Lanscape Lens for Canon Digital - Recommendation?

What would be your pick as a GREAT landscape lens to go with the new Canon 40D?

Canon EOS EF 12-600mm f2.0L IS mini-zoom. It's 7 oz., takes 49mm filters and costs $299.95 at Wal-mart.

thats a good one, but if your budget permits, the 10-22 made specifically for our digital sensors is AMAZING. I think it runs around 6-700 though. It has been a while since I purchased it, I forgot the price.

Thanks Johnathan, I was thinking about the 10-22 but have always wanted the 17-40. Have you shot with both? I know the 10-22 would be wider, is it worth giving up the L quality?

I own both the 10-22 and 17-40L and use them both frequently. The 10-22 is significantly wider than the 17-40L for a crop body like the 40D. If you'd like to know more, I'd be happy to share more details of how I use these lenses and my experiences with you. You cannot replace the wide field of view of the 10-22 on a crop body like the 40D.

If you don't plan to move beyond EF-S bodies within a year or two and don't already have the 17-40L, I would recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS for that range. This lens will serve the wide to short telephoto range that will be most useful to you. Unfortunately, this lens also costs nearly $1K. But it has top notch image quality (it is supposed to be sharper than the 17-40L) with a fast f2.8 aperture and IS. This lens would be the lens you could stick on your camera and shoot with all day, indoors or out, portraits or scenics. You'd still want to have other lenses, but this is an excellent starting point.

Another lens to consider is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. This lens is about $250 with its hood. It is a higher quality consumer level zoom, but it is sharp and has good color and contrast, plus true fast and silent USM focusing with full time manual override like the L lenses. This lens also has better close focusing than the L lenses. This lens would pair up nicely with the 10-22.

Finally, another great L to consider is the 70-200 f4L (not IS). I think this lens is somewhere around $600. It has excellent image quality and is much less expensive than the IS version.

Something to consider is that landscape shots are not made solely with ultra-wide angle lenses. Normal lenses and telephotos both are valuable components. Whatever you do, choosing good quality lenses is going to help. Another thing to consider is that your tripod and head is probably more important than the lens you choose. Along with the tripod, get a cable or remote release for your camera body. These will help alot with landscape photography.

Mel-

When I had a Rebel XT, I found my 17-40 to not be wide enough on the short end, and not short-tele enough on the long end.

I found my 17-40 to not be wide enough on the short end, and not short-tele enough on the long end.>>>

Same here. And 10-22 has severe problems in CA department. The best L glass imo is 70-200/4L (non IS), small and very sharp, price/performance is fantastic.

I'm an amateur, not a pro. I love the landscapes I get with the 17-85 lens that came in a kit with my XTi. I always use it on a tripod with a release cable, and mirror lock when I remember.

Guys, do you see a difference between results with the lenses you mention here and the 17-85 that can be seen with human eyes, not just in Photoshop or by a pro photographer?

When I say a difference, I mean something that would make a viewer go "Oh yea, I want THAT version of the photo?"

I think the biggest issue that people have with the 17-85 is CA at the wide focal lengths that is difficult to remove. Otherwise, I think that lens is OK, just not as good as the others mentioned in the range. If all things were equal, I don't know that many photo buyers would be able to point out what was different, but I think they would choose an image shot with the 17-40. That said, I see alot of terrible photography at art shows, both in technical execution and composition, but people buy it.

Thanks guys for the feedback so far. As far as the 70-200 f4 goes, I have one already...yeah. Here is my gear:

Canon EOS 40D, EOS 10D, Canon 70-200mm f4, Canon 28-135mm, Sigma 28-200mm, Canon 28-90mm, Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro, Speedlite 420EX, Manfrotto 3021Pro tripod, w/ Kirk BH-3 Ball Head.

Mel thanks for the info, in regards to the 17-55 2.8 I have read that people are having issues with getting dust into the lens and having barrel-distortion when wide. Have you encountered this?

As far as something on the wide end, I opted for the Canon EF-S 10-22 over the Tokina 12-24 after comparing the two during a shoot in GoG. I had bought the Tokina and met Mel with his Canon. While the Tokina was a little sharper in the corners when wide open on the wide end, the Canon had better contrast and color overall. I use DxO and found that it did a great job with any CA, distortion, and softness in the Canon, taking it well beyond what I got from the Tokina. So I went back to Mike's Camera and exchanged the Tokina. I'm really enjoying the extra-wide perspective.
My main landscape lenses are the Canon 10-22 and the Tamron 28-75F2.8, another nice lens, especially for the price.

BTW, on all of my recent purchases, I've been able to get Mike's Camera (Park Meadows location) to match or beat B&H prices. They usually have the models I'm looking for and it's nice to get a hands-on before buying.