Im looking for a good landscape/wideangle lens for $500 or less. I would like to make some prints or possibly sell some of them on a calendar or something. National Park Photography at Yosemite is my favorite place for landscapes. (if that matters) I know my 100-400 can be used for landscape but on my last trip to Yosemite I wanted something a little more wide. Please help me out.
Used 17-40 f/4 L. Might have to search to find one, but it'll give you about 22mm effective. Of course coming from what you have the look is going to be completely different, maybe too much so depending on what you are looking for. The other thing that came to mind is the Tamron 28-75 2.8, which seems to get pretty good reviews, and would be less of a drastic transition compared to what you are using now.
What about the 20mm f/2.8 ? I've always been very fond of this lens despite the less than great reviews. I like it better than it's cousins: 28 1.8, 35 f2 by far.
Another vote for the 17-40. The sigma 12-24 is made for crop cameras, it would be limiting to use something that wide on 1.3, I think. 17-40L is a great lens that almost seems optimized for landscapes.
Using this lens for architecture there is very noticeable lens distortion toward the wide end, not sure how well the 17-40 handles it but as long as you leave room for PS you can fix it easily, as in the above pic.
Edited by SKYWESTR on Nov 29, 2007 at 09:20 PM GMT (Reason: added lens distortion)
Sometimes we buy lenses and realize very quickly that they don't fit our shooting style. Others we buy and realize a few years later that the idea of selling them has never crossed our mind. For me, the Canon 17-40mm lens fits that category. It is a very nicet walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop camera and a great landscape lens on a FF camera.
Yeah sorry Tri Tran for some dumb reason I thought since the 1DII had 8.2mp it was the same sensor as the 20D. OOPS!! the 17-50 won't work but wow that's a great shot of the golf course with the 24-70.
carl
