Get a 17-40L... Here in the Netherlands these babies are going for 500,00 euros (after a cashback). How much are they going for in the States? Maybe if you can spare some extra cash, you can buy it new (wow, I should be looking for a sales job ) At least you have warranty and can have it calibrated for free (if that's necessary). Better safe than sorry...
Won't any lens do? Most landscapes are taken from f11-f16 to keep everything sharp and in focus. Most lenses have are very exceptable IQ at that range.
Most everything else (distortion, vin, color) can be enhanced in photoshop.
Phast1 wrote:
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.
plus it's a steal at $400 new from B&H.
I couldnt agree more.Terrific lens.Buy it used and get a 35mmf/2 as well.Then just bring on Yosemite.
Like Danny has said, at f11, with a remote release, mirror lock-up & hyperfocal distance focussing, most lenses will give great results. You just need to pick your field of view.
I have a 16-35L but find myself using the thrifty fifty more and more for landscapes on my 1DMkII. The quality of the prime over the zoom is astounding. If you want something wider, why not try the 20, 24 or 28mm 2.8 lenses?
danny d wrote:
I am going to get slaughtered for this..but..
Won't any lens do? Most landscapes are taken from f11-f16 to keep everything sharp and in focus. Most lenses have are very exceptable IQ at that range.
Most everything else (distortion, vin, color) can be enhanced in photoshop.
I thought that until I purchased 2 canon L lenses. The colors are sharpness are AMAZING compared to cheaper lenses. And here's my vote for the 17-40 as well.
danny d wrote:
I am going to get slaughtered for this..but..
Won't any lens do? Most landscapes are taken from f11-f16 to keep everything sharp and in focus. Most lenses have are very exceptable IQ at that range.
Most everything else (distortion, vin, color) can be enhanced in photoshop.
No slaughtering intended, but if only that were true!
Let me start by agreeing that a lot of less expensive lenses that lack extremely wide apertures turn out to be great landscape lenses when shot at smaller apertures. However, if you will make decent-size prints, not all are sharp enough and some of the issues cannot easily be corrected in post-processing.
Example: A few years ago I was on a backpacking trip in the Dusy Basin area of the eastern Sierra. I was shooting a fine crop sensor Canon body and using the EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens in an attempt to simplify my photo kit for this trip. In the afternoon as a storm cleared I had a great opportunity to photograph a scene with an angled cloud shadow crossing below the summit of Mt. Winchell.
It turned out to be one of my favorite mountain photographs. However, even though I was using a tripod and shooting carefully, the quality of this particular lens was such that the best I can do - with a great deal of care - is a 12" x 18" print from the shot. There simply isn't sufficient fine detail in the image to go farther than that.
If you will stick to somewhat smaller images - say letter size or smaller - the argument that almost any lens will work stopped down becomes a bit more reasonable.
A meanwhile forgotten lens for under $500 - $499 at B&H : Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5.
I think you can get it used for a much lesser price. Drawbacks: slow AF, a bit difficult to switch between MF and AF and lens flare. You can find some comments in the review section.
Nevertheless, I think that you have gotten great advice here and tremendous shots have been posted.
Claude
Nov 30, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I'm not a wide person, I found that on a cropped body, it turns out that my most used lens for landscape is the 50/1.4 and the 35/2, even though I own the 10-20. Thus for the price range what I'd recommend is the Sigma 24-70 if you don't already have a lens in that range, that IMHO is the most versatile focal length. I've used one and it is great, assuming you get a properly focusing one, and you can get it calibrated if it doesn't.
Btw, I am thinking of getting rid of my Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 to make room for a 17-55 IS.
i have the 24-70mm sigma myself. I love the lens but sometimes i think I need to get it calibrated but then again it is my own fault for sometimes not focusing properly. I did a focus test on it and it is almost spot on.
But i think I will get a 10-20 as well because I would like to have something even wider.
: Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5.