Landscape Lens under $300

[faisal_islam]

<p>Hi, I'm a beginner in photography. Two months ago I owned a Canon EOS 550D (t2i). It comes with 18-55mm EF IS kit lens. Well, this lens is not really good for landscape photography. So I want to buy a lens only for landscape photography which is under $300. So now tell me which one is good lens?</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>What do you not like about the 18-55? Is it not wide enough or is there something else you don't like about it? $300 isn't much money for a decent lens though</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Assuming by 'for landscape' you mean a wide angle zoom then one of the best value lenses is the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC with Canon EF bayonet. The new price is going to be outside your budget but you can find them second hand (on auction sites) at the price level you are looking at.The usual cautions about buying at auctions apply.</p>

<p>If you wanted a telephoto lens then the Canon 55 -250 IS is probably best value for money. However this is not a traditional landscape lens though there is nothing to prevent you from taking landscapes with it.</p>

<p>Your Canon 18-55 IS lens is a surprisingly good lens for the money so unless you want something faster (with a bigger aperture) you should keep that.</p>

[mars c]

<p>My own experience with 18-55 IS is that it is sharp at close distance , But becomes considerably softer when being focused at infinity distance, Therefore, Not so good as a landscape lens. I have this theory that canon designed it that way , So that it will have good ratings when reviewed , But in real life use It is not as sharp as the reviews would tell you.</p>

<p>Unfortunately for you, $300- is way below the price range of good landscape lenses.</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Slightly off topic but I just want to point out for clarity only that, as was mentioned by Colin the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC does indeed have an EF Bayonet but the lens itself conforms to the Canon EF-s version of the EF Bayonet for APS-c sensor cameras only. I know that is what you have but just in case there was any confusion to other readers.<br /> However Colin is also correct in saying it is a superb lens and unfortunately its out of your $300 range (there isnt a lot in the wide range thats better than what you have TBH) but it might be worth hanging off and adding some bucks to your fund. I'm sure the classisfied forum will cough up a good Siggy 10-20 at a good price with a little patience.</p>

<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

Addendum:<br>

Just looked at the classifieds and found this posted yesterday</p>

<p><a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=949020&highlight=sigma+10-20">http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=949020&highlight=sigma+10-20</a></p>

<p>$385 ! shouldn't take long to add that kinda money to your fund.<br>

Always check out the sites classified sections, lots of well looked after kit from careful owners and I trust the sellers better than some Ebay ads.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just to add another voice to the overall principle that a "landscape lens" is one that you use to take landscapes with. In short, your "kit lens" is as much a landscape lens as an ultrawide like the Sigma 10-20mm is. Mind you, the Sigma is a great bargain and I use mine a lot. However, an ultrawide is for when you need to get in a wide view and you can't get far away (as in city streets). Sometimes, landscape shots taken with them can be vast amounts of foreground with little, tiny elements on the wide horizon. :)<br>

<br />The English magazine, <em>Digital Photography</em>, or something like that, always bad mouthed the ancestor of the 18-55mm, but I noticed that many of their full-page spreads <em>of landscapes</em> were in fact taken with that lens, which was much less capable than its newer version.</p>

<p> </p>

[jesse_barba]

<p>Spend the $300 on a tripod instead,if you don' have one.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I agree with the tripod recommendation, but as for lenses, a used EF-s 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS costs less than $300 and is a great lens. Sure, others will say there are better lenses, but for $300 its the best bargain for a walk around Canon lens.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Mars, my 18-55IS isn't soft at infinity. I wonder whether yours is defective?</p>

<p>Faisal, the 18-55 is a pretty sharp little lens -- very cheaply constructed, but optically quite good. How is it failing to meet your needs? Not wide enough? Not fast enough? Too cheaply built? Nobody here can recommend a better lens for you without knowing more specifically what your complaint is about the lens you have.</p>

<p>That said, $300 isn't going to buy you much of a lens, unless perhaps it's a prime lens.</p>

<p>I'll also mention one other thing: It's not a nice camera and nice lens that take a good picture. It's the photographer. In other words, I can put Canon's highest-end camera and lens in a person's hands, and he will not take a good picture with it if he doesn't know what he's doing. I can also put a cell phone camera or a $10 disposable camera in the hands of a very good photographer, and he can take a very good picture with it, because he knows what he's doing. I'm not saying you don't know what you're doing, but just that it's a possibility. It's a very common misconception that a fancy camera outfit will enable a person to be a good photographer -- e.g. that one can take "professional" photographs with a "professional" camera.</p>

<p>Considering that, I would respectfully disagree with the tripod recommendation -- for now. (Tripods are certainly useful, of course!) Instead, if you are new to photography, I'd recommend you study. Buy some introductory level books, or simply study online tutorials. (There are some here on PN.)</p>

<p>BTW, I own the 18-55IS, along with several much more expensive lenses. I sometimes carry it for scouting shots, as it's very small and light. I don't use it often for my artwork, but here's a shot I made with it. (It's a 1-second exposure, Jesse and Nathan, and it's tack sharp even at high magnification! No tripod -- only the IS and breathing/relaxation techniques!) This is the closest thing I have to a landscape with the 18-55IS, but I think it demonstrates it is a capable lens:<br /><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcolemanbridge01sm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Coleman Bridge, Yorktown, VA.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Many people use ultrawide lenses for landscape photography. Ultrawides are expensive.</p>

<p>That said, it should be possible to pick up a used Tamron 11-18 or Tokina 12-24 for under $300.</p>

[faisal_islam]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3728023">Sarah Fox</a> Thanks for your replay. I've bought two books on photography. One is "Digital SLR Cameras and Photography For Dummies" and another one is "Digital Portrait Photography Dummies". These books are good enough. Do you have any suggestion about this? Should I try other books?</p>