Landscape Lenses - DPChallenge Forums

06/21/2006 08:56:00 PM · #1

I just sold my canon 28-135mm lens( I really disliked this lens) and am looking for something that would be good for landscape photography and photos of the kids. I was thinking of:

Tamron
17-35mm and the 28-75mm

They both seem to get good reviews. Any comments are welcomed. I am going to North Carolina in July and would like to get the new lenses before I leave.

I currently have the 100-400L and the 18-55 kit lenses. Oh I almost forgot I also have the canon 50mm 1.8

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/21/2006 09:01:59 PM · #2

For landscape, 28mm really isn't wide enough. How did you feel about 28 on the 28-135?

I shoot a lot of landscape at 17. You might even look at the Canon EF-S 10-22 if it's in your price range. I think the 300D takes EF-S lenses.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/21/2006 09:07:46 PM · #3

The 17-40L is not only the cheapest L lens, it also accomplishes both your requests quite nicely. I'd take a look at that one...

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/21/2006 09:12:05 PM · #4

Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 EX Aspherical HSM for Canon

06/21/2006 09:13:41 PM · #5

I was looking at that lens (17-40L) but then I would not have any range from 50mm to 100mm. Maybe I should have wrote my request differently.

I am trying to get A lens or Two lenses that are good for landscape and gives me a broad range. At one time I was looking at the canon 28-105L although it is a f4 and I also want something fast. for early mornings and late evenings.

I guess I want everything

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/21/2006 09:15:30 PM · #6

The tamron 17-50 F/2.8 is worth a serious look.
I have the Tamron 28-75 and find It isn't wide enough for landscape and general use alot of the time.

wavelength

Nikon D300

06/21/2006 09:16:00 PM · #7

Tamron SP 24-135 is also good, very sharp. Great range for getting outdoor kiddo shots, I should know, I have three.

06/21/2006 09:21:27 PM · #8

A fast lens for landscapes? Generally you would be be stopped down to at least 5.6 if not F/8 or 11 to get good sharp DOF in landscape shots. This is where most lenses perform at their sharpest overall resolution, and also the reason most wideangles have an F/4 aperture. Generally a lens is sharpest about two stops down from wide open putting an F4 lens sharpest at about F/8 (an ideal landscape aperture). Shooting at 2.8 would leave you with little dof and nothing sharp when focused at infinity.

06/21/2006 09:25:39 PM · #9

A lot of landscape shots are done at f16 or higher. In fact, at a workshop I attended, the photographer teaching used f22. The cheaper lenses will not perform well at these apertures. The pro quality glass performs well throughout the range but still have some dropoff in quality at the extremes.

06/21/2006 09:29:23 PM · #10

I had the Tamron SP 24-135 and did not like it. Returned within 14 days. Might of just had a bad one.

Care bear you are right about the aperture, but the 2.8 is nice to have for other occasions

06/21/2006 09:43:27 PM · #11

In the days of film (especially medium and large format) you had to use f/16 or higher to get good DOF. However with digital your DOF is actually increased by a couple stops in general due to the crop factor (unless you're lucky enough to have a full frame).

"Care bear you are right about the aperture, but the 2.8 is nice to have for other occasions"
Hence why the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would rock as a landscape and general purpose lens.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/21/2006 09:52:54 PM · #12

Just my thinks about the 17-50 2.8 Just wanted to kinow if I was missing something. Now for the 28-75, Could this be considered a good landscape lens when combined with the 17-50?

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

06/21/2006 09:57:42 PM · #13

wide angle rawks... my 10-22mm gets a lot of workouts in the field ;)

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

06/21/2006 10:03:59 PM · #14

12-24/10-22

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/21/2006 11:34:16 PM · #15

well, the 24-105L rocks, but it isn't wide enough for a fair amount of landscape by just a bit. I have one on my camera and never take it off. However, I love landscape and am salivating at buying the 10-22 to cover the wider stuff (or just going FF where 24mm will be wide enough).

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

06/21/2006 11:45:29 PM · #16

Originally posted by PhotoRyno:

I currently have the 100-400L and the 18-55 kit lenses. Oh I almost forgot I also have the canon 50mm 1.8

The 18-55 kit lens should be an excellent landscape lens.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/21/2006 11:50:18 PM · #17

If you have money and don't mind a dedicated wide angle lens, go for the Canon 10-22. It's fantastic...

If you don't mind a dedicated wide angle lens, but have not so much money, try the Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 It's very good, just not as wide.

If you want an all-purpose lens as well, definitely check the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8... Photozone.de compares it quite favorably to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, which is around 3 times the price...

For landscapes, I think you will still be pretty close in to it's sweet spot at around f/8 and you should be able to get hyperfocus in a reasonable range with that lens...

Actually, f/22 isn't as useful for digital cameras as they were for film... Diffraction limitation is more of an issue for digital cameras beyond f/16...

I'm going to do my best to wait until the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 comes out so I can make a comparison, but something tells me that I will still end up with the Tamron... I wish they would hurry up with it... I dislike the fact that summer will be gone by the time that lens is released... That's a lot of shooting that I have to make do with the kit lens...

Message edited by author 2006-06-21 23:57:38.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/21/2006 11:53:22 PM · #18

Where diffraction becomes noticable depends on the lens.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

06/21/2006 11:57:14 PM · #19

check the website for cambridge in color for their discussion on diffraction limitation and the size of airy circles compared to the size of a pixel... When the size of an airy circle becomes larger than a photosite, maximum resolution gets impaired...

This is a photosite size issue. Not a glass issue.

06/21/2006 11:58:54 PM · #20

There are no pixels in film so how is diffraction not a glass issue since diffraction occurs when shooting film as well?

Found my answer here:

//www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/diffraction-small-apertures.html

and another using lens examples:

//www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

and of course the link referred to below.

//www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 00:24:35.

Telehubbie

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/22/2006 12:22:07 AM · #21

I'm with the others on the Canon 10-22mm, very nice indeed. My favorite "kid" lens is the Canon 24-70 2.8L (REALLY nice but pricey), but the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is about 3 times less than the Canon and people seem to really like that one.

How much did you get for your 28-135? I still have mine but don't use it anymore and was thinking about selling it too.

Count

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/22/2006 12:53:29 AM · #22

The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a fantastic lens for the price, hell even if it cost twice as much it'd still be a great lens.

It also doubles very well as a macro lens if you don't have a dedicated one...

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/22/2006 01:31:39 AM · #23

The 28-75 is excellent but there would be alot of overlap if you had the 17-50 as well (though I think I might end up with both here pretty soon). However it is a great lens for portraits and in general if you need a little extra reach or a backup lens (as I do). Unless you have a broad, distant panoramic view then the 28-75 is useless for landscapes from my experiences.
Here are the options I would consider seriously depending on what shooting you do

1. Canon 10-22/Tokina 12-24 combined with the 28-75 (add a nice 70-200 zoom later and you've covered the basic range with three lenses)

2. Tamron 17-50 2.8 as a landscape and walkaround lens combined with a 70-200 zoom. You lose a little coverage from 50-70 but this isn't a huge deal plus you could fill it with something like the canon 60 2.8 macro or the equivalent.

Option three if you have big bucks to spend
3. 10-22/12-24 for ultrawide, a 17-50 as a general purpose moderate wideangle, and a 28-75 for when you know you won't need wideangle but will need constant 2.8

edit-that 17-40L is a great lens I wouldn't rule it outbased on aperture alone (the one stop difference could be made up by bumping the iso up one stop)

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 01:35:45.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

06/22/2006 01:52:42 AM · #24

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

There are no pixels in film so how is diffraction not a glass issue since diffraction occurs when shooting film as well?

Film has no pixels, but the effect is the same as the details are still being obscured... the effect is not in the glass itself, but is in the aperture. I believe that we are talking about light getting distorted by coming into contact with edges... Therefore, diffraction limitation effects are not an issue with the glass. They will occur the same whether your lens is cheap or expensive; sharp or soft.

Check the lower part of the cambridge tutorial and you will see how diffraction relates to fine detail on various different sensor sizes and at various different apertures via a little applet.

Without pixels, the effects of diffraction are much less limited on the fine end of things and it is significantly less of an issue...

Digital is a bit different because a photosite is the smallest peice of information that the camera is able to resolve.

If the information coming from the lens is larger than that, then the image will lose sharpness. If the information is smaller than that, well, that's usually where the 'acceptable sharpness' standard sits.

Even at f/22, the difference isn't huge for a DSLR. P&S cameras get hit by this one badly...

You will notice that most newer lenses, especially those made for digital, will usually max out at f/22, avoiding smaller apertures...

Add the tendency of lenses to be somewhat not-at-their-best at the aperture edges, and you find that more and more people are shooting landscapes on digital at f/16... Or at least the guys around here do.

I'm not an expert, and I do make mistakes, but I'm pretty sure I've got this one correct.

Another one to check out if you are low on funds is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-?? sorry I forgot...