Please help me decide !!!!

Milky

Hi all ! was just looking at lenses for landscapes, and was wondering wat u shoot with, so far i've narrowed it down to the sigma 18-50 f/2.8, the canon ef 10-22 USM f/3-4.5 and the canon ef 17-40 f/4L USM

Any other suggestions or lenses i've missed out ! or other recommendations ! or views please share !!

thanks you all, much appreciated

pathfinder

Landscapes can be shot with lenses from 17mm to 500mm - depends on what you wish to emphasize.

I am moving this thread to Cameras as discussions of lenses are best done in that thread. This thread is for display and discussion of landscapes and street scenes.

philiphutson

Which body do you have?

I have a 5d that I use the 17-40L on along with a 28-70 (older sigma that I need to upgrade) and a 70-210 f2.8 tamron.
-Philip

ziggy53

I know at least 2 shooters here that could recommend the Canon 24mm, TS-E for landscapes:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62607&highlight=canon
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62113&highlight=canon

LouwPhotography

We have the Canon 10-22mm lens for our 1.6x crop cameras. I love this lens for wide angle shots.

Which camera do you have?

Shizam

Well, a 10-22 is going to give you fish-esq photos in that you're going to get barrel distortion on the wide end, probably across the whole range of 10-22 which will be an issue for you if you're thinking about panoramas. The 17-40L will give less distortion and 'range' wise is very similar to the 24-70L on a full frame camera in that its a very good wide->normal range. Plus the 17-40L has higher quality glass that will tend to be sharper wide open and emphasize contrast. I highly highly suggest the 24L TSE if you can swing it, love love love it.

macmac

I love my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S for landscapes. I also have to 10-22mm f/3.5. It is a very good lens, but if I were to choose one, I'd choose the 17-55mm.

Milky

Thanks alot for all your views and replies, i'm using a 20D ! any thoughts on the sigma 18-50 f\2.8 ??

Thanks again, much appreciated !

ziggy53

Milky wrote:

Thanks alot for all your views and replies, i'm using a 20D ! any thoughts on the sigma 18-50 f\2.8 ??

Thanks again, much appreciated !

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC (not the macro version) and I like it a lot on an XT camera. At 18mm it is about twice as wide FOV as a "normal/standard" lens for a crop 1.6x camera, like the Canon 20D.

I would suggest the macro version as it is supposed to be better, and also look at the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 SP XR Di II LD, which may be slightly better yet.

These lenses are wide enough for some vista landscapes, and very valuable for interior work. The 50mm end can also do portraiture in a pinch.

ziggy53

Sizam wrote:

Well, a 10-22 is going to give you fish-esq photos in that you're going to get barrel distortion on the wide end, probably across the whole range of 10-22 which will be an issue for you if you're thinking about panoramas. The 17-40L will give less distortion and 'range' wise is very similar to the 24-70L on a full frame camera in that its a very good wide->normal range. Plus the 17-40L has higher quality glass that will tend to be sharper wide open and emphasize contrast. I highly highly suggest the 24L TSE if you can swing it, love love love it.

There is not much barrel distortion on the Canon 10-22mm, and it is less than the Canon 17-40mm "L" at 17mm. (1.25% and 2.47% respectively, both on a crop 1.6x camera.)

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

What you may be thinking is the rather dramatic perspective you get from the Canon 10-22mm on a crop camera, which is greater than the perspective of the 17-40mm on a crop camera, but again, not much different than the 17-40mm on a full-frame camera.

claudermilk

The 10-22 is no fish by any stretch of the imagination. It's a great lens that produces nice, sharp, saturated images. However, I'll throw another lens into the mix to compete with this one: the Tokina 12-24. I personally prefer this one. Same image quality as the Canon, IMHO the 2mm difference--particularly for landscape--isn't as big a deal as some make it out to be; again IMHO it's much nicer to use and the cost difference is nice.

For doing panos I wouldn't use a UWA because of the distortion you will get. Something like the 24 TS-E which has been shown to be a good choice here recently, or something like the 24-70, 24-105, etc. With stitching the less distortion to start with the better.