Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 25 Feb 2010 (Thursday) 04:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Affordable Landscaping Lens

 
the_schwartz
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
Feb 25, 2010 04:55 |  #1

Hey guys, i'm fairly new here. Been reading ALOT on here, and it's nice to know there are is a TON of good info on this site.

I have a canon 30D and dont plan on going full frame, I just like taking nice pictures ! :cool:

i did a search, but it seems that the search function is down, or I havent found any good info on landscaping lens.

I'm looking for a good affordable Landscape Lens. My subject is pretty much cities and nature landscapes. I'm debating if I should use a 10-22mm Lens or ? I've had my 30D for about 2 years now, but want to get into landscape shots.

My budget is anywhere from $300-$500

any help would be appreciated thank you




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Feb 25, 2010 05:07 |  #2

You may have more luck searching for "landscape". Landscaping is what you do with a shovel.

Landscape photography is not particularly demanding on optics. The 18-55 IS would do a decent job, or you can spend a lot more for a 17-40L. If you do want to go wider, there are options from Canon, Tokina, and Sigma that are all good.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the_schwartz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
Feb 25, 2010 05:13 |  #3

Hey Xarqi lol, i just thought about that too lol thank you for correcting me. I was reading about the tokina 11-16, I'm open to all options I can within my budget. Thank you for your reply !




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NinetyEight
"Banned for life"
Avatar
3,206 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 26
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Dorset - England
     
Feb 25, 2010 05:28 |  #4

The 10-22 would be handy in the city and also for general landscapes, although you need interest in the foreground to make it work, particularly at the 10mm end.
I find I use my 17-40L for most landscapes these days,only using the 10-22 if there is a good reason or the main part of interest is in the foreground.

Quality wise you wont go wrong with either, it's just down to how wide you need to go.


Welcome to the forums by the way :-)


Kev

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 163
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Feb 25, 2010 05:35 |  #5

I don't know why in the world so many folks are stuck on the idea that landscape photography requires an ultra-wide-angle lens. Many of use every lens we have for landscape photography from time to time.

I don't even own a single lens that could be labelled as ultra-wide for the bodies I have, and I surely do not feel that my landscape photography suffers because of that.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobn15
Senior Member
Avatar
405 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
     
Feb 25, 2010 05:40 |  #6

SkipD wrote in post #9678921 (external link)
I don't know why in the world so many folks are stuck on the idea that landscape photography requires an ultra-wide-angle lens. Many of use every lens we have for landscape photography from time to time. ...

Correct, the last lens I had on my camera for landscape was 70-200L, can't get much sharper that that.
For UWA shots, I use the sigma 10-20, not too bad and fits in the budget of 300-500 (used).


Flickr (external link)
My Gearhttps://photography-on-the.net …?p=1193134&post​count=1362

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
muusers
Goldmember
Avatar
1,024 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
     
Feb 25, 2010 05:47 |  #7

SkipD wrote in post #9678921 (external link)
I don't know why in the world so many folks are stuck on the idea that landscape photography requires an ultra-wide-angle lens. Many of use every lens we have for landscape photography from time to time.

I don't even own a single lens that could be labelled as ultra-wide for the bodies I have, and I surely do not feel that my landscape photography suffers because of that.

+1.

Personally i seem to be somewhere arround 25-30mm (on 1.6 body) when doing landscapes. I bought an ultrawide because i didnt know then what i know now... I thought UWA's were about 'getting it all in'. Shooting a sunset once learned me how UWA's actually work. I got alot of beach and a little spec of light that was suposed to be my subject, the sun. I like to think of UWA's as 'foreground-lenses'. Everything in the background is VERY VERY small due to the wide FOV, while the foreground is more pronounced in the picture. So poiting an UWA down on dried out desertground, or a small creek delivers awesome pictures... But pointing an UWA at a large view, only smallens everything down.

Although I think that tele-landscapes seem very flat due to perspective compression...


50D + 17-55 | s100 | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the_schwartz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
Feb 25, 2010 06:15 as a reply to  @ muusers's post |  #8

thanks guys for the responses and the welcome. i just did a search and you guys are right. Why does a landscape have to be limited to a 10-22mm lens ? i guess I was looking that I wanted to get the most in a picture, but if I do that everything is alot smaller.

I had a 70-200 L Lens but I sold it a year ago. I thought it was just for subject matter that I wanted to see close up, and never gave it the chance for landscaping.


Hmm, maybe Ill try it out again.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jigglypuff
Member
101 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 25, 2010 09:31 |  #9

I'd say a sturdy, solid tripod would be more important than having a $$$ lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 163
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Feb 25, 2010 10:08 |  #10

the_schwartz wrote in post #9679021 (external link)
thanks guys for the responses and the welcome. i just did a search and you guys are right. Why does a landscape have to be limited to a 10-22mm lens ? i guess I was looking that I wanted to get the most in a picture, but if I do that everything is alot smaller.

I had a 70-200 L Lens but I sold it a year ago. I thought it was just for subject matter that I wanted to see close up, and never gave it the chance for landscaping.

Hmm, maybe Ill try it out again.

Something you might want to learn about is how to control perspective in your images. That could go a long way toward improving landscape composition as well as a lot of other types of photography.

For a lesson or two in controlling perspective in images, please read our "sticky" (now found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,519 views & 0 likes for this thread
Affordable Landscaping Lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is horus140
854 guests, 242 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.