Posted by Guy Nelson on November 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM
Hello Everyone,
I was wondering if you would please help me out. I am wanting to purchase a higher quality landscape lens for my Canon7D. Right now I am using a EF-S 15-85 lens. I really want to get more serious in taking higher quality Landscapes Photos and I thought I would upgrade my lens to start with.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thank you
Guy
Posted by Max Waugh on November 5, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Technically, even a 70-200mm could be used as a "landscape lens." I'm assuming you're referring to a quality wide angle zoom?
If that's the case, among Canon lenses I think you have four obvious options: 24-105mm, 24-70mm, 17-40mm, 16-35mm. More of our landscape shooters may have other suggestions. Since you're using the 7D, I'm not sure the 24-105 and 24-70 would zoom out as wide as you'd like (especially since you're used to the 15-85). In that case, you're down to the 17-40 or 16-35. I use the 17-40, but I'm not a hard core landscape artist... and by all accounts the 16-35 is the superior of the two. But that's also reflected in the price (big time).
Actually, the 10-22mm is yet another ultra wide zoom made for bodies like the 7D, but if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame body in the future, that lens wouldn't be compatible. I'd opt for a lens that won't become obsolete as you change bodies down the road.
Anyone else have further input? Perhaps there's a Sigma, Tamron or Tokina folks like as well...
Max
Posted by Keith Bauer on November 5, 2014 at 8:58 PM
Max provided a nice list of options. The 16-35 that I think he is referring to is the f/2.8 version. There is now an f/4 version that I would consider unless you really need f/2.8. For landscapes, that isn't usually needed. The f/4 version is much less expensive than the f/2.8 version and is also an IS lens for help in those cases where you are hand holding.
Posted by Wick Smith on November 6, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Guy,
I shot the 16-35 2.8 lens for years & was pleased but not overwhelmed. The corners were a bit soft. I bought the new 16-35 4.0 & its MUCH sharper across the frame. The only time & feel like I need the 2.8 aperture is with night time star shots. I'd choose the new 4.0 version of the 16-35 for any serious landscape photographer.
Posted by Mike Ramy on November 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM
Guy,
I have a Tamron 10 - 24 mm I use with my 7D and have been very pleased with the performance. Also at under $500.00 it made a nice addition to my camera bag inventory.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 6, 2014 at 5:51 PM
I do mostly landscapes. The 17-40 f4 is the lens that lives on my camera. I usually shoot at f11, so the f2.8 isn't needed for shooting, but an extra stop would be nice for focusing in low light situations. The 16-35 f2.8 is heavier. For me weight is becoming more and more a consideration. I'm not familiar with the 16-35 f4 mentioned above. I also have a Sigma 12-24. It is the widest ultra-wide available for a full frame body, as far as I know. I use it pretty much exclusively at 12mm. There are times when you simply need an ultra-wide lens. I have longer lenses and faster lenses, those are the two wide angle lenses I use the most.
Posted by Roger Kirchen on November 12, 2014 at 1:41 PM
Guy,
I also shoot a 7D and have the 15-85, which is a great lens BTW. I shoot mostly wildlife and birds, but decided to go back into landscape again. There probably is a FF camera in my future, so I did not want to spent too much on an EF-S ultra wide lens. After looking at the used market for a while, I decided to get the Canon 10-18 right when it came out and the first reports were published. The price/performance ratio is right for me.
Discussion
6 repliesI was wondering if you would please help me out. I am wanting to purchase a higher quality landscape lens for my Canon7D. Right now I am using a EF-S 15-85 lens. I really want to get more serious in taking higher quality Landscapes Photos and I thought I would upgrade my lens to start with.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thank you
Guy
If that's the case, among Canon lenses I think you have four obvious options: 24-105mm, 24-70mm, 17-40mm, 16-35mm. More of our landscape shooters may have other suggestions. Since you're using the 7D, I'm not sure the 24-105 and 24-70 would zoom out as wide as you'd like (especially since you're used to the 15-85). In that case, you're down to the 17-40 or 16-35. I use the 17-40, but I'm not a hard core landscape artist... and by all accounts the 16-35 is the superior of the two. But that's also reflected in the price (big time).
Actually, the 10-22mm is yet another ultra wide zoom made for bodies like the 7D, but if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame body in the future, that lens wouldn't be compatible. I'd opt for a lens that won't become obsolete as you change bodies down the road.
Anyone else have further input? Perhaps there's a Sigma, Tamron or Tokina folks like as well...
Max
I shot the 16-35 2.8 lens for years & was pleased but not overwhelmed. The corners were a bit soft. I bought the new 16-35 4.0 & its MUCH sharper across the frame. The only time & feel like I need the 2.8 aperture is with night time star shots. I'd choose the new 4.0 version of the 16-35 for any serious landscape photographer.
I have a Tamron 10 - 24 mm I use with my 7D and have been very pleased with the performance. Also at under $500.00 it made a nice addition to my camera bag inventory.
I also shoot a 7D and have the 15-85, which is a great lens BTW. I shoot mostly wildlife and birds, but decided to go back into landscape again. There probably is a FF camera in my future, so I did not want to spent too much on an EF-S ultra wide lens. After looking at the used market for a while, I decided to get the Canon 10-18 right when it came out and the first reports were published. The price/performance ratio is right for me.