Newbie here with Lens Questions!

Hi all!

I take pictures and do not claim to be a photographer. I really like my friend "Otto" aka Auto and admit that most of my pics are taken in that mode. I used an Olympus E510 for years but sadly, it developed focusing issues and because of it's age, I felt replacing it would be best. After a lot of research, I wound up with a Canon SL1 with the kit lenses. Those lenses are adequate but I'd like to add a nice lens which would be suitable for landscapes.

Should I consider a wide angle lens?

Would a prime lens be best (I've always had zoom)?

I do use the vid feature with the SL1 and have the 18-55mm IS STM. The other lens is the EFS 55-250mm IS.

I've been reading and researching but get lost in the tech speak. I've read good things about the EF 35mm f/2 USM IS but also have read that the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is good for landscapes. While I don't mind paying a little extra for a nice lens, I don't feel my photography skills warrant a top of the line lens.

I'd like to find a decent macro lens too so am open to suggestions for it too.

I'm looking forward to your advice and hope that sometime I'll be in a position to contribute to the forum.

Thanks!

You are covered from 18-250mm with two good lenses. Let them tell you what YOU need, as in what you need that they can't do. Practice will soon indicate if you need wide or fast lenses, neither of which you have.

You mention landscape which often gets recommendations for an ultra-wide. Here are some recommendations for landscape lenses, note the wide range of lens types: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Canon-Landscape-Lens.aspx That is a good website to compare various gear.

It is time to give "Otto" some rest. My first SLR camera was 100% manual 35mm film. I learned to shoot manual and so can you. Don't be scared of the "M" setting on your camera. It is your friend and lets you tell the camera what YOU want
instead of getting what the camera "thinks" you want. I use manual almost 100% of the time when shooting with constant ambient light.

The semi-manual modes, AV and TV, are useful under changing light conditions. They are especially useful outside with clouds floating around.

I have played with my sister's SL1 and found Auto to be very good inside with the built-in flash. You don't have to bury your friend Otto.

I just purchased a refurbished Canon SL1 to use for travel or anytime a full size camera with a battery grip is inconvenient.

Keep in mind that a WA lens will make the background seem much smaller than objects in the foreground (FG). Sometimes making a Pano is a better option.

Photostitch should be on the CD that came with your Canon. I've used it & it works well.

Welcome to the forum.
For landscapes a wide angle lens is nice but rather expensive (at least the good ones). With your camera - with the "crop" sensor size - your opening angle at 18mm is not as wide as with a full frame. To get that really wide opening angle the lens would have to have a focal length of 10 - 12mm - look up the price for that sort of lens and then you'll want to try out your existing lens (18-55mm) first...

Read some tutorials on the internet about the exposure triangle (relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO) and start experimenting with manual or one of the other "non-creative" modes on your camera. Practice, practice, practice and look at the results and the settings they were taken with (EXIF information in every shot). In the digital day and age we are blessed with the free way to practice. When I learned my photography skills I used film: shot sparingly as it cost. Then had to develop the film and print (or throw away the negatives as they were useless.. )
So: read up and practice and enjoy! Photography is not rocket science - although some people try to make it look like it is...

The lenses you have are actually quite good. Primes have nothing to offer you but aperture, and most landscape stuff is shot at f/8-f/16. You can already do that. The only lens that offers something you can't do now is something in the Ultra-Wide range. Suggestions include the Canon 10-18 ($300 new), and the Canon 10-22 ($600 new). Be careful, wide is both difficult to shoot well, and completely addicting once you get the hang of it. Welcome to the forums, and happy shooting.

For greatest control of your photography, learn to shoot in manual, and learn to shoot in raw.

texkam wrote in post #17558174
For greatest control of your photography, learn to shoot in manual, and learn to shoot in raw.

No offense, but this sounds like regurgitated mantra to me. Neither is essential for good results. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think there is a working SI photographer who uses either Manual Mode or raw when working professional sports and deadlines.

Manual is not magical; it has no options that are not available in every other shooting mode, including Green Box. Manual can't possibly do better than Av, Tv, or P for that matter. ISO 400, f/2.5, and 1/640 are either the right settings for the shot, or they are not, regardless of how the shooter gets there. Manual gives you no more control than any other mode. If I select an aperture and an ISO, there is only one proper shutter speed for that shot. Whether I get there automatically using Av, or have to dial it in myself in Manual makes absolutely no difference in the final shot. They will be identical.

Raw is extremely useful, when the shooter needs to correct mistakes that could have been handled BEFORE releasing the shutter. Got your WB, or exposure wrong? Raw helps a lot. If you get it right in-camera, raw is of limited use.

Control of your camera is learning how each option works, and employing them as necessary to get the results you want. Fanatically sticking to fixed parameters on a versatile device like a modern dSLR is just wasting potential, that of the camera, and that of the shooter.

GeoKras,
There is more to shooting raw than the simplistic explanions you mentioned. Raw is not all about correcting mistakes. I would invite the OP to research the benefits and drawbacks of raw. BTW, the OP is not shooting for SI. She mentioned shooting landscapes, and just guessing here, I don't think she's worrying about having to deal with super tight deadlines.
http://photographyconc​entrate.com …u-should-be-shooting-raw/

Regarding manual; re-read my statement. I wasn't saying to always use manual. I said learning manual will give you the greatest control of your camera. Having a solid understanding of manual will better allow you to take advantage of the auto features.

Regarding the 18-55mm IS STM and EFS 55-250mm IS; both of these lenses used with a solid undestanding of photography, combined with shooting in raw will yeild very good results.

Regarding macro lens; research extension tubes.
http://digital-photography-school.com …-up-photography-lesson-2/

..... I stand by my above statement.

texkam wrote in post #17558292
GeoKras,
There is more to shooting raw than the simplistic explanions you mentioned. Raw is not all about correcting mistakes. I would invite the OP to research the benefits and drawbacks of raw. BTW, the OP is not shooting for SI. She mentioned shooting landscapes, and just guessing here, I don't think she's worrying about having to deal with super tight deadlines.
http://photographyconc​entrate.com …u-should-be-shooting-raw/

Regarding manual; re-read my statement. I wasn't saying to always use manual. I said learning manual will give you the greatest control of your camera. Having a solid understanding of manual will better allow you to take advantage of the auto features.

Regarding the 18-55mm IS STM and EFS 55-250mm IS; both of these lenses used with a solid undestanding of photography, combined with shooting in raw will yeild very good results.

Regarding macro lens; research extension tubes.
http://digital-photography-school.com …-up-photography-lesson-2/

..... I stand by my above statement.

Your first sentence seems to state that good results are not possible unless you are shooting raw. I don't believe that even you believe that.

Three facts:
#1. If you get it right in camera, there is little to adjust in post. Raw is of very limited use here. Raw, may be beneficial. It doesn't surpass doing it right in-camera. What raw does best is give you more to work with when you mess up.

#2. A solid understanding of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO will allow you make best use of all the shooting modes. Manual does NOTHING you can't do in any other mode.

#3. Good results come from proper lens selection, subject selection, lighting, composition, and choice of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. Neither shooting raw, nor shooting manual has one iota of effect on any of these. Sure both may help, in some situations, but neither can do anything you can't do without them.

I agree with you that raw can be beneficial. I shoot raw about 90% of the time. It is most helpful when I KNOW I am going to post-process. This means poor or dim lighting, high-ISO, or variable lighting. If I am shooting outdoors in daylight, or indoors using flash, raw is a waste of time. It forces me to process shots that would have been just fine shot JPG. I use Manual mode, just like I use all the other modes, when it is appropriate to what I am trying to accomplish. It is no better or worse than any other mode, just different. Each has its place. Well, those stupid ICON modes are a waste of time, IMHO.

texkam wrote in post #17558292
GeoKras,

Regarding manual; re-read my statement. I wasn't saying to always use manual. I said learning manual will give you the greatest control of your camera. Having a solid understanding of manual will better allow you to take advantage of the auto features.

I guess that with "learning manual" you mean to say "learning all about the interaction of shutter speed, aperture and ISO" Not "manual" but understanding exposure is what it is all about. Once you understand exposure you can have an informed choice of what mode to use: full manual, Av or Tv or even P or Auto.

So essentially you and Geokras (and me) are not that far apart but express ourselves differently....

Re. RAW I tend to disagree with Geokras. Why rob yourself of an option to improve the shot even when it is not necessary. I shoot 100% RAW. The PP for 85% of the shots takes less than 10 seconds but at least I had the option which I would not have had when shooting JPG. Of course getting it right "in camera" is what we all want. But especially in my line of shooting: wildlife and birds for a hobby and events for community service organisations ( as an unpaid job) I do not always have to option to optimise my settings or frame the shot the way I want. So PP is essential.

But we are getting away from what the OP wants to know...

vk2gwk wrote in post #17558309
I guess that with "learning manual" you mean to say "learning all about the interaction of shutter speed, aperture and ISO" Not "manual" but understanding exposure is what it is all about. Once you understand exposure you can have an informed choice of what mode to use: full manual, Av or Tv or even P or Auto.

So essentially you and Geokras (and me) are not that far apart but express ourselves differently....

Re. RAW I tend to disagree with Geokras. Why rob yourself of an option to improve the shot even when it is not necessary. I shoot 100% RAW. The PP for 85% of the shots takes less than 10 seconds but at least I had the option which I would not have had when shooting JPG. Of course getting it right "in camera" is what we all want. But especially in my line of shooting: wildlife and birds for a hobby and events for community service organisations ( as an unpaid job) I do not always have to option to optimise my settings or frame the shot the way I want. So PP is essential.

But we are getting away from what the OP wants to know...

Well stated. I've been doing this for better than 40 years, so I appreciate and make use of automation, when appropriate. I also think you and texkam have a point about raw especially with the OP. She is wanting to shoot landscapes. Shooting raw will give her much more flexibility in post, to enhance colors, adjust contrast, and even some one-shot HDR, as necessary. You are right, we sometimes each use different words to get to the same meaning. It really is all about the final product.

i wouldn't bother with RAW yet...the only times i really find a benefit for it is when there is a large dynamic range...and if i'm shooting a landscape, i'd rather bracket images than just use one raw image...so i'll use it if i'm shooting people with a dynamic range...but other than that i found that in my regular shooting that i ended up with an image that looked practically identical to what i had shot with the jpg, so i figured there's no need for that extra step of processing

back to your original question though...for landscapes you're going to be stopped down to f8-f11 anyways, so there's no real benefit of a prime in that situation...you've got 18-250mm covered, so unless you feel a need to go wider, then you should have plenty of good landscape opportunities available

i'd recommend a tripod, if you don't already have one, and 'understanding exposure' by bryan peterson, to help you get over Otto, and take advantage of the cameras capabilities

The 10-18 is a solid lens but before spending the money on more glass try using what you have and explore the limitations. Go out and shoot!

texkam wrote in post #17558174
For greatest control of your photography, learn to shoot in manual, and learn to shoot in raw.

I do agree with GeoKras, it is kinda annoying when people just spew this out any time a newbie asks a question. There is nothing wrong with shooting AV and JPEG. Learning AF modes and switching focus points is more important.

If you want a landscape lens for a crop, I'd get the Canon 10-18 or 10-22 - depending on budget. Generally you will stop down for landscapes so having F2 or F1.8 on a prime isn't that big of a deal.

delta0014 wrote in post #17558671
I do agree with GeoKras, it is kinda annoying when people just spew this out any time a newbie asks a question. There is nothing wrong with shooting AV and JPEG. Learning AF modes and switching focus points is more important.

There is nothing wrong with shooting AV for landscapes if you want inconsistent exposures. Look at these examples.

And there's nothing wrong with jpg if you know what you're doing. Pros with deadlines do it all the time. For other people, think about this:
Take a RAW + max jpeg shot of the exact same subject. Convert the RAW file to jpeg & look at the two file sizes. One max jpg from my 20D was 2,754 KB. The exact same tripod shot with the jpg extracted from RAW was 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Why throw those extra bits away? Wouldn't they be nice to have if you have to PP an image?
I'll always recommend RAW for beginners because, as they learn more, they can go back & reprocess & possibly salvage a once in a lifetime shot. Most people will try RAW sometime, so why not at the beginning when you probably need it's advantages the most?