Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?

[blonigan16]

Thanks for all the replies everyone! I think I probably will go with the 10-22 because a lot of you suggested it and it does add a lot more to what I have than the other lenses. While I do have a sturdy tripod (Manfrotto 055xprob with a 486rc2 ball head), the website I am renting from does not rent out filters. Will I get by without any filter or is it absolutely essential that I have one? I live in Zürich so I can't use any US wesbites like lensrentals.com. The website I am using is:

http://www.rentalens.ch/choice.aspx?type=canonlens

[blonigan16]

Switzerland have a lot of beautiful cities with old buildings.  These are better shot with your existing 18-55, or even the 70-200, to avoid the distortion in the corners.

I definitely agree, I photographed Zürich last year for a school project because I love the architecture of the city so much. You can see a few of the photos I took here (unfortunately I didn't have my Canon yet at the time these were taken) :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blonigan/sets/72157627881044849/

[Ivan Van Looy]

First of all good luck at the shoot !   But you do not need any filters anymore, shoot in RAW and PP in whatever you feel comfortable in.   A CPL (Heliopan or B+W/SChneider Kreuznach) and a ND filter can give you some options...like no reflections deeper color and long exposure to get silky clouds or water.     You say you are taking a TRIPOD with you....then you can use any lens you have (the best, sharpest, most accurate, durable, not to heavy) and shoot in pano (with or without combo of exposure..bracketing/under- and over exposing....lets say up to 9 shots).  The money you save could be spent on a backupdrive (so you do not loose your precious photo's while heading back home.    Keep in mind that it takes patience and time to get the shot right, so no matter what gear you use, make sure you know it thru and thru and use its potential.      Do not forget to also look in B&W, meaning loads of contrast/clouds etc....you would be surprised what possibilies you get when doing that :-)....and make sure you check the ISO before you start...
Just my 2 cents.

[Random Orbits]

Since you are renting, get the 10-22. If you were buying, it might be a different set of circumstances, but, renting you should get what works best for your camera. While the 17-40 and 16-35 would be upgrades over your 18-55, they don't really add to what you have. The 10-22 adds a whole different world of shots (10-17mm), which is critical for landscape stuff. And its a rental, so it has no impact on what future lenses you own.

Honestly, with the 10-22, the 28 and the 50, you probably don't even need to take the kit lens. And I agree with others, rent a CPL as well, just be careful when you include the sky in shots. I did my travel this past summer with an ultra-wide, a 28mm, and my 70-200 f/4L, and that is all you really need.

+1.

[BL]

I was in Switzerland in August and you are in for a real treat!

I only needed one lens: 16-35 II (mounted on 5Dc)

Here's what I was able to photograph with it

Lauterbrunnen Valley


Lauterbrunnen Valley - Paragliding POV 1


Lauterbrunnen Valley - Paragliding POV 2


Trummelbach Falls


Staubbach Falls


View from atop Shilthorn

[preppyak]

One issue is that the 60D does not have AFMA, and if a rental lens does not AF accurately with the body due to tolerance buildup, you will be stuck.

That's not really an issue with the 10-22, and if it becomes an issue (seems to miss focus a lot), then you just manual focus. But at f/3.5 at 10mm, its really a non-issue.

And yeah, if the place doesn't have filters you'll be fine without one. It's really more for cutting reflections off the water, but you can do fine without it.

[friedmud]

A 17-55 f2.8 would give you more resolution and better color and contrast over your 18-55... But it really wouldn't give you "different" photos.

I'd recommend the Canon 10-22.  I rented it earlier this year for a trip with my 7D.  The build quality is excellent (manual focusing for landscape shots on a tripod is a smooth and precise affair) as is the optical quality (only flaw is a bit of CA, easily taken care of in post).  I was in an urban environment and I found a ton of interesting uses for that lens... Came back with photos that had a totally different perspective from what I usually get with my 17-55.

It would be a great companion on you trip!

[RLPhoto]

I am planning on going around Switzerland for a week to travel through the alps and photograph scenery and landscapes. I also want to rent a lens that would be best for landscape photography. I have a 60D with an 18-55mm, a 28mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200 f/4 L. Here are the lenses I am considering to rent:

Canon 10-22mm (I had a Tamron 10-24 when I used to shoot Nikon and absolutely loved the wide angle)

Canon 17-40mm L (I don't know if this is wide enough but I'm considering buying this lens in a few months to replace my 18-55)

Canon 16-35mm L (Not sure if its worth spending extra to get this one, especially if I'm shooting landscape where I'll be using narrow apertures)

Canon 24-105 L (Would this be a decent idea as a general purpose zoom or do you think I should just try to go for something more wide angle?)

Thanks for your help!

10-22mm + 50mm 1.8. Thats light, compact and EZ to lug all day.

[Michael_pfh]

24 F1.4L II

[Phenix205]

I was in Switzerland in August and you are in for a real treat!

I only needed one lens: 16-35 II (mounted on 5Dc)

Here's what I was able to photograph with it

These are beautiful shots, BL. My wife, our 13-month-old daughter and I were there in May three years ago. We actually stayed at the hotel right near the Staubbach Falls. The weather was not as nice thought. It was mostly heavily overcast and it rained from time to time. This is one place we plan to go back when the kids are older.

When we were there, I used 16-35 (Mk 1) and 70-200 2.8 IS (Mk 1) on a 20D.

[AJ]

Another vote for 10-22

[philsv77]

Also consider this one: Sigma 11-16mm f/2.8 II over 10-22mm if they carry it.  Read review, lots of rave about it.

[EOBeav]

I didn't start loving my 17-40 until I put it on a full frame. That lens might not be wide enough for what you want to do on a 1.6 crop, but your mileage may vary.