Advice on lens for landscape and walk around shooting

Hi all --

I use a 50D and a 40D. I have the following lenses (all Canon):

10-22, 70-200 f/4, 100 macro, 100-400, and 400f/5.6.

Since the optimal lenses for birds are out of my price range and always will be (unless I start playing the lottery and get very lucky), I'm thinking since I also like landscape and closeup photography perhaps I should get a lens to cover the 22 to 70 range. Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 L sounds like it would be useful, as does the 24 - 105 f/4. Another alternative is just to stick with what I've got and hope lightning strikes and I come into enough to buy a 500. But by then, I'll probablky be too weak to be able to hold it.:o

I've received a lot of sound advice from the members here. Sorry if my question is too dumb.

kent

Hi Kent It all depends on what you want to do? Look in the Landscape gallery and Paul M did a wide angle landscape with a 16 mm lens !!! Can use anything from that to a telephoto !!!

If your getting a new zoom would suggest the 24-105 its versatile and good performer.... if all you want is to cover the gap a 50mm will do it !!!! ... btw good luck with the lottery .. your not the only one hoping :)

Thanks, Alfred. You've been a help to me from when I joined PSA and you did new members critiques.

"Filling the gap" is sort of an abstract, rather than a practical, issue. I'll forget the gap. I'll take your advice and go over to the Landscape forum. That's practical.

I was looking at Tony Sweet's new book on Fine Art Nature Photography and noticed that he used a 24 - 70 and a 70 - 200 for a lot of the photos. That's what put the bug in my head.

We are big fans of Tony Sweet :) He does a lot of detail landscapes with the 70-200.

I've seen Artie do great with the 28-135 IS, small and light.

PS: Get in line for the Lottery :D:p:)

Kent, I know this isn't exactly the range in your OP; however it might be an answer and combine some of your lenses.

In doing similar research, I came across Joe and Mary Ann McDonald on this website: http://www.photosafaris.com/ which has lots of interesting articles in the archives. That took me to the McDonald's articles on Antarctica. I found the following:

Quote:

---

Our standard lens is a 28-300mm f3.5/5.6 zoom, which satisfies almost all of our shooting needs. Mary, in fact, uses that lens for about 95% of her shooting, and most days does not carry the 500mm she had brought along. I did carry both lenses, but at least 70% of my shooting involved this versatile zoom lens.

---

They have both won the BBC; once in the same year.

Something to think about; with your 50D that means 60 - 500 in a single "L" lens! It is something I am thinking about!!

Kent, I have shot landscapes for many years and used a 24-120 during that time and found the range very adequate for most situations. Remember in landscapes, the vast majority of the time your working the lower end of your range and not zooming out to great distances. If it was my choice I would take the 24-120.

Hi Kent
For a general walk aqround lens I have a Sigma 18-200 which effectively gives a film camera equiv. of a 27 to 300mm.
It is small & compact for lightweight off the cuff pix.
Cheers: Ian Mc

Hi Kent,

There's a lot of good advice here and a number of options for you to ponder.

On a personal basis, for a number of years I've used a Canon 28-135 IS and was more than happy with the results on all my EOS bodies (5D, 50D, 40D).

However, I've recently acquired a Canon 24-105L IS and although it's a little heavier than the 28-135 IS, the sharpness of the images has just blown me away,

Best wishes,

Doug.

Kent,

The 24-105 L IS lens is a great choice for tack sharp images (assuming you use a tripod and remote switch for landscapes with IS turned off) and walkaround lens usng IS. The 24-70 is a bit heavier and no IS for handholding. The extra focal length to 105mm is nice for general use and portraits.

The 24-105 is significantly sharper than the 28-135 IS lens. Plus, the effective focal length on your cameras has a greater wide angle (38mm vs 45mm).

Kent:
Like Doug says, lots of good advice here. But as Al alluded to, it all depends on what you're trying to show the viewer. I've shot good landscapes with everything from a 14mm to my 500 with a 1.4 TC on it. I look at the scene, understand the conditions (windy, still, bright, dark, layering, etc.), try to predict the images produced with each (compress the scene, make elements much smaller in the scene, expected lens distortion, shoot for a stitched image in post processing, etc.), make my choice and then shoot. Through experience (and I have a long way to go), I hope I made the right choice. Normally, when I go out and really want to lighten my load and focus on landscapes, I walk around with my 17-40 but carry my 14mm. If I think I might be able to take advantage of compressing a well layered scene I will carry my 100-400. Regardless, I usually resign myself to the fact that I will not take full advantage of every scene I come across. Compromise still rules.

Another vote for the 24 - 105. Sharp with great contrast. The IS is there for HH when you need to.

As you have the 10-22 and a crop body, go for the 24-70 f2.8 or the also excellent 24-105 f4 IS.. Personaly I go for the 24-105 IS with my 5D. I find it more versatile, as sharp than the 24-70, and the IS great for my post fifty age.

24-105 is what I use 50% of the time, the 17-40 20% of the time and one of my tilt-shift lens the rest of the time. I don't recommend the tilt-shift lens due to cost.

Still waiting for the lottery to come through. Someone told me that in order to win, I'd have to buy a ticket! No wonder I'm still waiting.

Thanks again to everyone for your helpful advice. I decided that the 24-105 will best fit my needs and budget. I was a little hesitant about that lens because of some reviews on Fred Miranda that suggested that it was not quite so sharp. People here have put that concern to rest for me.

Yuns are the best!