Landscape Lens for Newbie

[kaiw14]

Hi to all!

Im planning to get a Canon 40D with a 3rd party lens, either the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Tokina AT-X 11-16 f2.8 or Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f4 Pro DX .

I'm more into landscape photography, which lens would you experts recommend from the 3 lens mentioned above? It would be a bonus if the lens could double up as a simple walk around lens..

Thank you in advance!

 

[night86mare]

landscape lens can be anything from 10mm to 200mm, even 500mm has been used before to produce beautiful pictures.

for a more GENERAL PURPOSE lens, the tamron 17-50 will be better

for WIDER SCENES, 11-16 or 12-24 better.

have you considered the sigma 10-20, in terms of Ultra Wide Angle lens?

 

[kaiw14]

landscape lens can be anything from 10mm to 200mm, even 500mm has been used before to produce beautiful pictures.

for a more GENERAL PURPOSE lens, the tamron 17-50 will be better

for WIDER SCENES, 11-16 or 12-24 better.

have you considered the sigma 10-20, in terms of Ultra Wide Angle lens?

Yea the sigma 10-20 did came across to me..but i prefer the f2.8 on tokina and tamron..

Im slightly towards tamron 17-50 as its more value for money..but im afraid its not wide enough to get the whole scenery thingy..

If i get the 11-16.. I think it would be too short...haha..

How about getting both?

 

[mcn]

How about getting both?

good idea :thumbsup:

u can always sell the one you dislike at a loss

 

[Shen siung]

You should need a general lens for a 40D, usually in the range of 17-55. Hence, it can be a zoomlens like 18-55 IS, 17-55 IS, or Tamron 17-50. The latter is value for money.
Yet, this is not always true. There are photographer like to shoot with prime, like 24, 35, 50, 85, etc...

For landscape, it can be an UWA, like EFS 10-22, Tokina 11-16 or Tamron 10-24, or sigma 10-20, etc. People usually like shoot landscape with UWA / WA, but not limitted to only UWA.

 

[lkkang]

not to forget, long lens can also produce beautiful landscapes.
you can consider 70-200m F4 for a start also.

 

[Snoweagle]

Yea the sigma 10-20 did came across to me..but i prefer the f2.8 on tokina and tamron..

Im slightly towards tamron 17-50 as its more value for money..but im afraid its not wide enough to get the whole scenery thingy..

If i get the 11-16.. I think it would be too short...haha..

How about getting both?

If u're taking landscapes, u'll usually stop down the lens to at least f/5.6 or f/8. To me, spending extra on f/2.8 on a UWA for landscapes is pure waste of money.

 

[kaiw14]

If u're taking landscapes, u'll usually stop down the lens to at least f/5.6 or f/8. To me, spending extra on f/2.8 on a UWA for landscapes is pure waste of money.

I see I see..But the sigma 10-20 and tokina 11-16 is roughly the same price..both at ~$900.. So to get a f/2.8 be a plus especially in low lighting..am i right to say that? :think:

 

[night86mare]

sigma 10-20 $900 meh?

 

[kaiw14]

Hmm..i get what you guys are saying..

landscape photography doesnt necessary sticks to UWA lens..

So which lens should I get for a start?

 

[kaiw14]

yea..ranges from 800+ -900+.. I saw the link..

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=518391

 

[2evans]

There are a couple of active/recent threads in the Canon section about wide angle lenses,

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512102
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=419734

You may find more information there.

 

[giantcanopy]

..but i prefer the f2.8 on tokina and tamron..

No need 2.8 for landscape la. if 17mm not wide enough then stitch the landscapes up!

 

[Octarine]

So which lens should I get for a start?

From the range listed, and if you don't have any kit lens, get the Tamron 17-50 and start shooting. Experience and occasions will tell you what else you need. Buying without need and knowledge is wasting money.

 

[Snoweagle]

I see I see..But the sigma 10-20 and tokina 11-16 is roughly the same price..both at ~$900.. So to get a f/2.8 be a plus especially in low lighting..am i right to say that? :think:

I tell u, in especially low lighting, even f/2.8 won't cut it. Many people here have this wrong idea of f/2.8 being a low-lighting lens but in a sense to a limit only. If it's very low, then u'll need at least f/2.

As again, u won't need f/2.8 for landscapes. Any UWA will do.