View Full Version : What is the Best Canon Lens for Landscape Photography
ccrnkovic
18-10-2010, 11:07pm
Just wondering if I could have some recommendations of what the best landscape lens is or what do you recommend?
Thanks:)
Nikon 12-24
Oh, hang on canon.....hmmmmm....pass
I hope that was helpful :)
Sigma 10-20 Canon mount. :p (It is a very good WA lens)
RaoulIsidro
18-10-2010, 11:41pm
Full Frame: Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM MarkII
Cropped 1.6: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
enduro
19-10-2010, 12:09am
all depends what you are shooting!
Canon 10-22mm. Sigma 10-22mm, Canon 17-40mm, Sigma 17-70mm ... something longer .... something prime?
I'd have to say that just about all good landscapers have had or have the Canon 17-40mm. Some would have the Sigma 17-70mm too, which is a very good lens on comparison.
For me, I have been very happy with the 10-20 range and the 17-70 range for a fulll set. If I upgrade the 17-70 it might be for the new version or the 17-40mm.
JM Tran
19-10-2010, 12:55am
all depends what you are shooting!
Canon 10-22mm. Sigma 10-22mm, Canon 17-40mm, Sigma 17-70mm ... something longer .... something prime?
I'd have to say that just about all good landscapers have had or have the Canon 17-40mm. Some would have the Sigma 17-70mm too, which is a very good lens on comparison.
For me, I have been very happy with the 10-20 range and the 17-70 range for a fulll set. If I upgrade the 17-70 it might be for the new version or the 17-40mm.
the 17-40 L is actually quite poor on full frame due to crappy sharpness and smeared details on the edge and corners of photos - a high MP sensor such as the 5D2 will showcase this more than less demanding sensors, I was never happy with it on FF, but its good on a crop sensor due to the bad IQ on corners being taken out.
people always forget the Sigma 12-24 which is the widest you can go on full frame for rectilinear lens meaning no barrel distortion as evident in the 17-40 or 16-35. Stopped down it is a lot sharper than the 17-40 and rivals many other highly regarded landscape lenses.
serious landscape shooters for fine arts and commercial will be using the 14mm L prime or 17mm TSE honestly.......
Analog6
19-10-2010, 6:10am
Nikon 12-24
Oh, hang on canon.....hmmmmm....pass
I hope that was helpful :)
I thought we were asked not to do this sort of pointless comment - naughty kiwi!
When I was shooting with my Canon gear (full frame) I used the 16-35l MkII, and before that on the 1.3 crop camera had success with the 10-22. But from time to time you may want a tele such as the 70-200 - every scene and what you want to get out of it is different. Buy the best glass you can afford, but I can guarantee no matter how many lenses you have there will be times when you won't have just what you want for the occasion!
I think the 17-40L is a pretty good choice.
surely barrel distortion is not a major concern with landscapes...
Dachimas
19-10-2010, 7:42pm
I have the 17-40 and have owned (and have re-bought) the 10-22 Canon and have been very happy with both. If I could have only 1, I would take the 10-22...I always hear good reports about the Sigma version of this lens. I use a 40d too btw...
JM Tran
19-10-2010, 7:45pm
surely barrel distortion is not a major concern with landscapes...
oh not at all, we all love curved horizons and elongated buildings.....
oh not at all, we all love curved horizons and elongated buildings.....
horizons ARE curved last time i checked, and buildings not exactly the major component of landscapes.....
JM Tran
19-10-2010, 9:37pm
horizons ARE curved last time i checked, and buildings not exactly the major component of landscapes.....
sooooooo you would prefer say, a beach shot with the horizon sloping down to oneside? or bowed outwards? Do u shoot with a fish eye for everything perchance? Or are u simply trolling........because I will report u if u are......
yeah, the earth and horizons are round and curved, if u fly or stand high enough. Ever seen a professional or fine art landscape photo where there is a lot of barrel distortion, unless it was done on purpose?
Mod note: Cool it people!!
ricktas
19-10-2010, 10:00pm
I remind members if you have an issue with another members post. Please report it using the report icon (now a small triange) to the right of the thanks button. Responding with personal comments etc, could see you dragged into any action we take if a member breaches the site rules.
ricktas
19-10-2010, 10:04pm
sooooooo you would prefer say, a beach shot with the horizon sloping down to oneside? or bowed outwards? Do u shoot with a fish eye for everything perchance? Or are u simply trolling........because I will report u if u are......
yeah, the earth and horizons are round and curved, if u fly or stand high enough. Ever seen a professional or fine art landscape photo where there is a lot of barrel distortion, unless it was done on purpose?
Report if you like, but this post could well be deemed as baiting..so be prepared to be on the receiving end of any action we deem appropriate. I suggest you both step back and cool off.
Xenedis
19-10-2010, 10:34pm
Just wondering if I could have some recommendations of what the best landscape lens is or what do you recommend?
Personally, I use the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.
I like an ultra-wide view.
While f/2.8 is not necessary for landscapes, I've also used this lens for band shoots and other indoor photography, where the wider aperture is definitely useful.
The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is a very viable alternative, and considerably cheaper.
I should note that I've been shooting with full-frame DSLRs since 2006. If you're shooting with an APS-C DSLR, I wouldn't recommend either of these lenses if a very wide view is what you want; a very good alternative is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.
no problems mods
sooooooo you would prefer say, a beach shot with the horizon sloping down to oneside? or bowed outwards? Do u shoot with a fish eye for everything perchance? Or are u simply trolling........because I will report u if u are......
yeah, the earth and horizons are round and curved, if u fly or stand high enough. Ever seen a professional or fine art landscape photo where there is a lot of barrel distortion, unless it was done on purpose?
I've not used the 17-40, so am not familliar with how much distortion it has, but would be surprised if it's as noticeable as you say.
I shoot a lot with the 10-22, but plan to move to full frame soon so was going to replace the 10-22 with the 17-40, but by the sounds of it this would be a downgrade, which seems a little strange considering the 17-40 is an L lens. (although i'm aware that the 10-22 is generally accepted to have "L" quality.
And no i'm not trolling, just trying to make my point that landscape is more forgiving than say buildings/architecture/street.
CherylB
19-10-2010, 10:38pm
I don't have a Canon WA lens, but I have the Sigma 10-20mm and I am very happy with it for my Canon 40D. Most reports I've seen for this lens give it a good rating.
The Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 11-16 generally have rave revues and people love them. Personally I use a 10-22 Canon and it is now my favourite lens. You really can't go wrong with it on a crop frame (Canon) camera.
James Axford
20-10-2010, 9:53pm
17mm ts-e, 24mm ts-e would wipe the floor with those zooms :)
The tse lenses have much greater control over dof at any f stop
Also the zeiss 21mm I hear is also about the best you can get.
Stay away from the zooms if you are after simply the best. :D
Clubmanmc
21-10-2010, 5:38pm
funny as most of my landscapes i feel have been taken with my 24-70 F2.8 on my 40D / 7D the 10-22 and the 16-35 tend to bend the horizon or just give me some garbage fringe and edges, also the wider lenses, tend to give a little too much sky and or fore ground, i like the compression that the 24-70 adds to the landscape...
thats my 10 cents...
M
stevehartwig
24-10-2010, 11:10pm
I'll weigh in too... I used a sigma 10-20 which I thought was fabulous for an APS-C camera; was sad to aprt with it when I got my 5DMkII; then i got a sigma 12-24 and was fairly disappointed, partly because of inability to use a screw-on filter; I have subsequently bought a Canon 16-35mm lens, which is awesome... maybe even better than the 10-20.
So... APS-C: 10-20mm sigma
Full fram: Canon 16-35mm F2.8 (II)...
twister
25-10-2010, 5:49pm
How about the Tokina 11-16? That is a very good WA lens too
17mm ts-e, 24mm ts-e would wipe the floor with those zooms :)
The tse lenses have much greater control over dof at any f stop
Couldnt agree more. The 24 TS-E is ridiculously sharp, and the tilt lets you get massive levels of DOF at almost any aperture. Plus, you can shift either side left/right and up/down and create panoramas pretty quickly and easily.
Downside, price. Very expensive lens.
dredi1975
05-11-2010, 1:55pm
Ive been using sigma 10-20 with 40d for last 2 years and was preety much always happy with results and at very good price.
unistudent1962
05-11-2010, 3:08pm
Tilt Shift lenses sound like a great option, if only they were more affordable.
What's the best price anyone has seen the Canon 10-22 for?
Grey price
Aus price
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is very common, but the 24mm TS-E prime would be the best.
fairy bombs
05-11-2010, 3:48pm
My Canon 10-22 mm EF-S lens arrived yesterday,I plan to use it for landscape and similar,I am not going FF for some time.
So I geuss it will be with me for a good while,So I did a fair bit of reserch on this lens and other similar,this one always came out on top
in the reviews,While a FF with a 16-35 is the best,the 10-22 on a good crop body compared very well against the FF outfit.
In fact it was said they only way to tell the difference was to pixel peep,the POTN engineers are very impressed with the 10-22.
I looked at the sigma lens reviews on thier similar lens,and well,IMO better to pay the Canon price for the 10-22.
Cheers FB
BTW "Unistudent 1962' my 10-22 cost $772 from DWI that includes postage and insurance and the 2% card fee.hope that helps
unistudent1962
05-11-2010, 6:15pm
BTW "Unistudent 1962' my 10-22 cost $772 from DWI that includes postage and insurance and the 2% card fee.hope that helps
Thanks
Thanks for some great information everyone
osiris2000
06-11-2010, 7:13am
I personally like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens it's a brilliant lens and really sharp.........
twister
06-11-2010, 12:29pm
For landscape/architecture, the TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3,5L II are the sharpest lenses in Canon's armoury....they whack the 17-40 and 16-35 right out of the park, but at a hefty monetary premium though...
Damo 5D
19-12-2010, 6:20pm
It would have to be the TSE's for DOF, and in any focal length depending on what you're trying to achieve.
A landscape shot needn't necessarily be shot with wide angle, and I use anything between 16-400mm on FF.
Interesting to see differing views on sigma 12-24 and canon 17-40.
I've used the 12-24 but only on a 30D and have found it to be good, but the filter limitation is annoying. I'm planning to go full frame and was under the impression that the 12-24 would be too wide and may vignette, so was thinking of getting a 17-40.
What is the 12-24 like on 5DMkII ?
Also, this discussion is dependent on whether you are talking about cropped sensors or FF. There's no point comparing EF with EF-S if the lens is for a FF camera.
Clubmanmc
24-12-2010, 10:32am
my 16-35 on my 5D II is quite a nice mix, almost osme times i find it too wide, 24-70 is some times better!
but on the 7D the 16-35 is quite a versatile lens!
M
Roosta
24-12-2010, 12:00pm
If your still deciding, I mainly shot with a Sigma 18-50mm on my 50D, it's a F2.8 lens, which like has been mentioned previously, is not required. I aslo use my 70-200mm L F2.8 for landscape shoting.
This is such a hot topic, Alot of more pro end togs go the TSE, which is fine if you can justify the expense or make a living using it. The Sigma 10-20mm, there are now two F3.5 solid and the F3.5 - 5.6 (I think). In a review by dpreview.com, the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20mm couldn't sperated, the Tokina has a nifty AF/MF slide rather than switch, which is a great idea. There are shorter lengths in APS-c as mentioned 11-16mm and so on.
Now that said, If you are shooting mountain ranges and so on, a 70-200mm or a 400 + mm prime could be your best choice.
What is it your are mainly going to shot ? If its a general landscape/seascape scene, you only need to look at that forum and see the popularity of the Sigma 10-20mm lens, and at arounf $400.00 Oz, price matched with CR Kennedy against best internet price, well it's not a bad decession to make.
The FF option is always there, but I would concider your body, will you up-grade? if so then the EF lens option is your best option, If not, why spend the extra if you don't really need to. Go and try a few at a good camera shop, if you like one over the other maybe try hiring it for a weekend and put it to good use, use all it features and your cameras to see the results.
Let everyone know what you decide.
Have fun. :xmas:
TanyaJ
24-12-2010, 11:00pm
If your still deciding, I mainly shot with a Sigma 18-50mm on my 50D, it's a F2.8 lens, which like has been mentioned previously, is not required. I aslo use my 70-200mm L F2.8 for landscape shoting.
This is such a hot topic, Alot of more pro end togs go the TSE, which is fine if you can justify the expense or make a living using it. The Sigma 10-20mm, there are now two F3.5 solid and the F3.5 - 5.6 (I think). In a review by dpreview.com, the Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 10-20mm couldn't sperated, the Tokina has a nifty AF/MF slide rather than switch, which is a great idea. There are shorter lengths in APS-c as mentioned 11-16mm and so on.
Now that said, If you are shooting mountain ranges and so on, a 70-200mm or a 400 + mm prime could be your best choice.
What is it your are mainly going to shot ? If its a general landscape/seascape scene, you only need to look at that forum and see the popularity of the Sigma 10-20mm lens, and at arounf $400.00 Oz, price matched with CR Kennedy against best internet price, well it's not a bad decession to make.
The FF option is always there, but I would concider your body, will you up-grade? if so then the EF lens option is your best option, If not, why spend the extra if you don't really need to. Go and try a few at a good camera shop, if you like one over the other maybe try hiring it for a weekend and put it to good use, use all it features and your cameras to see the results.
Let everyone know what you decide.
Have fun. :xmas:
Hi Roosta,
I too am looking at a wide angle lens at the moment, and am seriously considering the sigma 10-22. I am mainly intending to shoot general landscape/seascape.
Could you please expand on the price info - $400 best internet price, could you tell me who has this for $4oo and do C R Kennedy pirce match any internet price.
Sorry but I have not bought online before and not confident in this area, so if you could elaborate on details for a novice it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Tanya:xmas31:
Wide isn't necessarily better for landscape, depending on the effect you're looking for, stitching several images together at a longer focal length will give a different perspective.
On a FF sensor, the nikon 14-24 f2.8 with an adapter is reputed to be far better than anything Canon have to offer, better at 14mm than Canon's prime at almost half the price, although you lose AF and the best you can achieve with a chipped adapter is stop down metering.
Hi Roosta,
I too am looking at a wide angle lens at the moment, and am seriously considering the sigma 10-22. I am mainly intending to shoot general landscape/seascape.
Could you please expand on the price info - $400 best internet price, could you tell me who has this for $4oo and do C R Kennedy pirce match any internet price.
Sorry but I have not bought online before and not confident in this area, so if you could elaborate on details for a novice it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Tanya:xmas31:
Merry Christmas Tanya, If you look at these two links, One is DWI (Internet importer, the CR site lists several examples) and the other is the Official page of the CR Kennedy's website. CR's are the importer and only one with rights to full warranty and so on in Australia. They cover quite a large range of products as you can see on their website. Any way. If you get the best internet price, take it with you to one of CR Kennedy's authorised re-sellers (you can search their site for SA dealers) they will price match. The Australian price is usally near double. They are helping to keep the buyer's in Australia, long live competion. :th3:
http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/advsearch.asp?action=search&keyword=Sigma+10-20
http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465&h=price%20match& and http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=315&h=price%20match&
Hope this helps.
cookie99
30-12-2010, 6:24pm
I use the 17mm Ts-e and the 24mm Ts-e but would never recomend them to inexperienced photographers, the 17-40 is a superb lens to learn on and in contrast to what has been said previously I love it on my FF 5DMKIIs (ever heard of post prosessing? it can cover a multitude of our photographic sins) :)
JM Tran
30-12-2010, 7:41pm
the 17-40 is a superb lens to learn on and in contrast to what has been said previously I love it on my FF 5DMKIIs (ever heard of post prosessing? it can cover a multitude of our photographic sins)
I didnt know any amount of PP can help improve the 17-40's awful corner softness and smeared details on a full frame.....might have to go back to using the ancient 1Ds body for its very sharp sensor then
Geoff79
23-06-2011, 11:39am
Helpful thread.
So do I understand correctly that there isn't really a lens under the $400 mark that would suffice?
It's not even worth having a look if you're thinking a $200 price range, is it? Maybe I'll just want until Christmas or my birthday or something...
William
23-06-2011, 12:02pm
Helpful thread.
So do I understand correctly that there isn't really a lens under the $400 mark that would suffice?
It's not even worth having a look if you're thinking a $200 price range, is it? Maybe I'll just want until Christmas or my birthday or something...
The answer is "NO" You maybe able to pick up a second hand Siggy, I got mine 3yrs ago for $450 , All my earlier shots at Landscapes were taken at 18mm and were'nt to shabby , That said next time I go out for a Sunrise shoot , All I'm taking is the 24-105 for a different perspective on things , That'll be interesting :D
andylo
23-06-2011, 12:09pm
I don't own one myself and I am waiting for a chance (that missus is not looking at the credit card statement) to get one myself....
The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 suppose to be a very, very good alternative for just under AUD$400 shipped to door due to strong AUD. But it's all manual (no AF, manual aperture etc)
William
23-06-2011, 12:19pm
I don't own one myself and I am waiting for a chance (that missus is not looking at the credit card statement) to get one myself....
The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 suppose to be a very, very good alternative for just under AUD$400 shipped to door due to strong AUD. But it's all manual (no AF, manual aperture etc)
Thats a good price has anyone tried it that we know on this site ?
This is what Ken Rockwell thinks of the Samyang !!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm
Who cares what Rockwell thinks :D
William
23-06-2011, 1:28pm
Who cares what Rockwell thinks :D
Go and buy it , And let us know what you think :th3:
I wont be in a hurry :eek:
In general, I'd agree, Andylo, but in this casse ... well, even Ken Rockwell would find it hard to be this wrong about a lens. That is a truly shocking review. Possible the worst review of a lens I have ever read.
Photozone, on the other hand, says that it is very sharp ("outstanding resolution figures") but also that it has "massive" barrel distortion.
Not a lens I'd be racing out to buy, that's for sure!
Geoff79
23-06-2011, 2:03pm
So just to get a final answer for this, and something for me to really aim for... what is the perfect lens one would purchase in an acceptable price-range - not more than $500 (I couldn't do it again). That one lens to fruitfully capture the best from mostly sea(beach)scapes, as well as landscapes?
The ones I was a bit excited about were the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 10-24.
William
23-06-2011, 2:25pm
Flick a coin geoff ;), I have a Sigma, Excellent lens if you've seen my Sunrises, Maybe the Tokina as well , The reason I say these two lens is the price difference , The Canon is nearly double the price , So in your price range , You'd have to go with the Sigma IMO , Heard some good reports on the Tokina/Tamron as well tho , But have'nt seen or tried it , Maybe Tony can enlighten us :)
I am also looking at a WA zoom for my Canon DSLR in particular the Sigma 10-20 but i am not sure which model i.e
10-20 F3.5 EX DC HSM or 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM also the Canon 10-22 any views on which lens would be the most suitable for landscapes.
Thanks ....Bathy
... well, even Ken Rockwell would find it hard to be this wrong about a lens. That is a truly shocking review. Possible the worst review of a lens I have ever read.
Kindly explain this astonishing comment. Details please.
(I'm thinking of buying the thing, so any informed comment would be valuable.)
Tannin
23-06-2011, 10:53pm
^ Nothing to explain.
Rockwell isn't all that well-regarded - the conventional wisdom is that he is a genuine buffoon , but he nevertheless does have some credibility when he isn't grandstanding for the gallery, and he gives this lens a shockingly bad review, absolutely crucifies it. Why not just read it for yourself? Won't take you more than 90 seconds.
Tannin
23-06-2011, 11:02pm
Bathy, most people here say to go for the Sigma 10-20 either because it's cheap, or else perhaps because they are cheap. It also gets votes because it will fit on a Nikon or a Pentax (assuming you buy the right version).
I have never owned one, but the quality reviewers seem to agree that it is good, but not nearly as good as the Canon 10-22. It has inferior finish and build quality (which is no big deal) and it is 2mm shorter. Now that may or may not matter to you, but I find those extra few mm really, really handy - certainly now that I'm using multiple bodies and matching it with either a 24-105 or a set of primes starting at 35mm, but even before, when I was using a single body and a 18-55 with significant FL overlap. Even in the latter case, it was still very handy and saved a lot of tedious lens swapping.
On the other hand, it costs more.
I'd like the Tamron 10-24 even more, but apparently that is a bit of a dog, with significant image quality issues. End result, I reckon the Canon 10-22 is still the one to have. If I remember correctly, the newish Nikkor ultra-wde is a good 'un also.
I read it. Rockwell isn't a buffoon, he's pretty sharp and well informed.
He does arse about a bit*, but usually makes sense when read carefully.
His review is very dismissive, but the only concrete thing I see in it that differs from other reviews is his opinion that the lens is soft. And as he says this might well be explained by sample variation.
Not "shocking" in my view.
*Ok. A lot.
Bennymiata
24-06-2011, 11:02am
There's also an in-depth review of the Samyang in Photozone in Germany.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/533-samyang14f28eosapsc
They seem to like it for the money and the test photos look remarkably good.
The problem is that many people would be frightened off by the fact it's purely manual, but for those from the old school, like me, it could be fun.
Haven't used a manual lens for many years!
I prefer the Canon 15-85 its as good as the 17-40 if not better.
Also its reasonably priced and a nice carry lens.
Regards
I'm just going to pop my head in here as it's also one I'm looking into for my next purchase.
I have a 7D so I'm looking at the 10-20mm but it's so hard to decide why can't we try before we buy :( haha
I'm also struggling to decide which UWA to go with when I move to full frame shortly... 16-35mm or 14mm or TSE 17mm... tough decision, all so expensive...
Xenedis
11-07-2011, 9:53pm
I'm also struggling to decide which UWA to go with when I move to full frame shortly... 16-35mm or 14mm or TSE 17mm... tough decision, all so expensive...
One thing of which to be aware if you're considering the 14/2.8L II or TS-E 17/4L is that neither lens can support filters.
Both lenses have a significantly convex objective element which protrudes considerably beyond the lens barrel. The 14/2.8L II has an in-built metal hood to protect the objective element, but neither lens has filter threads.
The 16-35/2.8L II has an 82mm filter thread. If you use 'creative' filter systems (ie, glass/resin filters from the likes of Lee, Singh-Ray, Cokin and Hi-Tech, which slot into a holder), you need the larger size (supporting 150mm x 100mm filters), which Cokin calls 'Z-PRO'.
cam bicknell
13-07-2011, 8:15pm
If it's possible try before you buy is a good idea. I recently borrowed a mates lens for the weekend to help me decide between it and another and worked out that it wasn't either of them that I was after.
flossed
18-07-2011, 4:09pm
Is the Canon 15-85mm any good?
carrg1954
24-07-2011, 7:30pm
Ok , so I'll ask, why select a 16-35 f2.8 when recommending landscape lenses ?
I know it's either the 17-40 f4, but surely the 16-35 either mk 1 or 2 are not landscape lenses. Aren't you going to stop down to f9 to 16, so if you are on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop then the corners aren't an issue. Full frame is another matter, then perhaps a zeiss 21. I'm not flaming, here but it sure bugs me when horizons are not level and not straight. It should be the first thing you look at in PP :-) regards
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.