# Landscape



## canonbraden (Apr 11, 2013)

Lately I've been getting heavily into landscape photography, hiking to rivers/waterfalls a lot soon it's gonna be time for a lens upgrade. What's the next lens I get? I'm investing in an L lens. 17-40? 24-105? What's your input?
Thanks


----------



## canonbraden (Apr 11, 2013)

I also have the Canon T3


----------



## Light Guru (Apr 12, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> Lately I've been getting heavily into landscape photography, hiking to rivers/waterfalls a lot soon it's gonna be time for a lens upgrade. What's the next lens I get? I'm investing in an L lens. 17-40? 24-105? What's your input?
> Thanks



Rent both first and then decide.


----------



## Dao (Apr 12, 2013)

What lens(es) do you currently have?


----------



## weepete (Apr 12, 2013)

I agree with David, though must admit that I am resonably new to landscape photography. Most of the ones I have been taking are in the 15-22mm range, much more than I use the 24-40mm range. I'd like to go wider too but am limited at the moment until I can save up for a new lens.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 12, 2013)

On my 40D, I found my Sigma 17-70mm barely sufficient.

On the 5D, though, I'm quite happy with the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Is it an "ideal" landscape lens? Maybe not for some, but it's been gettin' the job done for me.

Given that you've got a crop body, I'd recommend giving the Sigma 10-20mm a look. My daughter has it (she shoots with my old 20D), and she loves it...


----------



## canonbraden (Apr 12, 2013)

Dao said:


> What lens(es) do you currently have?



50mm, 18-55mm, 75-300mm
Using the 18-55 currently.


----------



## canonbraden (Apr 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> On my 40D, I found my Sigma 17-70mm barely sufficient.
> 
> On the 5D, though, I'm quite happy with the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Is it an "ideal" landscape lens? Maybe not for some, but it's been gettin' the job done for me.
> 
> Given that you've got a crop body, I'd recommend giving the Sigma 10-20mm a look. My daughter has it (she shoots with my old 20D), and she loves it...



Awesome ill give it a look. Thanks!


----------



## canonbraden (Apr 12, 2013)

weepete said:


> I agree with David, though must admit that I am resonably new to landscape photography. Most of the ones I have been taking are in the 15-22mm range, much more than I use the 24-40mm range. I'd like to go wider too but am limited at the moment until I can save up for a new lens.



Awesome. What lens do you use?


----------



## canonbraden (Apr 12, 2013)

David444 said:


> Neither lens would be wide enough for me.  IMO, the 10-22mm would be the better choice as a landscape lens on a crop body.



Is there a canon 10-22? 
Sorry I'm pretty new at this stuff.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 12, 2013)

The interesting thing about using an ultra-wide-angle for landscape is that while you can get everything into the frame, it also makes "everything" look really small.  So, unless you have a place where the vertical dimension is pretty impressive and will still convey the grandeur when squeezed into the frame by a UWA lens, you get a wide view with a lot of stuff making little squiggles on the horizon line.  So I'm with LightGuru - rent an UWA lens and see if the results are what you're expecting.

I have a T1i and both the lenses you're looking at, and there are situations where the 10-22mm lens is the perfect solution.  But the 24-105mm is the lens that I use most often.


----------



## Dao (Apr 12, 2013)

canonbraden said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > What lens(es) do you currently have?
> ...



Landscape photos does not automatically means wide wide view.  However, if you are looking for lens in the wide angle area and the 18mm of your kit lens is not wide enough for you, those ultra-wide angle lens maybe a good choice for you.


The popular choices are the Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm (they have 2 versions), Tokina 11-16mm as well as the Tamron 10-24mm.   I currently own the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6.   It is not the best on the market, but it is best for me at the time when I purchase (price/performance)  If money is not a issue, I may go with the Canon.


Here is an example from my Sigma.


----------



## Tiller (Apr 12, 2013)

I would go canon 10-22

15-85 is good too.

Neither are L though


----------



## JG_Coleman (Apr 12, 2013)

Given that you're working with a 1.6x crop factor, my recommendation would be an ultra-wide angle lens with some measure of zoom.  The focal length of any lens you use is going to be longer in practice because of the crop factor.  So, for instance, a 17-40mm lens on your camera body will effectively function as a 27-64mm lens.  Something like a 10-22mm will end up effectively working as if it were a 16-35mm.  So, when you take the crop factor into consideration, a 10-22mm will give you roughly the same effective focal lengths as a 17-40mm would for somebody using a full-frame camera without crop factor.

Indeed, not all landscapes call for an especially wide angle of view.  And, as pgriz mentioned, ultra-wide-angle lenses will exhibit some measure of perspective distortion and they'll be unsuitable in some circumstances where more distant details of a landscape shouldn't be reduced to specs in your final shot.

However, when you _*do *_have a landscape that really benefits from a wide angle of view (as is fairly common in landscape photography), there's really no good substitute for an ultra-wide-angle lens.  You're left trying to take two, three or four exposures panoramically with longer focal length and then stitch them in PS.  That method works, and it can produce great results, but it also tends to complicate things unnecessarily in many cases and adds much more post-processing time.  Instead, it would've been great to simply be able to swallow up a sweeping view of the landscape with a single shot using a nice, ultra-wide lens.  Also, the perspective distortion of an ultra-wide angle lens is not all bad by any means.  In fact, it can be used skillfully to make some shots much much more dramatic.

So, although an ultra-wide angle lens is not always the best choice for a given shooting scenario, I think it would be pretty tough to try and make a case that a landscape photographer doesn't need one or should put off getting one in favor of some other lens.  Ultra-wide angle lenses have been part of the landscape photographers go-to toolkit for years, and with good reason.  And, as I've shown in the beginning of this post, an ultra-wide angle on your camera isn't as crazily ultra-wide as it would be when you consider that you've got a heavy crop factor to deal with.  It ends up being mostly equivalent to a 17-40mm focal length range in practice, so it's not quite as insanely "ultra" as it seems.

Assuming that you're currently happy with the 18-55 (at least for the time being), something like a 10-22mm will also give you a bit of overlap in your range of lengths.  This ensures that you don't end up with an annoying gap in your available focal lengths (at least in the wider end of the spectrum; you'll still have the gap between 55mm and 75mm).


----------



## CanonJim (Apr 12, 2013)

I've shot the 10-22 on a crop body, and now use the 24-105 on my 6D.  Choosing between the two of them, even on a crop body, would be tough. I guess the questions you need to ask your self are,  1) do I really NEED a UWA for my style of shooting, 2) What is my budget?, and 3) Do I see a full-frame camera in the near/mid future?   Since the 10-22 is an EF-S lens, it won't fit a full frame body. However, they do hold their value well, so you should be able to sell it if you DO go F/F in the future.  The IQ of the 10-22 is withing a gnat's hair of the 24-105, so there's no obvious winner there.  I'd rent them both for a couple of days and see which one you find most appealing.  I have to say that overall, the 24-105 is probably more versatile, while the 10-22 is the champ for getting those ultra wide shots that can't be done any other way.


----------



## Rob_ (Apr 25, 2013)

I started out with the Canon T3, and the 18-55 was really good for to get Wide Angle if you can't afford anything better. But, ask yourself this: Are you planning on moving to a full frame camera? (5D MKII/III, 6D, etc etc) If so, don't go spending tons of cash on lenses designed for a crop sensor body. However, if not the Tokina 11-16 is a really good lens to look in to for a crop sensor body. You have to take in to planning that your camera is going to magnify your image by 1.5x, so 11mm isn't 11mm, it's like 16mm. If you plan to move on up to a full frame I personally use the Canon 17-40 F/4L right now as it is a solid lens with a great price. Finally, lenses are just the BEGINNING when it comes to landscape, filters are the second half of that circle of confusion.


----------

