What landscape lens would be the best for 450D

[ashley.c.crowther]

<p>Im going to Nepal and India for about 4 months from November to March. I have the kit lens that came with the Canon EOS 450D 18-55mm. I'm just wondering what would be the best landscape lens for taking photos in mountain areas, valleys and national parks? Im also on a bit of a budget, i dont really want to spend more than $500, but i will if i have too. Is it possible to get a good all round lens?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Be more specific. What kind of "landscape lens" do you want. Do you want wide angle landscapes, or do you want to kinda blend the fields with a telephoto lens? Look for an image you like and post here, maybe we can suggest a good lens for you. I personally think that what you have is ok unless you want to go ef 17-40L, which is more than 500 us dollars new...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I would not replace the IS kit lens with the 17-40. While the 17-40 is a fine lens, there are better options on cropped sensor cameras and you'll lose some focal length with it. There are other isssues, too.</p>

<p>Angel is correct to point out that "landscape lens" can mean many different things. I shoot a lot of landscape subjects, and I do so with lenses ranging from 17mm to 400mm on a full frame body.</p>

<p>The first thing I would do is shoot a lot with that kit lens - a few thousand frames would be a good target. From doing this you'll start to figure out if you want a longer or a shorter lens or if you are actually happy with the kit lens. Depending on what you'll do with the photographers, it could be just fine.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[zeb_lisik]

<p>there's the tokina 12-24mm which is about 400$<br /> do you find that your 18-55mm is wide enough?</p>

<p>a 'good' all rounder standard zoom for 500$...hmmm well 'good' is in some cases relative; acceptable for ones purposes might be a better angle to look at it from.</p>

<p>tokina makes a fast 16-50mm f2.8 and a 50-135mm f2.8, each costing about 550$ But is 16mm wide enough for your purposes?<br /> <br /> if your kit lens is wide enough then maybe canon 70-200mm f4L ~600$ if you have any need of longer reach?</p>

<p>it may be best to test different lenses and see what lengths suit you best and would be most useful on your trip.</p>

<p> </p>

[ashley.c.crowther]

<p>Thanks for all the help guys, yeah a wide angle landscapes would be what im looking for.<br>

I am finding that the kit lens does a great job in what im after, i was just looking to maybe add a extra wide angle lens for when ill be on a few mountain summits.<br>

Thanks</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Yeah, G Dan is right. Ever since I went FF I forget about the ef-s lineup which has better choices than the 17-40L. There is the ef-s 10-22, the most perfect lens for wide landscapes. And the 17-55 f2.8 IS, although for lanscapers the 2.8 is not significant and who needs IS when the 1st rule of thumb for landscape photography is to use a tripod, but you do get better contrasty colors and flare control. Also, edge sharpness at 17mm for the 17-55 is the best there is for a crop camera...</p>

<p>Practice, practice, practice, with your kit lens. Like I said, IS(u did not mention if you have the IS version or not) is not important for landscape photography, since you HAVE TO use a tripod. I personally, then, would consider the 17-55 f2.8 Is, but its just me that I love non flash indoor and outdoor night/dusk photography. I drool on the idea to shoot(street photography) mumbai by night.</p>

[ashley.c.crowther]

<p>Yep i would probably be needing the IS, because taking a tripod over there with me isnt a option, sucks (yes the kit lens is has IS). But yes its going to be good being in those cities at night time, be perfect for some great shots.<br>

Thanks for all your help guys really apperciated!</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Well then. If you value IS and like night time non flash photography, I would bite the bullet and sell the 18-55 IS and use that 500 usd to pay for a used 17-55 IS F/2.8 to break even. I dont know about the rest(tokino, signa lenses). I am a canon lens snob... lol</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The 18-55 IS is a very decent lens and you have not complained about its quality so in my view that is definitely a keeper. Do you have a telephoto for the national parks where (hopefully) you will see rhinos and (if you are really lucky!) tigers?</p>

<p>I was trekking in Nepal in 1990s and had a 28mm lens on my film camera and never once did I wish that I had a wider angle. Admittedly at that time wider lenses were prohibitively expensive (to me) so there wasn't really a choice anyway but I am still impressed by several of those photos. Anyway, 28mm on the film camera is equivalent to the 18mm at the lower end of your zoom so you are covered from that point.<br>

I find myself taking as many landscape shots with a telephoto as I do with a wide angle as I am interested in capturing detail in the context of wider scenery (a distant buffalo pulling a plough in a paddy field etc) so just because you are in magnificent vistas, the 10-22 does not become mandatory equipment. And personally, unless composition is well thought-out I think a shot with a 10mm lens can be, in my view, uninvolving (a case of "a lot of mountains aren't there" and not "wow! good shot").<br>

For wide angles, the Canon 10-22 (or the the Sigma 10-20) is an excellent lens and you may well find it more useful in the crowded cities to get more street details. But you really do need to consider bulk and weight - do you want to carry the 18-55 plus the 10-22 plus a telephoto zoom? That also depends on if you are trekking or will be in vehicles most of the time.</p>

<p>As you are on a budget my preference based on my experience would be to get the accessories you may need first of all - you obviously can't take a tripod but what about a monopod with decent head or a Gorillapod (unbelievably ingenious); polarising filters etc. Then keep what is left to go on mini-tours to see unusual things that you may not otherwise have spent the money and time doing so - when in foreign lands there are an awful lot of them!<br>

If you are really interested in street photography then the 10-22 will really please you and beacause it will be useful in all parts of your trip will have better value for money. The 17-55 is a brilliant lens but blowing limited funds on replacing what you already have is in my view a big risk.</p>

<p>And one final piece of advice - if your hotel seems quite safe and secure (or, better still, has a deposit box) then spend a couple of days walking around without your camera. There are some parts of my trip that I recall as only seeing through the viewfinder or constantly assessing as photo opportunities instead of appreciating it for what it was.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16. All are awesome lenses. I have the Sigma and love it.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Your 18-55mm kit lens will be an excellent lens for landscape within it's range because it is very sharp stopped down to at least F 8.0. If you want wider try one of the third party 10-11-12 to 16-18-20-22-24 lenses, Tokina or Sigma. Of course the ideal lens for wider would be the Canon 10-22mm but it stretches your budget a little. If you want something longer you might get either the Canon 55-250mm IS or the 70-300mm IS zoom lens. You won't go too far wrong with either. The best photographic accessory is taking lots of pictures and figuring out how to make them better. Good luck. </p>

[st_phane_krakowska]

<p>The 10-22mm(USM) will be a great choice for wide landscape (to get a temple and the whole mountain at the back) and street view (when there is not much place in front of you).<br />I also agree with Gil. Add the 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS USM, its a must have to get close and produce fantastic picture.<br />A 50mm for geat portrait and you're all set to go.<br />Enjoy India Its a great place and great people...</p>