I know I can get help here. I have no experience with landscape whatsoever.
Said that I would love to have good lens for landscape and start learn how to use it when I am out taking pictures of birds.
Can you guys help me choose good lens and some basic filters that are must. I have learned that it's better to buy right first time and most of my lenses are canon L series.
I use Canon 20D and shortest lens I have is 85mm. I also have lens that came with the camera EF-S 18-55mm.
If there are some choices can you point pros and cons?
Hi Karel,
I'd recommend the Canon 17-40 L.
It is an L-quality lens and it is compatible with fullframe, so if in future you upgrade camera you don't have to change lenses.
A more expensive solution would be to buy both the Canon 24-105 L IS and the Sigma 12-24 DG - they give you a much wider coverage and IS.
The 17-40L seems like a good idea, (no personal experience though. I use 28mm and 50mm primes on a film body and generally this is all I need), There`s no rush with filters but you probably want a polarizer. Some people like to use graduated neutral density filters but since you shoot digital you can save some pennies and learn blending techniques instead. I don`t see a need for colour correction filters cause you can always tweak RAW as you like. If you already carry a long lens for birds, it`s probably a wise move to keep away from the heavier f/2.8 zooms. You`ll need stop down to for DOF anyway - usually f/8 - 22. Most lenses are sharp at f/8 and beyond. You`ll need to consider other stuff like chromatic aberration (pronounced with some wides on digital), build quality, usefulness of the focal length.
Just remember that landscapes are not just about wide lenses or grand vistas/sunsets. Look for subtle details that tell a story. Get close and frame carefully, keep things simple for the beginning..
Karel,
Your existing lens should do a good job on the 20D. However if you want to go ultra-wide ( 20 mm equivalent on the 35 mm , then a good choice would be the canon EF-S 10-22. It has almost all the qualities of an L lens except the designation. Other general purpose options depending on your budget could be :
400$ : 20-35 f/3.5-45 - I use this lens and so far have not had any issues. Its quite difficult to get the 20 mm perspective though and I shoot film.
600$ : 17-40 L - Probably the best buy, my friend uses this lens and its as sharp as it can get.
1100$ - 24-105 L IS : This is replacing the workhorse 24-70L in most pro photographer's bags.
Very fine suggestions above, however since you mention you have no experience with landscape photography I would suggest starting off with the 18-55 you already own. Use it on a tripod at f/11 or f/16 and you can get some very decent quality. Take your time to find compositions and light that appeal to you and upgrade to a more expensive lens when you have a better idea of the workflow and focal lengths that work best for you.
Guy
Posted by Richard Wong on March 18, 2006 at 7:58 PM
I agree with Guy and I have just a little bit of personal experience with his comment. I didn't buy my first non-camera kit lens until a few months ago when I got the Tamron 17-35mm. I had used whatever came with my previous cameras since they were wide enough to shoot landscape and yet versatile enough to shoot most other things for 6+ years. I learned how to use my equipment sufficiently, and probably still am learning things. I would have wasted lots of money looking for the "right" lens if I didn't know what I needed to get the job done. With that said, the Tamron 17-35 has proven to be a wise investment for me for my own reasons. You might have other needs different from mine since I don't do 100% landscape scenic work with my wide angle.
Posted by Jack Graham on March 18, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Karel,
The lens Guy recommended is one & would recommend also , if I were shooting landscapes & had only one lens. Being a Nikon guy, my focal lengths are slightly different,. However I shoot landscapes with all sizes from 300,mm & under, depending on the situation. Thats;s whats great about shooting landscapes. Different focal lengths convey different feelings.
Experiment!
JG
Posted by Scott Elliot on March 18, 2006 at 11:54 PM
I have a 20D and the 17-40 lens, but I found that it does not go wide enough for some of the landscape photos I wanted to take. As a result, I also acquired the 10-22 EF-S. I use this lens more for landscapes (it frames the same as a 16-35 lens on a 35 mm camera). If I could only keep one lens for landscapes it would be the 10-22.
The 17-40 is more useful for general purposes so I don't want to get rid of it either (unless I replace it with the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens).
Depends on the type of landscape shooting you like to do.
Some people like ultrawides and have learned how to effectively use them. In this case if you stay with a 1.6x body the Canon 10-22 is a must plus it is really good in quality. Other slike stuff more the way our eye sees things (e.g. 50 mm viewpoint - ) so a 17-40 (28-65mm equiv) is a better choice for those people.
If I were you I would play around alot with the 18-55. See where you are mostly using that lens (at the widest focal length settings, the longest, or in the middle?). If you constantly want wider views than the 18-55 can give you, then the 10-22 would make sense. If you like the range of the 18-55 but want a better lens and one that also works on full frame then get the 17-40. If you find you are going longer than 55 mm all the time then consider a short tele zoom. Make what you own work for you and then if you find it lacking, you make the investment to fill the hole.
darwin
www.darwinwiggett.com
Posted by Randy Beacham on March 19, 2006 at 11:16 PM
Hi Karel,
Darwin and Guy make excellent suggestions as far as working with the lens you have now. Landscape photography can range from ultra wide to telephotos, depending on your style. You can only start developing a style by getting out and working landscape photography. Many years ago when I was first hooked on outdoor photography at one point (when I had a lot more spending money) I went out and bought equipment and accessories to cover the whole gamut of photography. I later found that some equipment I purchased was rarely used since my style or preference didn't dictate using certain equipment. Since then I made the decision to only purchase new equipment after being out in the field and saying to myself "I can really use...." So, only you know what lenses you'll need and you will only know what lenses you'll need after getting started with the equipment you have now. Hope this helps, Randy
Posted by Nathan Buck on March 20, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Some great advice to try what you have for now. I would third (or fourth or fifth) this advice. I shoot a Nikon D70, with the 1.5 crop factor. The lens that I use for landscapes though it a Tamron 24-135. It works just fine for me, since my style is not to shoot real wide. In fact, I find that I enjoy using my 70-210 quite a bit for landscape shooting.
Karel, since you also mention that you have no experience with landscape whatsoever I feel compelled to remind you that there are excellent tutorials in the Nature Photography 101 section of NPN.
Discussion
12 repliesSaid that I would love to have good lens for landscape and start learn how to use it when I am out taking pictures of birds.
Can you guys help me choose good lens and some basic filters that are must. I have learned that it's better to buy right first time and most of my lenses are canon L series.
I use Canon 20D and shortest lens I have is 85mm. I also have lens that came with the camera EF-S 18-55mm.
If there are some choices can you point pros and cons?
Thank you in advance.
I'd recommend the Canon 17-40 L.
It is an L-quality lens and it is compatible with fullframe, so if in future you upgrade camera you don't have to change lenses.
A more expensive solution would be to buy both the Canon 24-105 L IS and the Sigma 12-24 DG - they give you a much wider coverage and IS.
Just remember that landscapes are not just about wide lenses or grand vistas/sunsets. Look for subtle details that tell a story. Get close and frame carefully, keep things simple for the beginning..
Your existing lens should do a good job on the 20D. However if you want to go ultra-wide ( 20 mm equivalent on the 35 mm , then a good choice would be the canon EF-S 10-22. It has almost all the qualities of an L lens except the designation. Other general purpose options depending on your budget could be :
400$ : 20-35 f/3.5-45 - I use this lens and so far have not had any issues. Its quite difficult to get the 20 mm perspective though and I shoot film.
600$ : 17-40 L - Probably the best buy, my friend uses this lens and its as sharp as it can get.
1100$ - 24-105 L IS : This is replacing the workhorse 24-70L in most pro photographer's bags.
- pradeep
http://www.varyinglight.com/blog/photo
Guy
The lens Guy recommended is one & would recommend also , if I were shooting landscapes & had only one lens. Being a Nikon guy, my focal lengths are slightly different,. However I shoot landscapes with all sizes from 300,mm & under, depending on the situation. Thats;s whats great about shooting landscapes. Different focal lengths convey different feelings.
Experiment!
JG
The 17-40 is more useful for general purposes so I don't want to get rid of it either (unless I replace it with the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens).
Some people like ultrawides and have learned how to effectively use them. In this case if you stay with a 1.6x body the Canon 10-22 is a must plus it is really good in quality. Other slike stuff more the way our eye sees things (e.g. 50 mm viewpoint - ) so a 17-40 (28-65mm equiv) is a better choice for those people.
If I were you I would play around alot with the 18-55. See where you are mostly using that lens (at the widest focal length settings, the longest, or in the middle?). If you constantly want wider views than the 18-55 can give you, then the 10-22 would make sense. If you like the range of the 18-55 but want a better lens and one that also works on full frame then get the 17-40. If you find you are going longer than 55 mm all the time then consider a short tele zoom. Make what you own work for you and then if you find it lacking, you make the investment to fill the hole.
darwin
www.darwinwiggett.com
Darwin and Guy make excellent suggestions as far as working with the lens you have now. Landscape photography can range from ultra wide to telephotos, depending on your style. You can only start developing a style by getting out and working landscape photography. Many years ago when I was first hooked on outdoor photography at one point (when I had a lot more spending money) I went out and bought equipment and accessories to cover the whole gamut of photography. I later found that some equipment I purchased was rarely used since my style or preference didn't dictate using certain equipment. Since then I made the decision to only purchase new equipment after being out in the field and saying to myself "I can really use...." So, only you know what lenses you'll need and you will only know what lenses you'll need after getting started with the equipment you have now. Hope this helps, Randy
Your milage may vary...
Nathan
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada