wide angle?

[shiraq]

I have 2 cameras, one for jobs and one only for landscape and long range photos. I use mu 400d with 10-22 mm canon and is perfect!

[EdHamlin]

Originally Posted by dcclark

You don't need to purchase any other lens. The very first thing you should do, if you want to work on taking landscapes, is to go out and take some landscapes! Use what you have right now. Experiment and play around. I consider myself a "landscape photographer", but I often use my longer focal lengths to focus in on one or another interesting aspect of a landscape. Not all landscape photos have to be wide and sweeping -- in fact, those are often the most difficult to capture. Work with what you have, learn a lot, and then decide if you need to buy a new lens.

Definitely use the 18-55 and then find a place and shoot from different; directions, time of day. Be broad minded and narrow down to a specific spot or item, I was hiking in the San Gabriel Moutains Near Los Angeles and found a Tree that created an archway, just an example of what you may find in a trek. The more you shoot the more you develope the eye to see. One last thing, pick your foreground well when shooting wide, it has the biggest impact on the results. Happy Hunting.

[Yiki_Koay]

hi Dear all,

I am still using my kits lense. the min focal length it provides is consider wide enough, however with the 1000D I have it become around 28mm.

I try shooting sunset many times...but just couldnt get the effect I want. the images always seem under exposure and I cant get a sharp sunset photo.

Is it limited by lense? or because 1000D just too low end?

I am going to travel soon..am thinking to buy : 16-35mm f/2.8 L II
but wonder whether my 1000D worth this lense or not
I am opt for a prime lense partly because I like potrait also. Sld I just buy a 50mm f/1.8 and play around first?

[dcclark]

Yiki_Koay: no, neither the lens, nor the camera, is limiting you. You just need to learn more about shutter speeds, aperture, and ISO. Shooting sunsets is tricky (and requires good composition, not just technical knowledge).

Things you might try:

1. Shoot at a faster shutter speed than you expect (or, equivalently, use exposure compensation and make your exposure 2/3 or 1 stop too dark). This will probably make things look a bit more realistic.

2. Change to spot metering, and meter for the sky, to make things look more silhouetted in the foreground.

Don't change your equipment, it's great as it is!

[Carl911]

Without gate crashing this thread, I also enjoy taking landscapes and have decided to sell my Canon 17-85 to upgrade to better landscape lense.
I have been really torn between the 17-35 L series lense or the 10-22 ES lense as mentioned in this thread.
Given that my camera is a 40D with a cropped sensor I want as close to 17 as possible on the wide end so the 10-22 works out nearly spot on. The 17-35 becomes nearer 26-64 from memory.
Does anyone have experience with both of these lenses and if so which would you most likely opt for given its main use as landscape.
They can both be bought for about the same price so it just comes down to which is best for the job.
Also, I assume the 10-22 is not classed as a fisheye lense. I cannot see anything indicating this despite being able to get some rather interesting results if too close taking a portrait.
I dont really want out of shape landscapes.

Cheers in advance, hope this is not hijacking too much but it seemed silly to post a new post given that this one is more or less on the same topic.

Carl

[PowerPix]

The Sigma 10-20mm (fantastic lens) does not cost as much as a Canon 10-22mm. Other than that, 18mm will work in "most" situations. Just depends on if you want to buy another lens or not.

[AgBeard]

I use a Sigma 10-20 on a 40D for both landscapes & cityscapes. 10mm does not distort the landscape provided that the foreground is not too close. I often crop the aspect ratio to 16:9 or even 13:6 with 10mm shots - people mistake them for photomerges.

[K-Lapse]

I bought an EF-S 10-22mm lens but found myself after composing and maybe a couple test shots, sticking my 18-200 back on. I often find trying to get all the landscape in the shot just creates a boring generic photo.

I now spend a while enjoying the view, with my camera in the bag and looking for the area that best describes the scene (usually the bit you keep looking at over and over again). I then photograph just that one beautiful part of the landscape. Its make a more interesting picture in my opinion.

I find the scale and beauty of the scene we see while standing there just doesn’t transfer onto a picture a lot of the time (maybe I’m just not a good enough photographer though).

I’d be lying if I said I don’t use the 10-22 but I don’t really need it and it’s a lot of cash for something I use so little.

I recommend looking for shots that don’t need less than 18mm (most shots don’t) and when you've got too much cash, then get one.

[corry]

Originally Posted by K-Lapse

I bought an EF-S 10-22mm lens but found myself after composing and maybe a couple test shots, sticking my 18-200 back on. I often find trying to get all the landscape in the shot just creates a boring generic photo.

I now spend a while enjoying the view, with my camera in the bag and looking for the area that best describes the scene (usually the bit you keep looking at over and over again). I then photograph just that one beautiful part of the landscape. Its make a more interesting picture in my opinion.

I find the scale and beauty of the scene we see while standing there just doesn’t transfer onto a picture a lot of the time (maybe I’m just not a good enough photographer though).

I’d be lying if I said I don’t use the 10-22 but I don’t really need it and it’s a lot of cash for something I use so little.

I recommend looking for shots that don’t need less than 18mm (most shots don’t) and when you've got too much cash, then get one.

this is good to hear, just invested in the sigma 18-200 OS for my rebel and am travelling to Norway shortly and hope to be happy with the landscape results from this lens although a wide angle was also suggested to me it was not in my budget.

[knifebox]

To the OP

- 18-55mm IMO could work as a wide angle lens. Try to compose your shots. If you feel you need to go wider, try to take a few step back and recompose.

- I suggest you shoot using RAW at the largest image resolution so you can crop out anything that does not appeal to you.

- Use a tripod. It can help you strighten out your horizons and are indespensible when shooting long exposures.

- And Ed Hamlin is right, foregrounds have a very big impact in the overall feel of a landscape shot.