Landscape lens

Would the Canon EF-S 15-85 be considered a good lens for landscape use?
I plan on getting a Canon wide angle lens at some point and, this lens is one of three I'm considering.
The other two being the 17-40 and 10-22.
I understand that's a big range difference on the wide end when paired with a crop body camera but, the widest lens I currently have is the 28-135 kit lens. So any of these three would be a big difference to me.

Sorry, meant to post this in the Discuss Nature and Landscape section.
Can someone move it to that section please.

I'll assume you have a crop body. 10-22 is much wider than 15-85, both have great IQ. I've tried my 17-40 on my 7d and 40d and didn't like it. Its excellent on my 5d where it spends a lot of time. A year or more ago I found a great post comparing these three by using colored lines over layer on an image.

Same here with the 17-40. I still had my 50D when I had my 17-40 and did not like it on there as much as my 15-85. Still a good lens though and I like it on my 5D2. The canon 10-22 is a ripper of a lens and delivers terrific IQ on a crop body. Same for the 15-85, which is more verstile. Either way the 15-85 or the 10-22 would be a great investment for you. I found I used the 15-85 for more open landscape shots and the 10-22 for more closer urban type shots.

I use the 10-22 canon mostly for landscapes. But just 1 bit of input, with a lens that wide, besure and try to get sometime interesting thruout the frame. Otherwise there will be a lot of dead space.

I found it interesting that two of you had the same opinion of the 17-40 on a crop body.
I rented this lens last year for use on my 40D to see if I would like it and I was a little surprised.. not in a good way.. with the results.
I am by no means a highly skilled photographer so, you can take that opinion with a grain of salt.
I know that lens has been around for a while and it's a favourite of a lot of people and meant for full frame use.

The 15-85 I think sounds more appealing.
Was just wondering if it has as good of a reputation for landscapes as the 17-40 seems to have.

Thanks for the replies.

Many people associate landscape lens to wide or ultra wide angle lens, which 10-22 is lots wider than 17-40L on crop for sure.

But landscape lens can be any lens, many great shoots come from telephoto lens as 200 and 300mm above.

If wide / ultra-wide is your shooting style, 10-22 over 17-40L for sure;
But if you are planning to go FF, and don't shoot lots ultra-wide, an EF lens is better than EF-S lens.

I get bore with my 10-22 and 17-40L long time ago, so my 10-22 with all my EF-S lenses traded for an 85L II.

read this again...of the three you mention, the 15-85 is by far the most versatile. it's really good for many things. 10-22 is very good for landscapes, but lacks the versatility of the 15-85.

The UltraWideAngle is a special instrument (10-22). You must learn to use its wide sweep well or it just ends up pushing things very far away from the viewer.

I agree with X_Tan. Any lens is a landscape lens. It's nice to have a decent spread of focal lengths with your lenses, but buy the best glass you can afford. A major consideration is your personal style and whether you tend to look for expansiveness, or tend to look for striking features.

I have a 15-85 on my crop body (XTi) and I love it. 15mm is nice and wide for landscapes, but the whole range from 15-85 mm really makes it handy to get a variety of compositions for landscapes and just general walk around and travel. have 4 different lenses and use the 15-85 almost 99% of the time.