[Synchro]

Could anyone recommend me 3 good lenses for good landscape photography please.

The lucky winner will be going on my Canon 350d

TIA

[RobDickinson]

100-400L
24TS
8mm fisheye

[andy1249]

For landscape you want wide , thats at least 28mm in 35mm terms.

So given the 1.6 crop factor , your looking for lenses starting at 17mm. There are quite a few.

17-85
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3
17-40L ( my personal favourite )
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1
16-35 ( very very good , but also very expensive)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1
10-22 EFS ( super wide )
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

Or look at the Sigma equivalents if your budget doesnt permit any of the above.

[T0MAT01]

You probably need to specify a budget. Canon do a nice 14mm/2.8 prime lens, but it's £1335 so possibly not what you're looking for.

You might like to look at the EF-s 10-22, the 17-40/4 L, EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS or maybe a Tamron 17-50/2.8.

If you want to read some reviews, then Photozone have tested all of these on a 350D.

HTH.

Edit: And you can check for the best prices on camera price buster.

[dazza74]

I'll throw a couple in from 3rd party manufacturers. Tamron 17-50 2.8 & Tokina 12-24 are worth considering if your budget is more around the £300 or below mark.

I'm using my tamron 17-50 2.8 as my landscape lens these day's, I had the sigma 10-20 which was great for the width but just didn't have the sharpness of the tamron certainly at smaller apertures like F16.

[iGiDK]

Need to specify budget

Recommend the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as good bang for buck

[jonnypb]

many to choose from depending on budget, how wide you want it, do you want a zoom or fixed prime?

canon 10-22
canon 17-40
canon 17-55IS
canon 16-35
tamron 17-50

[dfrear]

Sigma 17-70 is also nice for landscape, and cheap.

[Synchro]

Thanks for your answers.

Is the CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, a good landscape lens? Really want to concentrate on lanscape in 2009 and as I have this lens already, I would appreciate peoples views as to whether they think there are other reasonable priced lenses which will offer much better scope.

[dazza74]

If your doing low light landscaping then you'll in theory get a brighter view from a 2.8 lens which would ade focusing. I'd try what you have got already and see how you get on. Even if you don't have enough width at 17mm for the landscape you are photographing you can always do a panaromic.

[onefivenine]

Being realistic and practical and considering budget, just about any lens will perform adequately shooting at f/8 and mid-way through its zoom range where the image is conentrated in the highest quality area of the glass. The 17-85mm already has a lot more scope than a 10-22mm or 17-40mm lens based on focal length alone.

It's usually when you shoot wide apertures (towards f/2.8) or stopped down (~f/16 and upwards) and at the extremities of the zoom range, that lenses really start reveal their inherent flaws.

That's when quality 'fast' glass comes into its own, with improved faster focussing - not much of a requirement for landscapes in my opinion, as well as performing better at the extremities of the zoom range.

So if you're already noticing its flaws then do upgrade.

Careful though - one upgrade tends to lead to another.
None of the suggested lenses will replace the focal range you have, and once you get used to f/2.8 you'll want to buy more ... and more.... and more lenses!!!!!!

[Woblee]

As the others have said, name your budget and go from there.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by Synchro

Could anyone recommend me 3 good lenses for good landscape photography please.

Sorry, but impossible to answer. Almost any focal length lens could be a valid choice for landscape. So much depends on your style(s). If you have yet to develop a style than I suppose a wide range zoom might be useful but the image quality often tends to drop as the range increases.

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by Synchro

Thanks for your answers.

Is the CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, a good landscape lens? Really want to concentrate on lanscape in 2009 and as I have this lens already, I would appreciate peoples views as to whether they think there are other reasonable priced lenses which will offer much better scope.

No . IMO the 17-85 is a pretty poor lens all round. CA, distortion, softness, I dont like it.

My initial reply was to point out the vaugness of your question though. You can take landscapes with any lens, a 10-20 or a 100-400.

As ou already have the 17-85 get out and shoot some stuff, see if you can frame the image you want to make with it, and if so what focal length(s) they are.

If there more at the 17mm end (most likely) then prehaps a 10-20 or 10-22 would be a good idea, I love my UWA for landscapes but they can be tricky to use.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Synchro

Thanks for your answers.

Is the CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, a good landscape lens? Really want to concentrate on lanscape in 2009 and as I have this lens already, I would appreciate peoples views as to whether they think there are other reasonable priced lenses which will offer much better scope.

if you're looking at the 17-85 and have a budget for that i'd go for the tamron 17-50 2.8 - better IQ and constant 2.8 throughout the zoom range

[andy1249]

if you're looking at the 17-85 and have a budget for that i'd go for the tamron 17-50 2.8 - better IQ and constant 2.8 throughout the zoom range

I am no pro photographer , just a keen amateur with an SLR and about 8 lenses , and Im not trying to be cheeky here just curious about something I probably dont know ...

But my understanding of a landscape shot would be say , something like a countryside scene or a cityscape or even a view over the grand canyon.

I thought that with such scenes you would be aiming at having the scene sharp from front to back , and if thats so , what is the usefulness of 2.8 ?

Surely that gives a very shallow depth of field ?

[onefivenine]

Originally Posted by andy1249

I thought that with such scenes you would be aiming at having the scene sharp from front to back

That is probably the most popular technique, but shooting wide open and controlling the depth of field is also commonly used to enhance the depth of a landscape image.

[RobDickinson]

I've shot a number of decent landscapes at f2.8, it puts the focus of the viewer where you want, and especialy with a longer lens compresses the landscape quite nicely.

[ryart]

Rob, that is a good example and a very nice shot to boot. I like the way that the enormous dark bulk of the trees enhances the delicacy of the bluebells (?).

[andy1249]

Nice shot Rob , I see what it means now , must give that kind of thing a go.