Hello everyone,
I'm just curious as to what lenses are best for landscape shots in the Canon lineup?
I have the 18-55mm that came with my Rebel XT, I don't think this is a quality lens though is it?
What do you all use for your landscape photos? I also photograph waterfalls, if that makes a difference.
Thanks!!
Posted by Adam Schallau on January 14, 2008 at 9:00 PM
You can't go wrong with the 17-40mm f/4L. If you are looking for something wider then I suggest the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens.
Posted by Fred Stearns on January 14, 2008 at 10:20 PM
The best lens for landscape depends on where you are and what you are trying to do. I have found everything from 28mm to 400mm to work in different scenarios. I have three lenses, but use 2 mostly. For landscape, I usually use a 28-105mm but also use a 100-400 mm. I use a Canon 5D, so your 18 mm lens is approximately equivalent to a 29 mm on my camera.
What I do is to find my subject, then choose a lens to portray the subject the way I think will look best. When I was at Artist Point on the Yellowstone River, I used everything from 28 mm to 400 mm to take pictures of the Lower Yellowstone Falls. With the 400 mm, you could see that there was a viewing platform at the top of the falls.
Experiment! Have fun! See what works. Learn from the shots that are not what you are looking for.
Kyle, what about a mid-range telephoto? I'm not up on the available lenses for Canon since I shoot mostly large format, but what about something in the 70-180mm range? The compression of perspective, and the ability to isolate your subjects out of what may be a chaotic scene would be handy for a landscape photographer.
-PB
Posted by Don George on January 14, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I'll second the 17-40mm f4L , great lens.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 15, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I also have the 17-40L for a APS-C body. Its a great range for general landscape. It is basically a normal lens meaning the focal length is roughly the same as the length of the diagonal across the sensor. Some alternatives dedicated to the cropped format in this "normal" range are:
Tokina 16-50 f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Sigma 18-50 f2.8
Canon 17-55 f2.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
All seem to have pretty high ratings with their owners.
If you want to go wider as in ultra wide angle:
Tokina 12-24 f4
Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5
Sigma 10-20
And for a longer lens the Canon 70-200 f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6 IS are both good choices.
The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II that Fred Sterns mentioned is also a great little lens and very affordable. I've used it and like it very well.
Hey Kyle, for a crop-format sensor on a Canon body, the best landscape lens is the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 15, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Kyle, because of the 1.6 crop factor associated with your sensor, the 18-55 is in reality about 28-29mm at its widest.
I shoot the 17-40L as my wide angle, which is about 27mm on my 1.6 crop sensor 30D. I shoot this lens because it's almost always wide enough for me, the IQ and build are excellent, and because my next body will be a full-frame sensor, so the 17mm will be a true 17mm.
If I did a LOT of landscape and truly wide angle with my 30D (or any other Canon 1.6 crop sensor), I'd for sure pick up the Canon 10-22, which offers those crop sensor cameras a 16mm equivalent. The 10-22 is not an L, but IQ on the lens is excellent.
Both the 17-40 and 10-22 cost about the same, so if you have to pick between them it comes down to just how wide you think you need to go. You already have 18-55 covered with the kit lens, but as you said the IQ is not that great. Both the 17-40 and 10-22 kick its butt.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 15, 2008 at 1:45 PM
There is no such thing as the "best" lens or focal length for landscape. There are many good lenses and many good focal lengths. Choosing the appropriate one for the scene at hand is what its all about in the end.
I own the 10-22, 17-40, 28-70 f2.8, 50 f1.4 and 70-300 IS for a Canon XT. The 50/1.4 is primarily used for portraits and travel photos, but I still use it for landscapes from time to time. The other lenses were all purchased primarily for landscape use.
The ultrawide perspective of the 10-22 is nice to have, but you have to be REALLY close to your subject to use this lens. I would strongly recommend a 17-40 or 17-50mm focal range for you first lens unless you know that you want the extremely wide field of view offered by the 10-22.
I owned the 17-40L for a long time before I eventually bought the 10-22. I did ultimately decide that I would not be going full frame very soon and that I could still use the 10-22 on the crop camera in the future (or sell it if I decided to no longer use the camera).
There are two big risks with an ultrawide lens. First, people in your scene can become extremely distorted if they get near the outer 1/3 of the frame. The other is that the ultrawide field of view renders the background as minuscule unless you are very close.
In this shot, the large 10-mile range looks like ant hills despite the fact that the nearest peaks are only a mile or two away and the peaks tower 3000-5000 feet above the valley.
In this shot, shot at 28mm on a crop body, from the same lake but even further away, notice how much larger the peaks stand. These are the same two peaks as on the right hand side of the first image.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Digital cropping factor aside, I personally wouldn't touch something lke the 17-40 or the 16-35(or is it a 40? Anyway....). for doing landscapes. I simply don't see the world through a wide angle lens. Even my 24-70 was very rarely used as at the 24 end with a film body. I just can't imagine shooting with anything wider than an effective 20 mm.
But that is simply *my* preference. As I have said before, my 180 macro was my most heavily used landscape lens. For landscapes, it has been replaced witht the 70-200 near 135mm, which is about 180-200 mm with the digital cropping.
If you are looking to replace the 18-55, the 17-40 f4, 16-35 f2.8, and Sigma 10-20 are all good lenses. A good two lens combination at the wide end would be the Canon 24-70 f4, non-IS version (the f4 IS version is fairly universally reviewed to be the softest 24-70 in Canon's lineup), with either the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 17-40 f4. With this pairing, I'd pick the Sigma based on cost and reviews, although I have not use that lens. The Sigma is supposed to be sharper than the equivalent Canon 10-22 and is cheaper.
My very first Canon lens was the 17-40 and I would still rank it as tied for favorite with the 70-200/4L. I would definitely echo the recommendations above for these great lenses.
Dan brings up a good point though. Much will depend on your personal preference. Not all photographers see the world in extreme wide angle so if your style is more intimate you may want to go with something like the 24-105/4L and get a great working range, along with image stabilization.
Discussion
10 repliesI'm just curious as to what lenses are best for landscape shots in the Canon lineup?
I have the 18-55mm that came with my Rebel XT, I don't think this is a quality lens though is it?
What do you all use for your landscape photos? I also photograph waterfalls, if that makes a difference.
Thanks!!
What I do is to find my subject, then choose a lens to portray the subject the way I think will look best. When I was at Artist Point on the Yellowstone River, I used everything from 28 mm to 400 mm to take pictures of the Lower Yellowstone Falls. With the 400 mm, you could see that there was a viewing platform at the top of the falls.
Experiment! Have fun! See what works. Learn from the shots that are not what you are looking for.
Good Luck Kyle!
-PB
Tokina 16-50 f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Sigma 18-50 f2.8
Canon 17-55 f2.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
All seem to have pretty high ratings with their owners.
If you want to go wider as in ultra wide angle:
Tokina 12-24 f4
Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5
Sigma 10-20
And for a longer lens the Canon 70-200 f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6 IS are both good choices.
The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II that Fred Sterns mentioned is also a great little lens and very affordable. I've used it and like it very well.
Mel-
I shoot the 17-40L as my wide angle, which is about 27mm on my 1.6 crop sensor 30D. I shoot this lens because it's almost always wide enough for me, the IQ and build are excellent, and because my next body will be a full-frame sensor, so the 17mm will be a true 17mm.
If I did a LOT of landscape and truly wide angle with my 30D (or any other Canon 1.6 crop sensor), I'd for sure pick up the Canon 10-22, which offers those crop sensor cameras a 16mm equivalent. The 10-22 is not an L, but IQ on the lens is excellent.
Both the 17-40 and 10-22 cost about the same, so if you have to pick between them it comes down to just how wide you think you need to go. You already have 18-55 covered with the kit lens, but as you said the IQ is not that great. Both the 17-40 and 10-22 kick its butt.
I own the 10-22, 17-40, 28-70 f2.8, 50 f1.4 and 70-300 IS for a Canon XT. The 50/1.4 is primarily used for portraits and travel photos, but I still use it for landscapes from time to time. The other lenses were all purchased primarily for landscape use.
The ultrawide perspective of the 10-22 is nice to have, but you have to be REALLY close to your subject to use this lens. I would strongly recommend a 17-40 or 17-50mm focal range for you first lens unless you know that you want the extremely wide field of view offered by the 10-22.
I owned the 17-40L for a long time before I eventually bought the 10-22. I did ultimately decide that I would not be going full frame very soon and that I could still use the 10-22 on the crop camera in the future (or sell it if I decided to no longer use the camera).
There are two big risks with an ultrawide lens. First, people in your scene can become extremely distorted if they get near the outer 1/3 of the frame. The other is that the ultrawide field of view renders the background as minuscule unless you are very close.
In this shot, the large 10-mile range looks like ant hills despite the fact that the nearest peaks are only a mile or two away and the peaks tower 3000-5000 feet above the valley.
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/v/Colorado/Summit/10_mile_sunrise1.jpg.html
In this shot, shot at 28mm on a crop body, from the same lake but even further away, notice how much larger the peaks stand. These are the same two peaks as on the right hand side of the first image.
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/v/Colorado/Summit/Dillon_01.jpg.html
But a 10mm lens will allow you to catch a shot like this. 17mm would have resulted in a much tighter field of view.
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/v/MelsBestWork/Virgin_Narrows_02.jpg.html
Mel-
But that is simply *my* preference. As I have said before, my 180 macro was my most heavily used landscape lens. For landscapes, it has been replaced witht the 70-200 near 135mm, which is about 180-200 mm with the digital cropping.
If you are looking to replace the 18-55, the 17-40 f4, 16-35 f2.8, and Sigma 10-20 are all good lenses. A good two lens combination at the wide end would be the Canon 24-70 f4, non-IS version (the f4 IS version is fairly universally reviewed to be the softest 24-70 in Canon's lineup), with either the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 17-40 f4. With this pairing, I'd pick the Sigma based on cost and reviews, although I have not use that lens. The Sigma is supposed to be sharper than the equivalent Canon 10-22 and is cheaper.
Dan brings up a good point though. Much will depend on your personal preference. Not all photographers see the world in extreme wide angle so if your style is more intimate you may want to go with something like the 24-105/4L and get a great working range, along with image stabilization.
Guy