Best Lens for Landscapes/Wide Angle shots??

[TG V1P3R]

Hi all,

Going to be coming into some hard earned commission over the next few weeks, so considering investing in some new glass for my Canon 400d (I've soon realised the 'kit' lens ain't gonna cut it into the future). When I look at other people's work, the images seem really sharp, and the colours really 'smooth' (that's the only way I can describe them....a lot of the skies I see from other people are like rich, glossy paint....strange analogy I know). The results from my kit lense and subsequent Photoshop processing never look anywhere near as good (and I am building in a degree of understanding in that I haven't been doing this for too long, so still a novice really).

I think I've got the greatest interest in Landscape photography....I'm really impressed with the pebble/beach shots from Liquid, allymac's landscape work, and Vulkan's HDR/landscape shots as well (there are other contributors efforts that I enjoy, these are just the one's that spring to mind at the moment).

So, my query is, what are the best lenses for said landscape photography? Ideally I'd like to stick to a budget of no more than say £300, so any suggestions with this budget in mind would be greatly appreciated (the more 'cost effective' the better....always helps getting final approval from Mrs AFC if I can demonstrate that "I could have bought this one for £350, but I've researched it on the forums and the guys have suggested this one for £175/£200/£225....you get the idea).

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Edit: Oh, and if anyone knows of some other websites with dedicated reviews of lenses that might also be helpful. I've been browsing through photozone.de the last few days, but any other suggestions would be good.

[senu]

Have a little read

Any Landscape lens recommendations ?
before the suggestions come

I recall a recent Digital Photography and Amateur Photographer issue on landscapes.. seeming to conclude there is no "best " lens

[TG V1P3R]

Originally Posted by senu

Have a little read

Any Landscape lens recommendations ?
before the suggestions come

I recall a recent Digital Photography and Amateur Photographer issue on landscapes.. seeming to conclude there is no "best " lens

Thanks for the link senu....I did do a (brief) search on the forums but missed this thread

[Bursar]

There's also a load of different lens reviews (and sample pics) over at The Digital Picture.

[Brammers]

This is tricky because landscapes really vary. While you'd instantly think ultra-wide to take in a wide view, my 2 favourite landscapes have come at 50mm and 300mm! In that case a 28-300 zoom would be best, but I'm not sure anyone else would agree...

I think you need to take a look at the types of landscapes and decide on the focal length, then choose a sharp one. Speed isn't a concern, instead you want image quality, so to choose from the Sony range the Zeiss 16-80 3.5-4 would be a better choice than the Minolta 28-75 2.8 D. Maybe ask some of the posters in this forum what focal lenghts they took the landscapes that you really like at, and try to keep a chart - then buy a lens based on which focal length you found you liked most?

[onefivenine]

pbase is also good for lens sample pictures... eg EF-S 10-22mm, and EF 17-40mm f/4 L.

[allymac123]

I'd probably suggest something in the 10-20mm range. Like the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 10-22. You've already got the kit lens to cover the 18-55 range so this way you would be gaining the most in terms of focal length coverage.

Obviously you may still want to the 'kit' lens but it won't be quite so pressing.

Another part of me says to upgarde you kit lens with some kind of replacement like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 or Sigma 17-70. Being limited to only a wide angle of 17mm will really concentrate the eye which will be good for when you upgrade to an ultra-wide angle.

[matt_p]

Originally Posted by AFC Lee

When I look at other people's work, the images seem really sharp, and the colours really 'smooth' (that's the only way I can describe them....a lot of the skies I see from other people are like rich, glossy paint....strange analogy I know).

Just to add to others' recommendations, if you're looking for that rich, vivid sky look, you might want to invest in a polarising filter for whichever lens(es) you decide to run with.

Have a look here: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Polariser-guide

[senu]

Originally Posted by matt_p

Just to add to others' recommendations, if you're looking for that rich, vivid sky look, you might want to invest in a polarising filter for whichever lens(es) you decide to run with.

Have a look here: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Polariser-guide

Or HERE

[TG V1P3R]

Thanks for all your comments folks, much appreciated.

I'm now wondering after allymac's comments about "upgrading the kit lens" whether this would be money better spent, rather than going all out for a dedicated ultra wide angle?? Following his recommendation of the Tamron and Sigma offerings, I've had a bit of a read round and the Sigma 17-70 does look very interesting....seems to get decent reviews, and can be had for £199 from Camera World....

Assuming that I were to buy the Sigma 17-70, apart from the slight increase in focal range, what other benefits would I see when using this lens? I'm looking for my next lens to produce sharp, colourful images, which I'm not sure the kit lens is doing for me at the moment.

[matt_p]

I've got the Sigma 17-70, and yes, you should find it sharper than your kit lens, only softening very very slightly when wide open.

I've not done a side-by-side comparison, and it's that long since I used the kit lens I couldn't tell you how the colour compares. Out of my current lenses (a Tamron, couple of sigmas, couple of Canons and a Canon L) the colour certainly compares well to the others.

[onefivenine]

The specs speak for themselves.
Look again at Photozone and compare the MTF graphs of the two lenses. These graphs show how sharp each lens is, measured in line widths per image. Photozone say the sigma's only weakness is f/2.8 at 17mm, but who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 anyway!?
You could probably get £30-40 for the old kit lens on ebay too
They also claim it outperforms the Canon 17-85mm IS lens
I don't have one myself but I think the sigma looks a bargain at the price.

[denno75uk]

Have to say I was all but convinced the Tamron 17-50 2.8 was the one for me until I started reading about the Sigma 17-70 again.
Hmmmm. Constant 2.8 vs extra length and better close-up.

To the OP, I think allymac's advice about upgrading the kit lens first seems pretty sound. Not that I have a UWA to comment on, but for me the 17mm end of the Sigma or Tamron will cover enough of the wide angle of a UWA whilst still giving the flexibility of the zoom of the rest of the range. I hope you don't find this insulting, I just think you need to be 100% sure about the UWA. It's a fair wedge to blow on a focal length that needs a fair investment/development of technique to get the best out of it.

[TG V1P3R]

Hmmm, really like the look of the Sigma 17-70 the more I read about it. According to Photozone the AF speed is very fast, the accuracy is on a par with the Canon equivalent, the MTF figures look very good, better than average Chromatic Aberrations....all in all very good, and at a good price.

One area of confusion for me is the following (quote from Photozone):
"The front element does not rotate so using a polarizer remains easily possible. Unfortunately Sigma has still not managed to implement a focus ring that does not rotate in AF mode."

Can anyone who owns this lense let me know if it does rotate, as I would like to get a Polarizing Filter at a later date...

Hmmm, roll on payday

[TG V1P3R]

Originally Posted by denno75uk

I hope you don't find this insulting, I just think you need to be 100% sure about the UWA. It's a fair wedge to blow on a focal length that needs a fair investment/development of technique to get the best out of it.

Absolutely not insulted at all denno, and I have indeed come round to that way of thinking....perhaps making my first glass investment in something that is really specific like an UWA would prove to be a bit foolish. I think the money would be better spent on better quality glass than my kit lens, that will allow me to take decent landscape shots, as well as extending the focal range a little, and aperture down (up??) to f2.8 as well....all in all, looks like a sound investment for my first foray into buying additional glass