landscapes etc

[graham catley]

I currently have a huge kit of 2 Canon lenses (the more choice you have the less you use each one) the 100-400 which I use most of the time and the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 which came with the body---the latter I use mainly for landscapes to add to shows or illustrate articles--I do not use it that much but I wonder if a better quality short-end lens is required or will there not be a lot of difference between this nice light and small lens and a more expensive counterpart---as only a few on my pics are published is the extra investment a wise decision?---
GPC

[compa]

Certainly there is a difference in the better lenses. Sometimes the difference in color and contrast is amazing! Rather or not YOU need it is something only YOU can decide. I suppose that you bought a DSLR for the higher quality images that they can offer over the normal point and shoot cameras. Using the proper focal length lenses for the subject and using higher quality lenses is just getting the most out of your investment (and, I suppose, making more of an investment).

If you appreciate quality, you will likely want to replace that 18-55mm lens with a proper wide angle (such as a Tokina 12-24mm) for landscapes and building interiors. Also you'll want a third lens for general shots such as a 28-105mm.

That's the basics - other options are macro lenses - the sharp, low light primes and extreme telephotos.

[christineredgate]

Graham,I do find that landscapes are so difficult to photograph.One never seems to see on ones image what one saw with the naked eye.I had the Canon 17-40mm lens,which is the ideal landscape lens.Expensive,and can really only be used for landscapes.I was never really happy with the results from this lens.Occassionally ,yes ,a good image ,but on the whole I rarely used it.So I changed it for the 24-105 mm Canon lens.A good lens,takes good landscape shots,also next doors dog,a tree in a field,and is in general a good multi purpose lens.Not cheap,I'm afraid,but I was lucky and had a good p/ex.But on reading info for landscape lenses,you can buy a Sigma lens which is very good for landscapes and will not break the bank.There is a 10-20 and an 18 plus.Perhaps if you only want a lens for landscapes you could consider one of these.I have stayed with the Canon 24-105 as it is a good all rounder,but if buying from new,with no p/ex is very expensive.Hopefully some else may come along with some more info for you.But do check out the Sigma range.

[graham catley]

having spent most of th enight reading reviews I am truly baffled--certainly do not have £500+ to spend on a Canon L lens in the 24-70-100ish range but the reviews of Tamrons and Sigmas seem to be truly baffling in that some people rave over lenses and other decry them as a waste of money/trash--the Fred Miranda site seems to offer many such contradictions in reviews but a lens which comes out well and is truly cheap is the Sigma 24-70mm F3.5-5.6 HF which at £90 seems to get rave reviews froma ll but one reviewer---does anyone on the forum have any views on this cheapo alternative?

[nigelblake]

[QUOTE= but a lens which comes out well and is truly cheap is the Sigma 24-70mm F3.5-5.6 HF which at £90 seems to get rave reviews froma ll but one reviewer---does anyone on the forum have any views on this cheapo alternative?[/QUOTE]

While this lens works well on the 20D and 350D most of the time, it does have one problem which I discovered when my daughter was trying to do long exposures using the self timer, in this circumstance it sets off 'error 99' instead of firing the shutter when the self timer reaches the end of its run.

Some sigma lenses can do this on certain random camera settings, I have not had the same problem with Tamron lenses.

[nigelblake]

I should add that when using my Canon 17-35mm the camera worked fine, and this Error 99 issue only occured with the Sigma

[citrinella]

I currently have a huge kit of 2 Canon lenses (the more choice you have the less you use each one) the 100-400 which I use most of the time and the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 which came with the body---the latter I use mainly for landscapes to add to shows or illustrate articles--I do not use it that much but I wonder if a better quality short-end lens is required or will there not be a lot of difference between this nice light and small lens and a more expensive counterpart---as only a few on my pics are published is the extra investment a wise decision?---
GPC
I have started down this route, and am having second thoughts. Firstly, I don't want to take my SLR body off my long telephoto for fear of missing shots. Secondly, I want to minimize dirt ingress (at lens changeover). So, another body ? Quite apart from the expense, what about the weight ! Photography is a major aspect of my annual holiday, which is a backpack and local transport affair.

I am seriously considering a high end compact camera which gives good wide angle and modest telephoto instead of investing in more heavy and expensive SLR lenses.

Food for thought ?
Mike.

[graham catley]

going blind after two days of review study and still not made any true headway--latest idea iis the Canon EF24-85mm f3.5-4.5 ---most reviews seem to be a bit old in the tooth and pre DSLR days so any recent comments from users would be welcome

[christineredgate]

Graham,yes ,as Mike has mentioned,a compact cam can take excellent landscape shots ,also macro.Saves having to buy a separate lens,and you have a cam you can keep in your pocket and is multi purpose,and quite possibly would cost less than a sep lens.

[John Gibson2]

Graham,yes ,as Mike has mentioned,a compact cam can take excellent landscape shots ,also macro.Saves having to buy a separate lens,and you have a cam you can keep in your pocket and is multi purpose,and quite possibly would cost less than a sep lens.

I'm thinking of going down that route, too, Christine. Partly because I can't make my mind up which lens I want and partly because I don't want to be faffing about changing lenses and getting dust in the camera.
There is the cost element as well, of course. I've just ordered an Epson P4000 digital storage device, so I've used up all my wife's good will for the time being.
I plan to borrow my son-in-law's Panasonic FZ5 for an upcoming trip to South Africa which helps me to put off a decision for the time being, and it does seem a nice and light versatile camera (and I've always got the Contax 300 which is so easy to pop into a shirt pocket).

John Gibson

[baillieswells]

I currently have a huge kit of 2 Canon lenses (the more choice you have the less you use each one) the 100-400 which I use most of the time and the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 which came with the body---the latter I use mainly for landscapes to add to shows or illustrate articles--I do not use it that much but I wonder if a better quality short-end lens is required or will there not be a lot of difference between this nice light and small lens and a more expensive counterpart---as only a few on my pics are published is the extra investment a wise decision?---
GPC

At the moment I use 3 lenses with my Canon 350D. At wide angle I have the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 which I find excellent, between 17-20mm it is far superior to the 17-85mm Canon 4-5.6 IS. I am regretting buying the 17-85mm Canon lens which in my opinion is appalling, soft and the colour fringing is the worst I have ever seen on a Canon lens, also this lens is overpriced. I am now considering getting rid of it and buying the new Canon 24-105mm f4L lens. I also have a Canon 70-200mm f4L lens, and the Canon x1.4 extender to go with it. This is a superb lens, but even with the extender is really not long enough for small birds. On safari in South Africa, it was marvellous for large animals. (I also have the Canon 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM a relic from my film days. Though this lens is far better than the more modern 75-300mm lenses it is still very soft at 300mm. Also from that period I have a 24mm and 50mm prime lens). I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500mm lens specially for bird photography. I cannot afford the long focus Canon L lenses. Just my personal thoughts.

[psilo]

Some very interesting comments here as I am thinking of buying a lens for macro and landscape photography. I was thinking of buying the canon 100L f2.8 macro. I have the standard 18-55mm but for landscapes and general photography do not find this sharp enough. So may also look for a wider angle lens too.
The last lens I bought was the sigma 170-500mm apo dg for bird photography and I find this an excellent sharp lens so was thinking of maybe trying a wide angle sigma lens.
I normally use a 350d but also own a 300d which i plan to use for landscape photography so can carry the two together.

[Tannin]

The little 18-55mm lens gets a lot of bad press, but in reality it is perfectly usable. I have the 18-55 and use it alongside my 100-400L, and two EF-S lenses that are generally regarded as having L-quality optics but without the red ring: a 60MM macro and a 10-22. My advice is don't replace your 18-55 until you have already got all the other options covered. It is much more important to take care of all the things you can't do now than stress out and spend a lot of money making a tiny, tiny improvement to what you can already do with the 18-55.

First up, you might look at a wide angle - you won't believe what you can do with a really wide angle till you try it. They are wonderful! I went for the Canon EF-S 10-22 and am delighted with it. People also say nice things about a couple of the third-party ultra-wide zooms, which also tend to be a bit cheaper, but not many go as wide as the Canon one does. I'm sure I'd be happy with the picture quality of any of them, but I'd miss that last mm or two - remember that the difference between 12mm and 10mm is very noticable. Mind you, the 10-22 isn't cheap, and you need to spend extra to buy a lens hood and an ultra-thin protective filter for it as well. (I don't usually use UV filters, but with ultra-wides you need one as the lens hood can't protect the glass the way it can with a narrower angle lens.)

The other obvious possibility is a macro (if that's your thing). I went for the 60mm Canon one, but I'm still learning how to use it properly and don't have a lot to say about it yet.

What about the gap between 55mm and 100mm? OK, I have the 60mm macro now which narrows it a bit, but it honestly doesn't bother me much. It's very rare to find a situation where I need less than my 100-400 can do at 100, but more than I can do with the 60mm (or the 18-55 for that matter). I've thought about a 17-85 and a 24-105 and a 24-70, and the Tamron 28-75, but in the end done nothing yet.

Don't stress about your unfashionable 18-55, use it and be happy. The day you (or I) can take better shots than that lens is capable of is a long way off yet.

[graham catley]

thought provoking stuff Tannin and well put---

[compa]

Don't stress about your unfashionable 18-55, use it and be happy. The day you (or I) can take better shots than that lens is capable of is a long way off yet.

I take exception to this statement. Using your logic, there is no good reason to upgrade to the latest Windows or Apple OS until you have mastered the older version - no reason to purchase a nice Teflon coated stainless steel pot until you are an expert at cooking with a cast iron pot.

Replacing a lens with a better version results in immediate improvements in your photos. Most better lenses have a wider maximum aperture. This provides more light and therefore permits faster shutter speeds - giving the user sharper photos. The better lenses have more contrast and better color rendition, giving a better photo without playing in Photoshop. These good lenses have less chromatic aberration and less geometric distortion. THEY GIVE YOU BETTER PHOTOS without you having to learn anything new.

One can appreciate the benefits of an improved (higher quality) anything without being an expert at using it! The only problem is that using professional level equipment makes it clear where the problem is when something doesn't work right 3:-)

[postcardcv]

Personally I've never been very impressed with the 18-55 lens that I got with my 300D, I soon got a Sigma 28-135 lens for general use instead. The Sigma was a cheap lens <£100 but performs very well and is great for taking shots of my kids...

However I've been wanting a decent wide angle lens for landscape work too. Last week I got offered a good deal on a Sigma 20-40 f2.8 EX lens so decide to go for it... and boy am I disapointed. I did some test shots (at 30mm) with it, comparing it to the 18-55 kit lens and my 28-135 - it performed slightly better than the kit lens, but was beaten by the 28-135! Needless to say it's going back to the shop, having read reviews since it seems that many others have had similar experiences with this lens... now I've got my eye on a Sigma 15-30 which (by all acounts) is much better.