Whats a good first landscape type lens for Canon 60D?

Big Rob

Big Rob

Messages
229
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Please be gentle with me as this is my first proper thread.

I have just bought a new Canon 60D to mainly take Wildlife and Bird photos,with a bit of Motorsport and Airshow stuff thrown in. To keep my initial outlay down I bought a Body only and then a pre-used Sigma 150-500 lens. What second lens would you guys recommend for the shorter focal lengths for landscapes and portraits etc.
I have seen a few on a well known auction site,(and I cant access the classifieds on here yet :()and wondered about the following
Canon 18-135mm IS for about £150 or
Canon 28-80mm IS (£50 )coupled with a Sigma 70-300 for about £80 which would fit in for stuff when 150 is too close.(This has happened to me already at Yorkshire Wildlife Park when Tigers fill the frame)
Feel free to tell me they are all rubbish if you want,but I don't want to spend hundreds of pounds on a lens I might only use 3 or 4 times a year.
Thanks for listening,any input greatfully received.:)

Rob. :D
 
the 18-135 is a good shout if you have a kit lens that would do a lot of people use a range of lenses from 10-20 mm up to 70-200mm to tilt&shifts and prob more it all comes dow to what you have /can afford i take it the sigma 70-300 is the apo macro if so they range from £100-£135 new
 
Joeturner11 said:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Mite be good buys around your price bracket
Click to expand...


I wonder if the 28mm may not be wide enough on a crop sensor camera (42mm as a 35mm equivalent). I have the 18-135IS on a Canon 1000d and its not a bad lens, granted you have not got the fast aperture but for landscapes you are more likely to use the smaller values than F2.8.
 
Another option - If you're only going to be using once in a blue moon for landscapes - have a look at some M42 lenses and an EF adaptor
 
huffy said:
I wonder if the 28mm may not be wide enough on a crop sensor camera (42mm as a 35mm equivalent). I have the 18-135IS on a Canon 1000d and its not a bad lens, granted you have not got the fast aperture but for landscapes you are more likely to use the smaller values than F2.8.
Click to expand...

Maybe the 17-50mm I suggested is wide enough? Just because its a f/2.8 doesn't mean you have to use f/2.8, you can stop it down to f/8 f/11 etc....
 
Thanks for the replies guys,think i'm just going to go for the budget end 18-55mmI/S and see how I get on. Should be wide enough for landscapes and give me a bit of practicality with everyday situations. I'm looking at getting a 50-500 Sigma to replace my 150-500 already as I think the extra f4 against the f5 on the 150 version might be more of an issue than I realised.
 
i dont think there is a lot in them the 150-500mm and the 50-500mm sigmas they will both have probs in low light
 
What're you using the Sigma 150-500mm for mostly where you're finding it's not quick enough? Most long telephoto zooms will have issues in low light, if you really want lower F stops and quicker lenses you'll have to consider primes IMO.
 
Big Rob said:
... think i'm just going to go for the budget end 18-55mmI/S and see how I get on. Should be wide enough for landscapes and give me a bit of practicality with everyday situations
Click to expand...
I think that's very sensible. Pay attention to how often you use the lens, what settings you use, and so on; then if you suspect you want something better you'll know where to aim.
 
I am not having any specific problems in low light with my 150-500 Sigma, I just thought the extra F stop from 5 down to 4 might make a difference along with the ability at closer range. I've only been out with it 3 times so far so still getting used to lens AND camera.
I still haven't decided on which "Landscape" lens to get. Just trolling through Ebay etc as I still cant use the classifieds on here yet.:(
 
Landscapes? On an EF-S mount Canon?

And no-one's mentioned the very wonderful Canon 10-22mm? Cor.

I reckon you should try the Canon 10-22mm ultrawide for landscapes. I really enjoyed it on my 550D.

Portraits are well-served by the f/1.8 50mm prime, cheap as chips. (50mm x 1.6 crop factor = 80mm effective, a nice focal length for portraits)
 
Sigma 10-20 is reasonably priced. You can pick them up 2nd hand for around £220-230.
 
pwhysall said:
Landscapes? On an EF-S mount Canon?

And no-one's mentioned the very wonderful Canon 10-22mm? Cor.

I reckon you should try the Canon 10-22mm ultrawide for landscapes. I really enjoyed it on my 550D.

Portraits are well-served by the f/1.8 50mm prime, cheap as chips. (50mm x 1.6 crop factor = 80mm effective, a nice focal length for portraits)
Click to expand...

Well going from the budget mentioned in the first post, the Canon 10-22 is out of reach price wise, even though it is a great lens.
But if the OP decides he likes landscape photography, maybe the sigma is worth saving up more cash?
I went for the 17-85 IS to start with, if you get a good one (without the ribbon issues) the extra range both ways is very useful. They can be had for very reasonable money.
I still have mine and use it for when I go light and can only take one lens. However I now have a Sigma 10-20, and love it. So another vote for that.
 
Well I have finally purchased an 18-55mm Canon IS lens. Got it for the princely sum of £40 delivered.:D
I will keep my eye out for better quality stuff,but this will do for starters. Thanks again for all the advice offered.(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top