Best Lens choice for shooting landscapes?

[dan_j_bruse]

<p>I recently purchased a Canon T1i and and am interested in landscape emphesis. Any suggestions in a "best" lens choice. I have the EF-s 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The answer is... it depends.</p>

<p>If you are brand new to DSLR shooting, I recommend that you get some photographs "under your belt" before you start investing in expensive lenses. Until you have developed some clear ideas about your own photographic preferences, the trade-offs necessary to find gear for them, and some experience that will help you make the right decisions, it is not wise to buy a lot of expensive equipment.</p>

<p>If you already have such experience, some question need to be asked before anyone can recommend specific lenses. These might include:</p>

<p>1. How will you share your photographs? Are you going to post jpg images onlline? Make letter size prints? What printer? Regularly produce extremely large "gallery" style prints?</p>

<p>2. Is cost an issue?</p>

<p>3. How important are things such as flexibility to you relative to absolute optimum image quality? And why?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>There are certainly lenses that you could purchase for landscape--the 10-22mm comes to mind--but I think that since you just recently got your T1i, you should use the lenses you already have to become really familiar with your camera first. For now the 18-55mm will do just fine. Use it and learn all of the fine points of using the T1i before acquiring more gear. The T1i is a very sophisticated camera with a lot of features and <em>lots</em> of capability. Learn it well!</p>

[robert_g.2]

<p>I just purchased the same kit/lens as you. Love it! I also just purchased the 430EX II Speedlite Flash and the 50mm 1.8 lens. :)<br>

If you're itching to purchase something that will enhance your landscape photography why not get a circular polarizer? That is a must have. :)</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>As G Dan Mitchell suggest, if you have to ask you need more experience! I imagine the 18-55 is your current "best" lens simply because the of the focal length. In general, for landscapes, wider is better. And keep in mind that on a cropped sensor camera such as the T1i, 18mm is more like 29mm- which may not be all that wide. Hence Andy's suggestion of the 10-22. However, have <em>you</em> found that your 18mm isn't wide enough? </p>

<p>As far as a polarizer goes, they can be effective in the right situation, but then so can a red enhancing (fall colors!) and a variety of other filters in the right circumstances. That said, filters also exponentially increase the chance for flare and other aberrant light issues. So use with caution. If I <em><strong>had</strong></em> to suggest one indispensable item for landscape photographer, I would say a very good tripod!</p>

[dan_j_bruse]

<p>Advice well stated. Thanks to all. I have a lot of catching up to do. My last hobby camera was the Canon AE-1. Excited to get back into the mix. Thanks again.</p>

<p>"If you're itching to purchase something that will enhance your landscape photography why not get a circular polarizer? That is a must have. :)"<br>

that will be my next purchase. I have about 10 filters for my old canon but the lens were only 52mm. I will replace them in time. <br>

Thanks again.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>A solid tripod and cable release will come in handy as well. And a couple of good graduated neutral density filters to balance the earth and sky exposures when needed. I know that with digital you can combine several exposures of the same scene in the computer, to achieve that effect, but if you get it right in the field, it saves time later on.<br>

Your kit lens at f/11 should give you very good results.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>

<p>There's book of landscape photos published every year in the UK, the 'Landscape Photographer of the Year'. I've recently bought vol 3, which was published a month or so ago. Interestingly there's a technical section which gives info on the equipment used to take each of the photos. I've done an analysis of the shots taken with Canon gear.<br>

A total of at least 27 lenses were used to take just over 100 images. The most popular individual lenses were the 17-40 (18 shots, 16 of them on FF bodies), the 10-22 (8 images) and the 70-200F4 (also 8, split between crop bodies & FF). There were a handful with the 24-105 and the Sigma 10-20. A whole range of other lenses had one or two images, e.g. the Sigma 100-300. The indication is that a small number of wide-angle zooms were used for about half the shots, but that after that there were also lots of individual images shot with other lenses. In the case of some lenses, e.g. the 24-105, we don't know at which end of the range the shots were taken. So the evidence is that really excellent landscape images can be taken with a range of lenses.</p>

<p>As for bodies, they ranged from the 300D (2 shots, one of them taken with the 18-55 kit lens) to the 1DSIII. The closing date precluded use of the 1DSIV or the 7D. The most popular single camera was the 5D (29 images) with a further 11 taken on the 5DII. Rather more than half of all the images were taken on FF bodies. The most popular single combination was the 5D + 17-40; among 1.6 crop bodies it was jointly the 350D + 10-22 and the 20D + 70-200F4.</p>

<p>Here's <a href="http://www.take-a-view.co.uk/2009_winners.htm">a link</a> to this year's winning shots.</p>

</p>

[robert_g.2]

<p>Great analysis. Thanks for info!</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I presume that your lens is the 18-55 IS ? That is a very good lens for the money and should keep you happy for a while yet. Upgrading will be most obvious when you are shooting with great care (tripod, remote release etc). I find myself shooting more landscapes using a tele-zoom to abstract details than getting all-encompassing shots with a wide angle but that is my preference. I agree with G Dan to take lots of pictures first - you may find that wandering in the country you actually get more interested in macro or wildlife photography!</p>

<p>My take on the wide angle lenses are that the 10-22 range is excellent quality but it is more difficult than it sounds to get interesting photos because the extreme width of the shot places more emphasis on the need for a strong visual focal point. The 17-40 f4L is an excellent lens and very flare-resistant but due to the focal range is a bit limited for other purposes. The 17-55 f2.8 IS is recognised as one of the gems in the EF-S lineup but it is expensive; it is prone to flare so this may reduce its use as a die-hard landscape lens but its extra range makes it a good walkaround option. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an excellent lens for the money - almost as good as the Canon 17-55 IS but no IS. There is a new VC (vibraton control = IS) version that is still alot cheaper than the Canon option.</p>

<p>I agree that a good tripod, remote relase and a circular polariser should be your priorities for now. With the tripod get a head that has gradations on the base to make it easier to create panoramics by shooting and stitching.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p> Your 18-55 kit lens is eminently capable, provided it's sitting on a sturdy tripod, the camera shutter released with the self-timer or cable/remote release, with the IS turned off, used at around f/8-f/11, and wearing the Canon lens shade made for it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>It will be clear by now I think that equipment doesn't take pictures, photographers do, and that the right way to approach your question is</p>

<p>What sort of photographs do I want to make, and what do I need to make them?</p>

<p>and not</p>

<p>Whats the best equipment and I'll work within its constraints?</p>

<p>You can make progress on this not only by getting some more photographs under your own belt, but also looking extensively at the work of others and trying to draw conclusions about the common characteristics of what you admire and what you don't. To demonstrate what I mean. If you find yourself being constantly drawn to the type of landscape that has a tiny flower photographed from close, filling the front of the frame which then drifts off to a far away but still broadly in-focus horizon, you will certainly want to consider a shift lens at some point, and might even speculate about whether small format digital is the right way to go. So make the pictures drive the equipment, not the other way around.</p>

<p>Equally think about the end result of your photography rather than simply a digital file. Do you want to make metre square photographs for walls? Submit to stock agencies? Publish a few books? Or is what you want quite simply to look at your images on screen with a degree of satisfaction? These decisions ( which I appreciate might change over life) have differing equipment requirements. So whilst making your pictures drive your equipment desires, your end result is equally a driver. Fuse these together and your answer will become apparent.</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_green4]

<p>check out juza's work. he shoots canon and started with equipment similar to yours (he shoots 1d now). might point you in the right direction. however, it's apparent that being on location (usually at dawn/sunset) is the key to snagging nice imagery<br>

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/landscapes-italy-alpe_veglia_devero.htm</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>It will be clear by now I think that equipment doesn't take pictures, photographers do...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to be contrarian, I need to point out that<em> photographers use cameras to make photographs.</em></p>

<p>I'm as aware as anyone of the dangers of obsessive focus on equipment alone, and of the believe that if you just have good enough equipment you'll make great photographs. This is obviously not true. However, photography is based on an application of technological processes to the creation of images - and understanding the technology and thinking about how to most appropriately apply it to achieve your photographic goals is, indeed, not an unimportant thing.</p>

<p>I think the OP is right to think about what the right technology might be for his photographic goals. He would be wrong - as many sometimes are - to assume that the answer to the "what equipment?" question is always "the biggest, most expensive, coolest looking gear."</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5, Tokina 11-16/2.8, or Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 (not the new Sigma 10-20/3.5)</p>

<p> </p>

[sam_zaydel1]

<p>Perhaps one other bit to throw into this discussion is the possibility of shooting stitched-panorama images with the equipment that you already have. Panoramas are certainly popular, when it comes to Landscapes, and digital technology opens up a whole new real of possibilities with even limited equipment that you are starting out with. Some people opt for shooting a number of images and then stitch them together with software such as Hugin, or Panorama Factory. This often means that you have to learn to shoot series of images which will be stitch-able later, and of course it will take more time, but I find that when I do this, I slow myself down enough to produce higher quality images, then when I take single shots.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Any lens in your bag can be used as a landscape lens, if you use it the right way, I use the 16-35 II, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f4, 300 f4, all on a tripod with MLU and a remote, it depends on what landscape you are shooting.<br>

Ross</p>

[danny_low]

<p><em>"I recently purchased a Canon T1i and and am interested in landscape emphesis. Any suggestions in a "best" lens choice. I have the EF-s 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm."</em></p>

<p>You got the right focal range of lenses already. All you need to do is learn how to use them. If you are thinking "panoramic" when you write "landscape" then the best lens is the 55-250mm at the 55-100mm range combined with stitching. The problem with wide angle lenses is they encompass the scenery but make everything look small. Majestic mountains come out looking like molehills. Telephotos capture the size correctly but capture only a small portion of the landscape.</p>

<p>Stitching solves this problem. Take a series of photos at with a telephoto and combined them together with stitching software to get the width without making everything look small. The main photo on my web site</p>

<p>www.fanfotography.com</p>

<p>is stitched together from 5 photos taken with a short telephoto. All attempts to use a wide angle lens to get this shot resulted in the Golden Gate bridge looking too small. Stitching is the reason the photo is so wide which is the right ratio to capture the bridge properly.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

[chinmaya]

<p>Canon 18-55mm is decent focal length for landscapes. I am not sure how sharp it is.<br>

How much ready are you for an big lens upgrade? Only you can judge it, try to post your images in critique forums here and elsewhere get feedback.<br>

Irrespective of that, following order of equipment purchase (possible transition path to better landscape lens) would will take you there incrementally...</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Shoot raw, learn raw manipulation to get most (Dynamic range, less noise etc) out of your camera. </li>

<li>Learn to get everything sharp at smaller aperture such as f14 thro f22. It will take some practice to get there.</li>

<li>Get your composition right. <strong>Buy </strong> some books </li>

<li>Sharpness is very important. <strong>Buy </strong> a tripod And flip the mirror and take photograph (check your custom function; at least it was so in XTi). <strong>Buy </strong> IR Remote or timer to take shots. IR Remote may cost you USD $20+.</li>

<li>may be <strong>buy </strong> some filters, GND and Circular Polarizing filter. Or if you are fan of photography editors such as photoshop/gimp you can get those effects. But I don't think you can get Polarizing filter effect.</li>

<li>Depending your style of photography <strong>buy </strong> either Canon 10-22mm, Canon 17-40mm </li>

<li>If you are on budget <strong>buy </strong> Sigma 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24mm, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8</li>

</ol>

<p>Good Luck</p>

[kel_madics]

<p>Zeiss Distagon</p>