Lens for Landscape

[amitseo]

Ya you are right this is good for you ...

[digmo]

Thanks to everyone who replied on this. I have kept the 15-85 as I have now realised the difference a cropped sensor makes. I am learning slowly.

This thread seems to have been popular today has it been featured somewhere ?

David

[sweetcancer]

Originally Posted by digmo

Thanks to everyone who replied on this. I have kept the 15-85 as I have now realised the difference a cropped sensor makes. I am learning slowly.

This thread seems to have been popular today has it been featured somewhere ?

David

Well, i have subscribed so this site sends me emails about stuff. This topic was on that email and it caught my attention.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by sweetcancer

Your 15-85 is practically pretty close to an L lens already*, and it has a great focal lenght, i wouldn't trade it now.

you'll see that in the image quality area it compares really well to the 24-70mm L, an as it is weather proofed and has good build quality, i see no reason for a aps-c sensor user, who is not going to upgrade to a full frame (5d mkII) to give up his 15-85 for a 24-70 (unless you REALLY need f/2.8, and even then the ef-s 17-55 is a better solution for crop).

I think you're close to teh target here and a lot of what you say makes sense. But there really is no substitute for L glass, and even the 15-85 has some issues, like bad CA, that are going to be markedly improved in the 24-70L.

Whether that's worth the price differential is another issue.

The original question was, I want the 24-70 f/2.8L for speed, can I use it for landscape. Well, yes of course it can be used for landscape, almost any lens can. And the speed difference will certainly show, but more importantly when the 24-70 is stopped down to the same aperture/focal length as the 15-85, you will see a difference.

Also, I really think that anyone passionate about shooting landscape will eventually come around to realizing full frame is the way to go. You can get a used 5D for around $1000 these days. That purchase opens up an entirely new world of shooting, especially when paired with good glass. This is why, if someone asks, I rarely suggest EF-S lenses.

All that said, I'm a huge advocate of shooting with what you have. There's no reason to run out and but any gear unless you absolutely need it to fill a gap in what your current gear can do -- and this happens more rarely than we think. So sweetcancer, I think your advice is sound. But I also think that in the meantime digmo should save up for that L glass, it's an all around great lens on full frame and crop bodies. And perhaps look at the 16-35L also, thinking ahead. I think this is a better idea than running out and getting the 10-22 EF-S.

[sweetcancer]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

The original question was, I want the 24-70 f/2.8L for speed, can I use it for landscape. Well, yes of course it can be used for landscape, almost any lens can. And the speed difference will certainly show, but more importantly when the 24-70 is stopped down to the same aperture/focal length as the 15-85, you will see a difference.

Also, I really think that anyone passionate about shooting landscape will eventually come around to realizing full frame is the way to go. You can get a used 5D for around $1000 these days.

Well, yes, of course, if you know that you are going to upgrade to a full frame body soon, buy nothing but L. But if you're not, there is no rush.

Still, canon L lenses are not perfect either and there are differences between different L lenses. Even the 24-70 L shows some CA. The 15-85 has a perfectly tolerable CA in my standards, even when compared to the 24-70. And most CA can be fixed in photoshop these days anyways. Another thing worth of mentioning is that the 24-70 does not sport an image stabilizer. The ef-s 15-85 and the 17-55 both do.