Lens for Landscapes

Manc Man

Manc Man

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,268
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello

I am looking for a suitable lens to do Landscapes and Seascapes, a friend has suggested a sigma 10 x 20.

I currenlt have a canon 550d with kit lens 18 x 55, the problem i have is when i see some fantastic pictures on the forums of landscapse and seescapes and i check out the Exif info for the picture they have been taken around the 17 / 18mm mark.

Now i am thinking my 18 x 55 will do the same job.

Darren
 
Hello

The focal length doesn't necessarily guarantee a good image in landscapes. I have a 10-22 and does take a bit of planning on when to use it at the wider end.

There is no reason why the kit lens can't take a similar looking shot to those which you have identified, however with the more expensive lenses you will get better optics with potentially better colour rendition, less vignetting, fewer chromatic aberrations and improved sharpness across the image.

I would shoot away with the kit lens for a while to see what focal length you tend to shoot at. Now you may find 18 isn't quite wide enough or you may find it does what you need but might prefer a better lens in the same range. Using Canon lenses as examples (Sigma and Tamron have cheaper equivelents) you could opt for the 10-22 or 17-55 but these come at a cost.


Andy
 
a) Tripod, so you can go ISO 100 and smaller apertures
b) Canon 10-22 if you want wide angle shots - this is a stunning EF-S lens in my opinion.

When looking at EXIF info, you need to note if it's a fullframe or crop camera as the field of view will be affected by the crop factor. But if they're 17 or 18mm, there's a good chance it's a 17-x or 18-x zoom on a crop body being used as wide as they go.
 
I would also suggest getting a decent tripod and possibly some filters, as in general landscape photography isn't too taxing on lenses, as you are usually using a small aperture (bigger F number).
 
Another option would be to go for the Canon 15-85 lens. It's not fast, ultra wide or a birding lens, but it seems to be a great focal length range if you're not an aperture junkie.

I'm still sticking with my 17-55/2.8 IS though...
 
Don't get hung up on expensive lenses being the difference bettween ok shots and great shots your kit lens is sharp enough at f8 for you not to worry and 18mm (28mm equivalent) is easily wide enough for most landscape shots. Get out and get shooting and you'll see a much bigger improvement than you will sat at home contemplating expensive kit upgrades.

Many will recomend a tripod and cable release for landscapes and I'd probably agree they are a worthwhile addition partly becuase they will slow you down and force you to think more which 90% of the time will result in a better result.
 
I've seen landscapes taken on fisheyes and also on 500mm telephotos.
It really depends on how you imagine the landscape and where yo are in relaton to the image you want to get.
 
Wide angle lenses are maybe the most challenging and creative lenses to use. Everyone should have one :D

I'm not so sure about tripods though. I very rarely use them as I find them too restrictive, time consuming, cumbersome and generally a PITA. My one exception is for some flower / still life shots but generally I detest the things.

I'd urge anyone getting into landscape to try and avoid the usual clichés of wide angle lenses, small apertures and deep depth of field as there are many more creative options available to people with imagination :D
 
This is really a personal preference kinda question. Do you find 18mm wide enough? or do you want to go wider?
My personal opinion on the matter has been that I find 10/11mm too wide,and I can't stand the look of the shot's I get from a lens like the canon 10-20mm. Despite actually hiring one last year and getting a couple of good shots with one.
I'm looking at getting a Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens. It's going to be my primary zoom. I love the photo's people have gotten from this lens. And it's fairly cheap aswell.

But Like the rest, I would suggest a tripod and cable release. And alot of time practising :)
 
It's a common misconception that you need a UWA lens for landscapes. It may give a more visual impact, but only in some situations. Some people take landscape photo's with a focal range of 50-150mm depending where they are.

The reason I bought a UWA was mostly for interior shots and architecture where it'd traditionally be more difficult to 'get it all in'. Being used as a different perspective for landscapes was a perk.

A kit lens can be a perfect landscape lens at any focal length.
 
Manc Man said:
cheers for that Andy. i might give the kit lens a try for a few week and see how i progress.

notice you have the 55 x 250 how do you find that lens.

Darren
Click to expand...

The 55-250mm IS, is a cracker for the money I would definitely recommend it if you want a budget telezoom :thumbs:

Regarding filters...the kit lens falls down here. Its a nightmare to use with filters. Not only does the lens rotate with focusing, the focus ring is the barrel itself. If you were using a polariser, grad or something like a big stopper (10stop) nd - you will need to touch either filter or filter holder and position it accordingly. This then twists the lens barrel throwing the focus out. I spent 5mins with it and decided it was unusable with those common filter types. The reason I mention this if you decide to buy a set of filters or holder specifically for this lens filter thread size 58mm, it could be a waste of cash. Maybe wait for better lens that doesn't rotate with focus before you buy filters :thumbs:
 
here's a landscape with the Nikon kit lens 18-55 AF-S VR handheld - supported on a rock wall

it's not an example to show how great it is....:D....but to show that it's shot at 18mm

and if it was wider the trees would be too distant...............:shake:
.
bf642792.jpg


here's a ''link'' to Ken Rockwell
Wide angle is NOT about getting it all in ..........enjoy..:lol:
 
One of the best articles on Ken Rockwell's site if you ask me.

2Thumbs said:
It's a common misconception that you need a UWA lens for landscapes. It may give a more visual impact, but only in some situations. Some people take landscape photo's with a focal range of 50-150mm depending where they are.
Click to expand...

I took landscapes on holiday for years with an IXUS 950 with a max wideangle of 35mm and rarely did I feel badly constrained by it. Indeed I'd say it probabley made for better pics since I'd have ended up with poorly composed undramatic wide shots trying to "get it all in".

That said I think in a more normal UK landscape I think UWA really does become much more important. Peices of landscape so dramatic they can dominate a picture are much rarer here than they are in say the Alps, what we do have is tons of great foreground and very dramatic weather which an UWA can often get the best out of.
 
I own an UWA (12-24) and a standard range zoom (17-70) - I find I take 90% of my landscape shots with the 17-70, the UWA is a great lens but it doesn't work for me in as many situations as the 17-70 does.

My suggestion is to give the 18-55 a try for a while longer, if you find your happy with the focal length upgrade it before considering buying an UWA - that's what I did and it worked out ok for me anyway

Simon
 
Last edited:
AndyB1976 said:
The 55-250mm IS, is a cracker for the money I would definitely recommend it if you want a budget telezoom :thumbs:

Regarding filters...the kit lens falls down here. Its a nightmare to use with filters. Not only does the lens rotate with focusing, the focus ring is the barrel itself. If you were using a polariser, grad or something like a big stopper (10stop) nd - you will need to touch either filter or filter holder and position it accordingly. This then twists the lens barrel throwing the focus out. I spent 5mins with it and decided it was unusable with those common filter types. The reason I mention this if you decide to buy a set of filters or holder specifically for this lens filter thread size 58mm, it could be a waste of cash. Maybe wait for better lens that doesn't rotate with focus before you buy filters :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Is this with the cokin filters as well Andy.
 
I used the kit 18- 55 for a couple of years on my 400d upgraded the 400 d to a 600d body and used the 400d kit lens
found it to be a good walk around lens
just bought the efs 17-55 f2.8 what a beast it is
can't get over the size of the thing
also picked up an efs 55-250 is f4-5.6 was surprised at it's performance considering it's low cost
 
Rebel t3i said:
I used the kit 18- 55 for a couple of years on my 400d upgraded the 400 d to a 600d body and used the 400d kit lens
found it to be a good walk around lens
just bought the efs 17-55 f2.8 what a beast it is
can't get over the size of the thing
also picked up an efs 55-250 is f4-5.6 was surprised at it's performance considering it's low cost
Click to expand...

Have you had any issues when using filters with 50 x 250 like in the previous post. Thank you in advance.
 
Manc Man said:
Have you had any issues when using filters with 50 x 250 like in the previous post. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

All copies/users of the 55-250 will have the same issue with filters as the 18-55, the front element rotates.

Thats not a problem with ND filters(which reduce the amount of light to get longer shutter speeds to blur water, clouds etc) since they work equally at all angles. It is a problem when using a polarizer or graduated ND filters(which are darker at the top to overcome dramatic differences in lighting the camera otherwise couldnt cope with) since these filters need to be allined correctly(the front twists). Using a lens with a rotating front you'd need to focus a shot first and then rotate the filter to the correct position. Using any kind of square filter system such as Cokin(they have a plastic mount that attaches to the filter thread) would not likely be good for it or the lens either having something that size spinning around on the front of it.

You don't of course need to spend as much as the Canon 15-85 to avoid the rotating front element, cheaper lenses such as the Tamron 17-50 2.8, the Canon 17-85 IS and the Sigma 17-70 all have non rotating front elements.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
All copies/users of the 55-250 will have the same issue with filters as the 18-55, the front element rotates.

Thats not a problem with ND filters(which reduce the amount of light to get longer shutter speeds to blur water, clouds etc) since they work equally at all angles. It is a problem when using a polarizer or graduated ND filters(which are darker at the top to overcome dramatic differences in lighting the camera otherwise couldnt cope with) since these filters need to be allined correctly(the front twists). Using a lens with a rotating front you'd need to focus a shot first and then rotate the filter to the correct position. Using any kind of square filter system such as Cokin(they have a plastic mount that attaches to the filter thread) would not likely be good for it or the lens either having something that size spinning around on the front of it.

You don't of course need to spend as much as the Canon 15-85 to avoid the rotating front element, cheaper lenses such as the Tamron 17-50 2.8, the Canon 17-85 IS and the Sigma 17-70 all have non rotating front elements.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Moreorless, I have started to wish o bought a bridge camera. Lol
 
Ive taken a few landscapes with the kit lens and cokin filters,
1000D , Kit lens , 0.3 + 0.6 grad cokin filters.

My best sunrise ive taken so far -


Lucky view! by Sam♣, on Flickr

I feel grad filters are a real asset to landscape shots as it helps knocking a deeper color into the sky and helps leveling out the brightness of the sky conpaired to the ground.
But a tripod is a must!
 
Last edited:
Manc Man said:
Cheers for that Moreorless, I have started to wish o bought a bridge camera. Lol
Click to expand...

I held off for years aswell after looking at the mounting costs but UK landscapes are really what pushed me towards a DSLR. A compact was pretty good for taking well lit daytime pics of mountains and the like abroad on holiday but the dramatic range, ISO performance and ability to use ultra wide lenses counts for alot here where your often trying to capture evening/morning light, weather, foreground etc.

The 17-85 is a reasonabley cheap option if you wanted to use a polarizer, not without its faults as the corners are a bit softer than the kit at the wide end and it does have alot of barrel distortion and CA(a few clicks to fix the last two in DPP though if you shoot raw) but the centers a bit sharper, the range is longer, still has IS for using small appatures, faster/quieter focus and the build is better with no rotating front element. It got a bit of a bad rep as Canon were taking advanatge of the lack of competision to sell it for far more originally but today you can pick it up for £200 or less used.
 
Manc Man - don't bother getting more lenses yet. You will only confuse yourself even more, the lens coverage you have is ideal for getting to grips with any kind of photography that doesn't involve shooting at long range (motorsport or wildlife in general) and it will produce really good pictures if you keep it around the middle of the aperture range (f5.6 - f11 or f16)

Landscapes are more about the scene AND THE LIGHT. The most important aspecrt of landscape photography is being there, and that means PATIENCE, not kit. If you look at the greats like Joe Cornish, Colin Prior (especially Colin!) Charlie Waite and all the rest - they use very few lenses, but their feet, a lot. Most of them use 2 lenses for 90% of their work, semi wide angles like a 35mm equivalent on 35mm. They do use filters though, to manage the light (see, that word keeps cropping up - LIGHT, it is all about light, not lenses).

A flash is not really going to be that important for landscape/seascapes either - in some instances you can lift elements with it, but not the whole scene. The whole scene relies on natural light - that means being there at the right time, or recognising what you can do at the time you are there. A few filters and learning how to use them will be far more important than a flash or new lenses - a polarising filter would be more use to you (get a reasonably good one, not an el cheapo, a cheap one will introduce colour cast.) Expect to pay the same for a polarising filter as a flash gun.

A tripod - again, get a good one and buy used, you will get 10x the tripod for the same money....stand by to hear from all those photographers with a spare tripod to offload.:D :thumbs: A tripod can't go wrong, it is only 3 legs and a screw fitting with a clamp head on top. Don't go for a pistol grip thing - just a 3-way head. Ball head if it is a good one. A spirit level built in is useful, or take a small one with you (horizontal horizons!)

You have the basis in your camera and lens, you need inspiration and understanding more than you need more kit.....spend £50 on books and soak up all the technique help you can. The best bit of advice I was ever given as a starter was:
It is better to come back with ONE good or outstanding picture than a whole bagful of film full of rubbish. That applies to any genre of photography, not just landscapes

I need another hot whisky!
 
Last edited:
Lensflare said:
Manc Man - don't bother getting more lenses yet. You will only confuse yourself even more, the lens coverage you have is ideal for getting to grips with any kind of photography that doesn't involve shooting at long range (motorsport or wildlife in general) and it will produce really good pictures if you keep it around the middle of the aperture range (f5.6 - f11 or f16)

Landscapes are more about the scene AND THE LIGHT. The most important aspecrt of landscape photography is being there, and that means PATIENCE, not kit. If you look at the greats like Joe Cornish, Colin Prior (especially Colin!) Charlie Waite and all the rest - they use very few lenses, but their feet, a lot. Most of them use 2 lenses for 90% of their work, semi wide angles like a 35mm equivalent on 35mm. They do use filters though, to manage the light (see, that word keeps cropping up - LIGHT, it is all about light, not lenses).

A flash is not really going to be that important for landscape/seascapes either - in some instances you can lift elements with it, but not the whole scene. The whole scene relies on natural light - that means being there at the right time, or recognising what you can do at the time you are there. A few filters and learning how to use them will be far more important than a flash or new lenses - a polarising filter would be more use to you (get a reasonably good one, not an el cheapo, a cheap one will introduce colour cast.) Expect to pay the same for a polarising filter as a flash gun.

A tripod - again, get a good one and buy used, you will get 10x the tripod for the same money....stand by to hear from all those photographers with a spare tripod to offload.:D :thumbs: A tripod can't go wrong, it is only 3 legs and a screw fitting with a clamp head on top. Don't go for a pistol grip thing - just a 3-way head. Ball head if it is a good one. A spirit level built in is useful, or take a small one with you (horizontal horizons!)

You have the basis in your camera and lens, you need inspiration and understanding more than you need more kit.....spend £50 on books and soak up all the technique help you can. The best bit of advice I was ever given as a starter was:
It is better to come back with ONE good or outstanding picture than a whole bagful of film full of rubbish. That applies to any genre of photography, not just landscapes

I need another hot whisky!
Click to expand...

Cheers for that, was getting to the stage where I was going to trade for a bridge camera.
 
Yardbent said:
here's a landscape with the Nikon kit lens 18-55 AF-S VR handheld - supported on a rock wall

it's not an example to show how great it is....:D....but to show that it's shot at 18mm

and if it was wider the trees would be too distant...............:shake:
.
bf642792.jpg


here's a ''link'' to Ken Rockwell
Wide angle is NOT about getting it all in ..........enjoy..:lol:
Click to expand...

very nice.
 
John Mc said:
This is really a personal preference kinda question. Do you find 18mm wide enough? or do you want to go wider?
My personal opinion on the matter has been that I find 10/11mm too wide,and I can't stand the look of the shot's I get from a lens like the canon 10-20mm. Despite actually hiring one last year and getting a couple of good shots with one.
I'm looking at getting a Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens. It's going to be my primary zoom. I love the photo's people have gotten from this lens. And it's fairly cheap aswell.

But Like the rest, I would suggest a tripod and cable release. And alot of time practising :)
Click to expand...

John, the 17-40mm is a fabulous lens and I have used it loads with my landscape work. I wish choosing the other lenses was as straight forward.
Noel
 
Weirdfish695 said:
John, the 17-40mm is a fabulous lens and I have used it loads with my landscape work. I wish choosing the other lenses was as straight forward.
Noel
Click to expand...

Well, I'm now going on your word for getting one :p
 
I'm not sure buying grad filters like Cokin would be the best option with your current lenses Manc Man. General concenus is that there less effective at longer focal lenghts(both in real terms and the kinds of shot taken) and your 55-250mm lens has a rotating front element. That means every time you focus you'll need to readjust the filter before taking the shot plus you'll have the clip on holder/filter moving around.

Personally I'd say the best buy would be either a 52mm polarizer(a decent one should be pretty cheap at that size) for your 50mm 1.8 which doesnt rotate or an ND filter for either lens to get some long exposures with your new tripod.
 
Moreorless said:
I'm not sure buying grad filters like Cokin would be the best option with your current lenses Manc Man. General concenus is that there less effective at longer focal lenghts(both in real terms and the kinds of shot taken) and your 55-250mm lens has a rotating front element. That means every time you focus you'll need to readjust the filter before taking the shot plus you'll have the clip on holder/filter moving around.

Personally I'd say the best buy would be either a 52mm polarizer(a decent one should be pretty cheap at that size) for your 50mm 1.8 which doesnt rotate or an ND filter for either lens to get some long exposures with your new tripod.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Moreorless, wish I had checked your post earlier as my wife purchased me a set of Colin filters but I will look in to doing what you have recommended.
 
ndwgolf said:
Don’t get Cokin....................you are defiantly better off getting Lee filters for landscape
Click to expand...

For someone who is just starting off, cokin are more than sufficient, the cokin filters will have less of an effect on a kit lens compared to a £1000 24-70mm, sure lee are nice, but cokin will do perfectly well
 
Canon 17-40 f4 l, Lee nd grads hard set! And a good tripod, trust me cokin filters are ok. Lee filters are amazing!!! Canon pro glass is also the way forward. They capture more detail in an image, there also sharper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top