Help,I am a bit overwhelmed, and I would like recommendations for the best CanonEOS 60 D lens for landscape photography, such as ocean views.
1023868
This is a fantastic lens, I love it and have it on one of my cameras all the time. But it is not the best for landscape photography, especially on an APS-C camera like the 60D. As Archman below said, I'd look for something with a wide angle in the 10-18mm range. Also concur--rent a couple of lenses if you can locally to see what you like best. Of course, you might pick something that was more than you planned to spend.... Good luck and have fun!
1023869
The 28-135 may do in "pinch," but it is not a landscape specific lens. I would recommend the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 if you don't mind going off brand. Prime lenses would yield better pics if you don't require any zoom capabilities. If you want flexibility then the Canon 15-85 would work with your Canon 60D nicely or the Sigma 17-70. Google those lenses and rent a couple to see what would fit best for your shooting situation. Enjoy your search.
2227377
The lens I mostly use is the EF-S 17-85mmf/3-5.6 67mm Wide angle and it's beautiful!! change to just a standard 70-300mm telephoto zoom and go to space! Sweet thing about EOS is if you were shoot'n any of the lower EOS models (650D..1100D...} you will instantly be familiar with the 60D and higher!!!
1687598
Hi Michael! I have a Canon T1i. So far, I have the standard lens that comes with the camera, a marco and 300 mm telephoto. I've done some portraits that turned out great, but I'd love to do more wide open spaces/landscapes.
284509
It is a good all around lens, however it´s not particularly a wide angle. If you are really into landscape photography and you already have a standard zoom lens, i recomend to go for a tokina 11-16 or a sigma 10-20. I´ve owned the second one, and if you get a good copy, it´s one of the best values in the market for DX cameras.
714416
Here is a greast site for lens discussions. www.dpreview.com Go to the forum for Canon lens talk. The 50mm 1.8 is a great portrait lens. It's fantastic in low light conditions. Just treat it with utmost care as the build is not great and there have been many of a complaint on how easy it can fall apart. As a previous poster mentioned the EF-S 17-85 is a good choice. It has full time manual focus with IS. As an every day multi purpose lens this is a nice lens. I also have this lens. The only problem I have with it is the low light shots. It is too slow. If used with External Flash it is fine. That's why I bought the prime lens. I just have to use my feet for zoom. You are going to have a lot of fun using AV mode with the 50mm and playing around with WB and ISO. Enjoy!
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
1111391
Dragoneer makes some really good points, particularly about go slow an buy quality. Master one lens before getting another. Personally, I think this is the best lens to start with due to its quality and versatility. Once you have a taken a lot of shots, you can determine from how you shoot what the next lens should be (if you even need another). If you find yourself in a lot situations where you wish the could go wider, get a 10-24mm zoom; if you find you're cropping a lot of shots when zoomed all the way in, get the 70-300 (if you have the 18-140, don't get anything that only goes to 200 unless you want to drop some $$ on something faster). This a lens you can keep on your camera and be ready for almost anything. With a wide zoom, mid prime and telephoto zoom, you'll have the ranges covered, but will likely be changing lens a lot. If you want another lens for a DX format camera - the 35mm 1.8 is fantastic and an extreme bargain - super-sharp, great for low-light and terrific for experimenting with shallow depth of field. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, it would be this one and the 35mm.
1746411
That is what I needed to hear! I have the Canon EOS 7D and love it, But...as you said by the time you carry around all the gear for "sight seeing", I'm exhausted. I too am looking for that mid level (super zoom) companion to go along with my Canon when called of. I was a little hesitant to go with a Panasonic but everything I have read about this camera has been positive.I have yet to actually find a store who has one on display, looks like I will have to order it blindly and pray!
301032
If you want something good all around (but not really good at one single thing) then there's the Panasonic 12-35mm 2.8. It's wide enough to get nice landscapes, but the zoom will give you a more normal range too when you want it. If you want something smaller/ cheaper then the other lenses people have mentioned are good too. Don't get the Olympus 12mm F/2. I have it and the camera constantly mis-focuses.
1477491
Actually I find out the the much cheaper Canon 55-250mm IS lens which is on sale today for 144 bucks does a superb job of taking portraits as well. You can set it to 100mm to get equivalent of this lens (of course you can't go down to f2.8 but for your situation you don't want to) also you get an excellent telephoto lens - just not a MACRO lens but again that's not what you're looking for. I would save my 300 bucks and get that lens instead - I can tell you as i have both these lenses.
1908466
The kit lens which comes with this camera 18-55 would be far more satisfactory for landscapes. I have a sigma pro model 24-70mm and i still find myself using the 18-55 for landscapes/walk around lens. For prints/well composed shots less than 12 by 8 inches or internet you can't distinguish photo quality.
189243
J. ONeill says: Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated. If you own a camera with micro focus adjustment like the 50D or 7D, Sigmas front or back focusing is a non-issue. Also, even if you don't own a camera with micro focus adjustment, if you get a Sigma lens that front or back focuses, you can send it to Sigma for calibration.
604471
There are some really good deals on eBay - Camedia has been good to deal with. The quality of the elns will make a big difference to some, but I got the mid-low end range and have been very happy with them. If you plan to do more outdoor work, they are great. They high end lenses come into play in low-light and closeup conditions. If you just get one lens to start, I'd recommend a 25-70mm zoom. It's a good all-purpose lens.
358177
completely different lenses, especially for full frame. Why do you have a 50 f/1.8 on a 6D? that's almost a toy lens on a near professional camera. Although I don't have a full frame camera, if I did, I'd get the 24-70 L Zoom. If price is the issue, get the 24 2.8 IS for outdoor, landscape work and a 50 mm 1.4 for indoors, portraits, everyday use. Another nice lens is the 35 mm f/2 IS. bit wider, very sharp, with IS.
316097
The Oly 45mm 1.8 is a great lens, great for portraits. As far as the 60mm being too long for portraits, I hear a lot of people use the Oly 75mm for portaits as well. In any event, the Sigma 60mm is really a great lens for the money; Sigma's website lists it as a portrait lens (for what it's worth).
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!