Is There a Definitive "Best" Landscape Lens for Crop?

[Cory]

I was thinking of a full-frame lens for possible future compatability, but I don't have a full-frame camera now so maybe not. My almost everything lens is a 35 2.0 IS which is pretty perfect most of the time on my 70D (and a 100 and 200 prime for sports). For the ultimate landscape lens I was thinking of just keeping that and making it work despite an occasional limitation or maybe complementing it with a Canon 10-22 or 15-85.
Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[Sella174]

It depends on the type of "landscape" photographs you do. Personally I don't like these ultra-wide lenses that produce heaps of foreground, and prefer a 24mm on an APS-C camera. And, FYI, for many years, like in twenty-plus, I used a 55mm lens on my film camera for landscapes ... which is the same in "equivalence" as your 35mm is on APS-C.

 

[Michael_pfh]

the 16-35 does pretty well on crop

 

[neuroanatomist]

It depends on the type of "landscape" photographs you do.

+1

Looking over my landscape photos, I find that I use a range from 10mm to ~70mm (APS-C equivalent, since you're asking about crop lenses). However, I have multiple lenses that cover that range; with the 10-22 on APS-C and 16-35 on FF, I'm using the wider end of the range (10-13mm and 16-20mm, respectively) about 80% of the time. As Sella174 points out, 'heaps of foreground' is not usually desirable, rather you need to find something interesting in the foreground as a main subject, letting the ultrawide background help tell the story.

the 16-35 does pretty well on crop

But the EF-S 17-55/2.8 does better for half the cost.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

To me, "definitive best" seems too pretentious, it depends on the pixel density of the sensor also. The most correct answer would be "prime lenses of the highest quality." But there is no canon EF-S prime, with the exception of 60mm. Thus, the new Canon 24mm F2.8 IS is great, but not very wide on APS-C. Canon 14mm L is great on full frame, but not so wonderful in APS-C for the price. Samyang 14mm F2.8 is an interesting option if manual focus is no problem. There is also the Samyang 16mm F2, and the new Samyang 10mm F2.8 that I hope will be great.

 

[aroo]

Both the 10-22 and 15-85 are quite nice. In your situation, the 15-85 seems like a good choice for the versatile zoom range, and because you're used to IS from your 35. For my landscape purposes, ultrawide usually only comes into play under a tree canopy where stitching just isn't going to work. 15mm is plenty wide most of the time.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

is there a definitive best pop singer?

no.... because it depends on what you like and the motive.

i don´t want to shoot all landscapes with a 14mm.. because many motives scream for a 200mm.

so such questions are pretty much worthless.

 

[Cory]

But you just expertly answered my question with a 15-85. My gratitude.

:'( :-* 8) ;D

 

[Bruce Photography]

I am really liking the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 lens. It is heavy but combined with the Sigma Lens Dock it can be fine turned so that you have good AF at each of the mm settings. Very good reviews, finely crafted, and less than $1000.

 

[BL]

Canon EFM 11-22mm IS

handsdown the best ultrawide zoom for canon i've used, and the only one offered with IS. 1/3 the weight and bulk of the 16-35 II or EFS 10-22mm, diminutive in size, a very capable IS when tripod is not an option, inexpensive (had to purchase from Canada $399), and performs surprisingly well in regards to IQ for a zoom lens priced in the entry level price range.

Paired with the EOS M, the kit weighs nothing, is easily stowed and is the ultimate backpacking, landscape kit IMHO. Just be sure to bring many extra batteries

 

[chauncey]

IMHO, a stellar WA lens does not exist and I've got all of Canon's "L" glass. Your picture size is limited to the camera's MP count (image size).
The only two lenses that I use on my 1Ds3 is a 180 macro or a 300mm f/2.8. They give me superior IQ for use in photo-merging as big as
I want to go with absolutely no image distortion with is always present in WA glass.

 

[Jim K]

Another vote for the 15-85.

It will give you the "less distortion than an ultra-wide" that many prefer, after all is a 24mm equivalent at 15mm. If you shoot panos, zooming to the 35-50mm range will give you the 55-80mm look that gives a cleaner merge than wide angle lenses usually do. And it's a good walkaround lens.

 

[AJ]

Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-16/2.8

 

[slclick]

Definitive is too subjective yet... I enjoyed the Canon EF-S 10-22 for a couple years on the T2i and 7D for UWA crop images. The issues with that lens are easily correctable in Post and imho it's the 2nd best EF-S lens behind the 17-55. YMMV

 

[Ruined]

I would say the EF-S 10-22 personally... Only one that goes wide enough to offer the flexibility you'd want in a landscape lens.

 

[bholliman]

The EF-S 15-85 gets my vote. Excellent zoom range, sharp with very good color rendition.

 

[Cory]

Would it be wrong to replace my 35 2.0 IS with a 24 2.8 IS and 50 1.4?

 

[Random Orbits]

Would it be wrong to replace my 35 2.0 IS with a 24 2.8 IS and 50 1.4?

No, it wouldn't be wrong. But you might just end up with the 24 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS AND 50 f/1.4 anyway. :

 

[Cory]

Would it be wrong to replace my 35 2.0 IS with a 24 2.8 IS and 50 1.4?

No, it wouldn't be wrong. But you might just end up with the 24 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS AND 50 f/1.4 anyway. :

So you're saying 24 for landscapes (I never really used the wide end of my 17-55), 35 for street, etc. and 50 for portraits? The 15-85 is a nice thought, but I do have a weakness for primes. They make me feel alive.

 

[tcmatthews]

There is no such thing as the ultimate landscape lens.

I have never really liked the distortion on the Ef-s 15-85 mm from 15-20mm. And generally changed to my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 when going that wide. That said I prefer 15-55 for pure landscape. Unless there is something in the foreground to act as the subject of the seen I rarely go wider. I have used a 70-200mm for landscape when there was something at a distance that was interesting. For the most point I consider landscapes with an ultra wide and no subject "Ultra-wide abuse". In general the landscape is so small that the hole thing becomes boring. Especially with a large empty foreground.

That said some of my favorite landscape pictures have been taken with an Ultra-wide with a subject in the foreground. Such as a tree growing on the side of the Grand Canon, wave crashing into a huge rock with the sun setting in the background. I think that the best Ultra-wide IQ wise on a crop is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. The canon 11-22 is more versatile and holds its value better. The Tokina is really a specialty lens with a limited focus range.

I bought the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 after extensive review on a site that compared the canon, Tamron, and both sigma 10-20mm's. The site had full size images at a variety of focal lenght and through the entire f stop range of the lens. To me visual the canon was a little better IQ that the Sigma f4-5.6. The Sigma f4-5.6 was better stopped down than the Sigma f3.5. All of them were better than the Tamron. They were all extremely close. So it is hard to go wrong with any of them. The Tokina however stands out for the f2.8 but was not in the review. I could not justify the priced difference between the Canon and the Sigma to buy the Canon. Also 10mm vs 11mm is a big difference. I was vary happy with the sigma until it went for a swim with my old 60D.

The biggest thing with the Sigma is that it focus different than all of my other lens. It works best if you turn on all focus points. If you use the center focus or an outside edge focus point then it will stop trying to focus the second it a achieves lock on the center point. The dept of field is such that it may be at the edge of the dept of field. This means that using center only could lead to soft out of focus corners. Using a edge focus point could lead to a soft out of focus center. I do not think Af micro adjustments could fix something like this. It is more of a function of the focal range/dept of field and sight lens distortion. But once you figure this out it can easily be accounted for.

But if I had not gone full frame and had not bought the Nex6 and a 10-18 F4 I would be buying a Tokina to replace my Sigma that is beyond reasonable repair.