Best Lens for Landscape Photography

I am looking for recomendations on a landscape lens.

Prime vs. non-prime

"L" vs non "L"

Thanks.

Budget?

Id say a 10-22 for yours 350D, or if you wanna go the L route its either a 16-35 or 17-40

10-22 is a lot of fun

Yes sorry It is a 350 and I would say budget under $900, as far as I can see so far there really is no prime that you would recommend. I ask about Primes because i find most non-prime not sharp enough.

I'd definitely recommend the 17-40

You'd be hard pressed to find a good uwa prime for under $900. On 350D, you can't really consider anything "wide angle" until you get under 24mm. I second the 17-40L. If that's not wide enough, you can go get 10-22 Canon or Sigma if you wanna spend even less.

I have been reading about the 17-40L and I am leaning in that direction, just concerned about some people saying it is not that shrp specially around the edges.

The resolving power of a 350D (or a 30D, for that matter) with any UWA will never compete with the resolving power of a 5D with a 16-35. So expecting ultra-sharp wide angle shots from your camera might be expecting too much.

I would suggest a Canon 10-22 -- brilliant ultrawide lens. Or you could look at a 14mm Sigma perhaps... if you can get one at your budget. But you'd want to be certain that 14mm is what you want/need

I'm happy with the UWA results from my 10-22 even though I know they're not as sharp as L glass on a 5D. What print size are you considering that requires such exacting sharpness?

Cheers.

KonTiki wrote in post #2121727
I have been reading about the 17-40L and I am leaning in that direction, just concerned about some people saying it is not that shrp specially around the edges.

As far as sharpness goes, at wide angles 17 - 20somemm, you'd be hard pressed to find another lens sharper than it for the same price. You can always spend the rest of the money on a good editing software. DxO Optics software does auto image correction and will make all your shots sharper and remove vignetting, CA, etc in one step. Since most pics that get printed or used in any usually have to go through PP first, good software is just as important as a good lens.

KonTiki wrote in post #2121727
I have been reading about the 17-40L and I am leaning in that direction, just concerned about some people saying it is not that shrp specially around the edges.

also, keep in mind that with a 30d you're only really using the sweet spot of the lens. most people complaining about sharpness on that lens are usually 5d/1ds owners who are using full frame cameras which can really show the lack of sharpness from the corners of a lens.

I ended up getting the 16-35, but when reading reviews I read quite a few where people said they felt like they gave up a bit of sharpeness from teh 17-40 to gain the extra stop of light (to get f/2.8). Now my copy of the 16-35 is incredibly sharp, so I can't complain...but that still bodes well for the sharpness of the 17-40

For landscapes, 17-40L... My copy is great on both FF and crop cameras.

You do not need a faster lens, like the 16-35L, unless you will also use it for other purposes.

As for the Canon 10-22, I understand it is a EF-S lense, so you will not be able to use it if you eventually move to FF cameras.

In any case, in my experience all wide angle lenses are somehow soft in the corners, but will get better when you stop them down (as you will normally do when shooting landscapes).

The 17-40L is a great lense for your purposes and budget. (You should also consider investing in good filters, polarizer, ND...)

I am getting more into landscapes and more away from birding simply because I do not have the patience to sit there for hours, or the opportunity to go places where I can take those shots I wanted. I am slightly handicapped and it has become progressively harder to lug the larger and heavier lenses.

So as a result I am considering trading a mint Canon EF 400mm 1:5.6 L that is shy of 6 months for something to do landscapes and its beginning to look like the 17 - 40L plus cash is going to be my answer. The reason I was asking about prime vs non-prime or "l" vs non-"L" is because I have not been a fan of zoom lenses, have not liked any of the three I have owned, dont find them sharp at all, and of course are heavier. THe "L" questions is obvious because in my eyes the quality of them is superior. After reading the responses here I will give this some more thought and make a decision though as I said I am leaning to the 17-40, so once i make the decision if I decide to trade and I can find a good enough deal for my lens I will go that route. THank you all for your help, as always it is invaluable to get your opinion in matters like this.

[QUOTE=amarasme;212278​8]

This is exactly my situation. Last year, I bought a Rebel XT and the 10-22. Now, I'm buying the 5D and 17-40L. That being said, the 10-22 was well worth it on my trip to the Canadian Rockies. I shot most of my images at 10mm.

Definitely agree with this!

SoaringUSAEagle wrote in post #2121698
I'd definitely recommend the 17-40

17-40 or 10-22....depending on how wide you want to go. i don't think you'll find a canon WA prime that'll touch either of these except in price .

ed rader