Best budget(ish) Canon lens for landscape photography
Discussion
I bought a Canon 1100d at the beginning of the year and I really enjoy landscape photography. I'd like to upgrade from the 18-55mm kit lens but i'm not sure what the best option is.
Could someone please help by recommending a good Canon lens for landscape photography? Budget of £400 at the most.
In my research so far this prime lens looks like the best option: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-28mm-1-8-USM-Lens/dp...
Could someone please help by recommending a good Canon lens for landscape photography? Budget of £400 at the most.
In my research so far this prime lens looks like the best option: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-28mm-1-8-USM-Lens/dp...
DavidCane said:
For landscape you might wider than 28mm.
EFA, I was on a 22 hour landscape trip to the Northumberland coast yesterday, shot some at 150mm, some at 135mm etcWhat's holding you back on your current lens? Not wide enough? Not long enough? Not fast enough? Not sharp enough?
Don't get me wrong, I like a shiney new piece of gear
If it's landscapes you like have you already got the other bits sorted? If not your £400 would be better spent on a tripod, cable release, a CPL and some ND grads IMO.
If it's a sole lens I wouldnt go for something with a focal length as limiting as the 10-20mm, It's a misconception that lanscapes need to be shot solely with wide focal lengths.
As Mark said if you dont have them, A good set of ND Grads, Decent Tripod, Cable release etc will go much further to assist your landscape photography than a new lens will.
As Mark said if you dont have them, A good set of ND Grads, Decent Tripod, Cable release etc will go much further to assist your landscape photography than a new lens will.
DavidCane said:
For landscape you'll want wider than 28mm.
Look at the Sigma 10-20mm lenses for something which will be very landscape focussed. Also consider the 15-85mm as that's got fantastic image quality and would be a great all purpose lens as well has being wider at the 15mm end.
Thanks for this I hadn't considered the Sigma and the reviews look great.Look at the Sigma 10-20mm lenses for something which will be very landscape focussed. Also consider the 15-85mm as that's got fantastic image quality and would be a great all purpose lens as well has being wider at the 15mm end.
markmullen said:
DavidCane said:
For landscape you might wider than 28mm.
EFA, I was on a 22 hour landscape trip to the Northumberland coast yesterday, shot some at 150mm, some at 135mm etcWhat's holding you back on your current lens? Not wide enough? Not long enough? Not fast enough? Not sharp enough?
Don't get me wrong, I like a shiney new piece of gear
If it's landscapes you like have you already got the other bits sorted? If not your £400 would be better spent on a tripod, cable release, a CPL and some ND grads IMO.
I already have a tripod and cable release. I have considered spending the money on some ND grads but I decided that I would like to be able to consistently produce really sharp and well composed images before I try to add the extra dimension of using filters to my pictures.
Most images will need shapening especially if resized have a read of this http://bythom.com/sharpening.htm good few other guides to it online as well.
I'd still go for ND grads over a new lens, will make a much bigger difference to landscape photos than an image that is a little bit sharper will!
I'd still go for ND grads over a new lens, will make a much bigger difference to landscape photos than an image that is a little bit sharper will!
markmullen said:
Is yours the IS version of the kit lens? If so it is very capable of sharp results, in the right hands.
It's the non IS version, but I would normally mount it on a tripod for taking pictures to ensure it's held steady. Maybe I'm doing something wrong then but i'm not sure what as the sharpness with my other lenses is noticeably better.So if I were to use the Sigma recommended above would I not see an immediate increase in sharpness? If not then I'm not sure what i'm doing wrong. Here's what I tend to think about to try and get a sharp image:
- I keep away from the extreme ends of the zoom range
- I read that the sweet spot of the kit lens is f8-11 so i try to stick to that range
- I use an app to calculate the hyperfocal distance so everything in the shot is in focus
Most of my images are coming out nicely and in focus but they just don't 'zing' the way i've seen in other landscape pictures on flickr etc. They just seem a little softer and the colors more muted. Any idea what I may be doing wrong?
Don't mistake finished published images on Flickr etc as straight out of the camera, they will have had plenty of processing first, for a finished landscape to go on my site I spend an hour or so (occasionally more) tweaking contrast, saturation, clarity, sharpening, noise reduction, curves, levels, dust spotting, white balance etc.
That said the non IS kit lens isn't as good as the IS version.
Your technique sounds sound, as it were, so you're on the right lines.
The trouble with an ultrawide lens is you have to work a lot harder on your compositions, otherwise even large natural features just get lost.
That said the non IS kit lens isn't as good as the IS version.
Your technique sounds sound, as it were, so you're on the right lines.
The trouble with an ultrawide lens is you have to work a lot harder on your compositions, otherwise even large natural features just get lost.
2seas said:
It's the non IS version, but I would normally mount it on a tripod for taking pictures to ensure it's held steady. Maybe I'm doing something wrong then but i'm not sure what as the sharpness with my other lenses is noticeably better.
So if I were to use the Sigma recommended above would I not see an immediate increase in sharpness? If not then I'm not sure what i'm doing wrong. Here's what I tend to think about to try and get a sharp image:
- I keep away from the extreme ends of the zoom range
- I read that the sweet spot of the kit lens is f8-11 so i try to stick to that range
- I use an app to calculate the hyperfocal distance so everything in the shot is in focus
Most of my images are coming out nicely and in focus but they just don't 'zing' the way i've seen in other landscape pictures on flickr etc. They just seem a little softer and the colors more muted. Any idea what I may be doing wrong?
Most of the "Zing" you will be seeing is down to post production in photoshop, most landscape photos will benefit from some amount of post processing as long as you dont go crazy and turn everything up full, especially the saturation slider! if you need to view your photo with sunglasses youve gone too far.So if I were to use the Sigma recommended above would I not see an immediate increase in sharpness? If not then I'm not sure what i'm doing wrong. Here's what I tend to think about to try and get a sharp image:
- I keep away from the extreme ends of the zoom range
- I read that the sweet spot of the kit lens is f8-11 so i try to stick to that range
- I use an app to calculate the hyperfocal distance so everything in the shot is in focus
Most of my images are coming out nicely and in focus but they just don't 'zing' the way i've seen in other landscape pictures on flickr etc. They just seem a little softer and the colors more muted. Any idea what I may be doing wrong?
Some of the past issues of onLandscape have some brilliant in-depth post production tips in past issues(as well as what is probably the best selection of landscape based content on the internet).
it is subsription based but there may be some free articles to go through and it is well worth the cost http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/
Edited by ...Mole... on Thursday 7th November 16:46
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff