A Landscape lens??

If you were to have a lens just for landscapes, which would give the best quality scene repoduction, would you use a prime or a zoom
this is an area I will be investigating in the not to distant future
as I put together a range of glass . Guys any info or capture's with your
thoughts and Idears will be most valued. this will be a new endevour for me along the photographic highway of learning
regards Rick

Probably something like the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM would be a good start, but then I don't know if you are pairing this with a FF or cropped body.

Since this thread is asking for what I personally do:
I use my 10-22 most for landscapes. Its the lens I'd pick. A prime would be limiting in some circumstances, which I'm not willing to accept, and I don't need the "absolute perfection" a prime gives in terms of IQ because I'm a hobbyist.

Before anyone can give useful suggestions, you will need to think about the focal length range you want, and you will need to identify what format body you are using.

Some folks will automatically suggest ultra wide angle zooms for landscapes, others will seemingly suggest lenses that are optically really good seemingly without consideration for focal length. You need to think through what you really want first.

And without knowing the format, we don't really even have a starting place.

Another vote for the 10-22. Great landscape lens for a crop. Some even rig it to work on FF.

jbrackjr wrote in post #14149309
Another vote for the 10-22. Great landscape lens for a crop. Some even rig it to work on FF.

How?

Mk1Racer wrote in post #14149315
How?

Just pop off the rubber gasket on the back.

Mk1Racer wrote in post #14149315
How?

See this http://www.flickr.com …discuss/7215760​4422834954

And a video: http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=IDfyu_fuOf4

I have and use the 10-22, but I find myself using my 17-55 f2.8 most often. The 10-22 has its place, but on a crop body it's really too wide for many scenics. It turns mountains into bumps on the horizon unless you are really close to them. It almost requires a strong foreground very close to the photographer, and there is more concern for distortion.

With the 17-55 I have more flexibility, and if need be, I can stitch several images into one landscape, usually with better results than a single image with any ultra wide lens.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14149161
Before anyone can give useful suggestions, you will need to think about the focal length range you want, and you will need to identify what format body you are using.

Some folks will automatically suggest ultra wide angle zooms for landscapes, others will seemingly suggest lenses that are optically really good seemingly without consideration for focal length. You need to think through what you really want first.

And without knowing the format, we don't really even have a starting place.

This.

I'd probably go with a modestly wide lens ( 17 mm'ish ) and shoot multiple shots to create a panorama.

what body?

Mk1Racer wrote in post #14149315
How?

More importantly is why. Full frame has so many great wide angle choices.

For FF I would go for a 17-40 f4 L plus a 70-200 f4 L with probably a 50mm prime. You don't really need the 2.8 lenses for landscape for most occasions as the world doesn't move too fast!. Invariably the lenses will be on a tripod and stopped down for max DOF.
I still shoot film with one of my F1's and the 20-35 L FD lives on it for landscapes

Hogloff wrote in post #14150107
More importantly is why. Full frame has so many great wide angle choices.

But do they go down to 10mm rectilinear for under $800?