out of curiosity, what is the consensus on best type of lens for landscape on a cropbody? i was looking into the 10-18mm as this would give me a view similar to 18mm on a full frame...
There's no right or wrong lens for landscapes, or anything else.. just the wrong technique (as has been suggested!) Caution over UWA's for them is simply that they are quirky lenses to work with, regardless, and the simplistic notion of more Land must make more landscape doesn't always follow.
Most of the masters rarely used anything much wider than a normal angle lens, and ISTR a lot of Adams more dramatic shots of Yosemite, were actually taken with a mild tele... I may be compounding people, in my aging memory, but, I have the feeling he {or one of the others}, used a "full plate" studio camera in the field, but used a segmented dark slide to get four shots per slide from it, and consequently got a tele-photo effect from the crop factor.
However, point is that it's about the
perspective the different lenses offer, rather than the FoV. Tele's bring stuff apparently closer to the camera and foreshorten perspective; wides the effect of pushing it away and stretch perspective., emphasizing the scale between near and far objects.
Wides are a lot more subtle than a tele, which can cut out a lot of clutter, and bring the viewers attention 'straight to the point', and add almost 'instant impact' simplifying the scene, and probably with a lot less depth of field, isolating the subject much more, giving a lot of 'impact', and do it almost incidentally, that's what the lens does, you don't have to work too hard to get it. Risk of using a wider lens for landscapes, is that in shrinking the larger area of scene down to the same frame size, you actually loose the 'BIG SPACE' drama of the scene you originally saw, and most of the impact it had when you were stood there. So you do have to be that much more discerning in composition with one, to find the elements that give the scene interest, in the 'throng' of them, and lead the viewers attention into the big scene and keeps their attention.
Both can deliver fantastic landscapes, if you exploit them well in composition, but ultra-wides, put so much more into the frame to consider in your composition, they give you a lot more work to do to make them work.
In film only era, on 35mm/FF, anything much wider than 28mm, was pretty rare. The odd 24mm or 21mm MF lenses are still rare and expensive for film cameras, now; but debate raged then over the benefit of even a 28 over a 35 for landscapes, and the mags were often offering the advice that many would get better results with the standard 50, and offering suggestion that a mild tele like an 80, was still wide enough, and recommending folk try going the other way and use tele's for landscapes, in order to better find the interest in the scene, and to appreciate perspective rather than the angle... One such article inspiring me to spend a long wet and cold weekend in Wales, trying to take landscapes with a 70-210.... which is another story altogether! But still.
If you were to press me, and say "If you can only have one prime lens, what would you pick?" Answer would unwavering be 35mm for FF { aprox 24mm on crop}. when they stuck them on the front of every fixed lens compact, they knew what they were doing. It's a very versatile lens length, and whilst it's a tad restrictive on wide for big landscapes, it's not a huge impediment. My little XA2 film camera is my most used camera, ever; and has taken far more landscapes on my travels than anything else; and without having to lug a rucksack of kit up a mountain to do it!
28-70 equates reasonably closely to an 18-55, and was my most used zoom; again, very versatile range, for an awful lot of situations, they knew what they were doing when they picked that range as the usual 'kit' zoom; And for landscapes, it covers that whole range, from the suggested 'mild tele', that's so often ignored and seems counter intuitive for Landscapes, but is worth exploring, as well as going as far 'wide' as you are likely to want very often. On which basis, of what is most likely to deliver most results, most often, THAT then has to be my answer.
Another cold, if not so wet long week-end in Wales, engendered this one:
Which is a useful example. It's the ancient copper mines in Llandudno; On that trip, I was working with limited gear; basically just the camera and kit lens; It was a midweek get away during the school summer holiday, and I took my daughter, 2up on my motorbike, with camping kit, so rather limited for luggage space; but 18-55, covering that 'most useful' range, was the best tool for the job. Few ops on the trip begged for anything wider or tighter, and it was only this 'one' situation, I could really have used another lens... but even then, the lack of wasn't such an impediment, I got the 'wide' I wanted, in the restricted space, shooting to stitch, and off the top of my head, this has an effective FoV. close on 180 degrees on the horizontal, I wouldn't have got in one shot even with the 8-16.
Thing to note though, is it isn't a BIG landscape. Its actually a very small one... and this is where wides tend to come into their own, and opening up smaller spaces, rather than condensing bigger ones...
Could debate, the odd bit of stitch distortion in this one, or the rather blown sky and 'stuff', and compare to what might have been achieved in the same situation with a UWA or even a fish, either of which would have had it's own distortions and difficulties with the contrast range etc, but that's essentially academic; point is, that the so often under rated 18-55 does an awful lot, and is 'good' for so much, and few even get all they could from one, you have to be really pushing the envelope before you might be 'better' off with a UWA for landscapes, and getting anything you couldn't or couldn't as well or as easily with the kit.
Risking contention, I will say, again that the 18-55 is probably STILL the 'best' lens for landscapes, on all round area under the curve usefulness and versatility; You can get pretty good results with them, without having to work very hard for them; if you do work for them, you will likely find you can get some stunning results from one, and likely find far more opportunities and circumstances they 'deliver' with whatever amount of 'work' to get it, than you are with a UWA, which will always beg that extra thought and consideration and effort to get results, in the more limited range of situations it 'might' deliver, and likely not deliver an awful lot more than you would get with the kit.
And, as old magazine advice, it IS worth twisting the zoom into the tele end, and taking a closer look at the elements within your landscape, rather than leaving it against the wide end stop, and worrying about whats hiding beyond the edges, and that you cant get it all in one go! Though you may want to pick a time and place with better weather than Wales in March, as I did, twenty years ago!!!
however...
Fields of Light