landscape lens for 20D

Afternoon all.

 

A friend just asked what lens I would recommend for his EOS 20D for

landscape photography.

 

He wants to start with one lens.

 

I have no idea, as I have not attempted landscapes.

 

Suggestions?

 

Thanks.

i have a 5D a 20D and a 17-40 L

Probably the best bet for him is a wide-angle zoom, like the 17-40 f/4l, or the 10-22 EF-S

lens, both around 6-700 bucks. The 10-22 will give him the extra reach that may be

necessary for his work, but is more than the 17-40. I don't know anything about the 10-22.

It doesn't mean it's bad, I just have no idea. Wish your friend good luck.

I use the 10-22 a lot for landscape work, I also use an EF 24 f/2.8 which is exceptionally good for the money - being a prime it beats the 10-22 hands down, BUT it cannot go anywhere near as wide as the 10-22.<br><br>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4439844&size=lg>Example of a 10mm shot on the EF-S 10-22</a><br><br>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4248820>Example of a 24mm shot with the EF 24</a><br><br>

 

Both of those images are full frame with their respectives lenses, so they should give a good idea of coverage (shot with a 350D, same sensor size and resolution as a 20D).<br><br>

 

There're many more examples in my portfolio to see what these 2 lenses can do.<br><br>

 

My preference if I was only getting one lens would be the 10-22 becuase it offers more versatility, and since it is landscape work does not need to be too fast - your friend will be using a tripod of course? A tripod is essential for landscape work imho.<br><br>

I'm right into landscaping and have both lenses, mentioned above. If he wants to start with a single lens, I would tell your friend to seriously look into the EF 17-40mm f4.0L.

If your friend is after a wide angle lens, then the 17-40 will be perfectly good.

 

However, restricting yourself the one lens for landscapes could be very limiting. You can get equally good landscapes at 17mm or at 200mm for that matter. One of my books on landscape photography also has work using a 300mm lens. So a good landscape lens is one that gives you the shot you want.

 

This was taken with a 70-200 at 200mm

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3643930&size=lg

 

Hope this helps.

 

P

<p> If I had a 20D I'd surely go for the Canon 10-22. However, other options from <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">Sigma</a> and Tokina are also very good. See <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a>. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

Landscape shot at 105mm with a 28-105 on a 10D.<div></div>

if u want 2 start with single lens then 17-40mm f4 is excellent. but if ca afford 2 spend extra bucks then i say 10-22mm & 24-105mm f4 L. both will help u enjoy ur work in exciting ways. regards!

My preference is to stay away from those EF-S lenses that are expensive. I have seen some test shots in threads here using the Sigma 12-24 and I was very impressed. It will cover full frame. Have your friend check it out too.

The best lens depends on where you are in relation to your subject, and wide angle isn't always the answer. This was shot with a Canon 34-105mm @ 80mm....<div></div>

the sigma 10-20 (16-32 equivalent) is a good place to start if they want wide angle or the

17-40L (27-64 equivalent) is a far superior lens if they do not need the width.

Canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8L USM. Simply the best. Worth the extra $.

At the wide end, there is a huge angle of view difference with just a slight change in focal length. I find that the majority of my landscape pics are done with my 10-22 EFS, and a lot of those are at 10mm. It is expensive, but it's also incredibly flexible. The autofocus is very fast, and the build quality is very good. Resolution may not be quite as good as primes, but I'm not familiar with any 10mm primes available for Canon SLRs. Distorion is remarkably good for an extreme wide angle, and the small amount of chromatic abberation is easily corrected in Adobe Camera RAW.

Take a good look at the Sigma 10-20EX. It gives you the low price, hood, and good build as the Tokina; but it gives you the 10mm and ring HSM with FTM as the Canon. You also get 4 years of warranty. Optically, they're all good and find their sweet spots around f8-f10.

I have the EFS 10-22 lens and find this excellent, it produces some interesting perspective when shooting wide open at 10mm. I was astonished at just how close you can stand to your subject and still get it all in the frame. For landscapes it will capture a really wide scene and it is possible to crop and produce great panoramics.

 

I've never used the 17-40 but hear it is good too and I did consider this when I bought the 10-22. There is a big difference between the two mentioned lenses ie. 10mm compared to 17mm which is why I opted for the wider and I have no regrets at all. I would recomend the 10-22.

Money no object, get the Canon 24mm F1.4L...but of course there are other much cheaper lenses:

 

Canon non-L primes on the wide side would be wonderful too, however they will not provide the color rendition, nor contrast of an L lens.

 

For landscapes I would stay clear of any and all non-L zooms however.

Stephen Leo, if one wants the very best, the 24L beats the awesome 16-35L...I have both of these lenses....I do agree the 16-35L is the best in that focal range as far as zooms go.

Dan:

 

You may be right about the 24L. I can't say as I don't own one. However, as far as versatility is concerned the 16-35L can't be beat as I've found it sharp with wonderful color rendition at all focal lengths and even at f/2.8 when used properly indoors in low light conditions on my 20D. So I personally would rather have the zoom lens than the prime for landscape photograpy. My next lens will be the 35mm f/1.4 L USM for a normal (on the 20D) ultra-fast lens.