the close camera position and the wide field of view afforded by the 12mm focal length.

Thus, you can probably make an image like your example with a moderate wide like the 17. It depends on the relationship between the foreground and the background.

Here's one more. This one was made with a 45mm lens on medium format, which is about the same as a 16 on a 20D (the square composition makes comparison difficult). This doesn't look particularly wide to me.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/thunder_over_bryce_right_lores.jpg

My point in showing all these pictures is that you don't always have to use a wide to provide a "wide-angle" effect, and often you can get a wide-angle effect with a lens that isn't that wide. It depends on where you stand. That's why you need some experience with your own way of seeing before deciding.

Of course, in my previous post I clean forgot about the 18-55 kit lens. That would be a perfect way to test whether the 17-40L would meet your needs, and it's cheap. If you find yourself banging against the wide end of the zoom range a lot, then you'll have your answer.

Rick "with the reminder that perspective is about where you stand and what you want to see from that spot dictates your focal length" Denney

[rdenney]

I would take three or four shots with my 17-40mm or 70-200mm depending on how far away the view is, and then stitch the files together (in PanoStitcher, not in PS), resulting in a 2336x6791 image.

Alternatively, crop one single shot with a 10-22mm lens, resulting in 1205x3504 image. Result is the same at this size, but when you print it at 300dpi, the first gives you a much, much bigger print.

To me it's a no brainer.

The difference is the projection. PanoStitcher will give you a cylindrical projection rather than the rectilinear projection of an extreme wide. It has a different look.

Rick "agreeing with the rest of it, though" Denney

[azkul]

It's funny what Google finds sometimes...


OK.....Question. Can you tell the type of lens used here?

http://www.thelensflare.com/gallery/p_dunesea_125.php
This is the way I view landscapes so interested as to what lens would achieve this. Or could it be any lens after being photoshopped??


I shot this picture a long time ago on a point and shoot 3.1mp digital camera. I used photoshop to crop the top and bottom portions of the image to give it a nice panoramic effect; however, that's all it is.

[JimAskew]

Hi,

If you are sticking with your decision to purchase the 20D camera body (1.6 crop factor) then the 10-22MM Canon EF-S will work just fine for landscapes. It is true that the closer to your subject the more distortion of the image you will see. But, depending on the subject matter (kids for instance) this can be a positive feature. As landscapes are usually shot at some distance then the distortion will not be a significant factor IMHO.

For the most part, the folks who are recommending the Canon WA "L" lenses are using FF camera bodies and on the FF the WA "L" lenses are truely WA.

I recommend you search here on POTN and also pBase.com to see photos taken with various combos of WA lenses and Canon's crop bodies v. FF bodies. Base your decision on what you find in your research compared to your personal taste and requirements.