Please help me decide !!!!

[Milky]

Hi all ! was just looking at lenses for landscapes, and was wondering wat u shoot with, so far i've narrowed it down to the sigma 18-50 f/2.8, the canon ef 10-22 USM f/3-4.5 and the canon ef 17-40 f/4L USM

Any other suggestions or lenses i've missed out ! or other recommendations ! or views please share !!

thanks you all, much appreciated

[pathfinder]

Landscapes can be shot with lenses from 17mm to 500mm - depends on what you wish to emphasize.

I am moving this thread to Cameras (http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3) as discussions of lenses are best done in that thread. This thread is for display and discussion of landscapes and street scenes.

[philiphutson]

Which body do you have?

I have a 5d that I use the 17-40L on along with a 28-70 (older sigma that I need to upgrade) and a 70-210 f2.8 tamron.
-Philip

[ziggy53]

I know at least 2 shooters here that could recommend the Canon 24mm, TS-E for landscapes:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62607&highlight=canon
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62113&highlight=canon

[LouwPhotography]

We have the Canon 10-22mm lens for our 1.6x crop cameras. I love this lens for wide angle shots.

Which camera do you have?

[Shizam]

Well, a 10-22 is going to give you fish-esq photos in that you're going to get barrel distortion on the wide end, probably across the whole range of 10-22 which will be an issue for you if you're thinking about panoramas. The 17-40L will give less distortion and 'range' wise is very similar to the 24-70L on a full frame camera in that its a very good wide->normal range. Plus the 17-40L has higher quality glass that will tend to be sharper wide open and emphasize contrast. I highly highly suggest the 24L TSE if you can swing it, love love love it.

[macmac]

I love my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S for landscapes. I also have to 10-22mm f/3.5. It is a very good lens, but if I were to choose one, I'd choose the 17-55mm.

[Milky]

Thanks alot for all your views and replies, i'm using a 20D ! any thoughts on the sigma 18-50 f\2.8 ??

Thanks again, much appreciated !

[ziggy53]

Thanks alot for all your views and replies, i'm using a 20D ! any thoughts on the sigma 18-50 f\2.8 ??

Thanks again, much appreciated !

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC (not the macro version) and I like it a lot on an XT camera. At 18mm it is about twice as wide FOV as a "normal/standard" lens for a crop 1.6x camera, like the Canon 20D.

I would suggest the macro version as it is supposed to be better, and also look at the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 SP XR Di II LD, which may be slightly better yet.

These lenses are wide enough for some vista landscapes, and very valuable for interior work. The 50mm end can also do portraiture in a pinch.

[ziggy53]

Well, a 10-22 is going to give you fish-esq photos in that you're going to get barrel distortion on the wide end, probably across the whole range of 10-22 which will be an issue for you if you're thinking about panoramas. The 17-40L will give less distortion and 'range' wise is very similar to the 24-70L on a full frame camera in that its a very good wide->normal range. Plus the 17-40L has higher quality glass that will tend to be sharper wide open and emphasize contrast. I highly highly suggest the 24L TSE if you can swing it, love love love it.

There is not much barrel distortion on the Canon 10-22mm, and it is less than the Canon 17-40mm "L" at 17mm. (1.25% and 2.47% respectively, both on a crop 1.6x camera.)

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

What you may be thinking is the rather dramatic perspective you get from the Canon 10-22mm on a crop camera, which is greater than the perspective of the 17-40mm on a crop camera, but again, not much different than the 17-40mm on a full-frame camera.

[claudermilk]

:agree The 10-22 is no fish by any stretch of the imagination. It's a great lens that produces nice, sharp, saturated images. However, I'll throw another lens into the mix to compete with this one: the Tokina 12-24. I personally prefer this one. Same image quality as the Canon, IMHO the 2mm difference--particularly for landscape--isn't as big a deal as some make it out to be; again IMHO it's much nicer to use and the cost difference is nice.

For doing panos I wouldn't use a UWA because of the distortion you will get. Something like the 24 TS-E which has been shown to be a good choice here recently, or something like the 24-70, 24-105, etc. With stitching the less distortion to start with the better.