Canon EOS 1000d lens

[redstar1]

Bought one of the above a while ago and got it with the packaged lens, a 18-55mm.

Haven't used it a lot so far but hoping to get some experience up to and during a holiday planned shortly.

Want to pick up one or more lenses to complement the 18-55, especially for landscape photography, mountains/lakes etc.

Any advice for what to look for?

 

[D.P.]

Potentially not needing much more than the kit lens. When stopped down you should get sufficient quality for landscape work.

Most people will advice to go for an ultra wide angle 10-20mm type lens. Although this is sometimes the ultimate tool in producing engaging and dramatic landscape photos very a very specialized. At focal lengths < 16mm (15mm on canon) on Crop cameras you have to work much harder on compositions. These are very difficult lenses, by far the hardest to get good results from. But when it works out the results can be spectacular.


As such I kind of recommend an upgrade to the Canon 15-85mm. It will be a little sharper, more contrasty and the difference between the 15mm and 18mm will be very noticeable and very useful. The longer tele end is also useful for general photography and landscapes.


Otherwise for UWA I beleive there are 2 good options fr landscape work:

Sigma 8-16mm- perhaps the sharpest of all, by far the widest giving very unique images. Very specialized tool that will come out of the bag only occasionally, compliments the Canon 15-85mm well (when you want wider than 15mm then the sigma 8-16mm offers something unique). Not for every day use.


One of the 10-24mm lenses. The focal range form 15-24mm is very useful for every day photography, a lot of landscape work. It is useful as a walk about lens when you like to work on the wide end. When needed you have the 10-15mm end for when you need to go seriously wide. Works well when combined with a telephoto lens like 50-200mm. For landscape work the middle focal lengths rarely give interesting compositions, you typically want to either enhance or compress perspective using wide angle or tele lenses respectively.

 

[Phal]

I guess you need to pick what you'd like more - either range or a wider lens? Perhaps something a little more specialised like something that can do macro or something a little more odd like fisheye? The 15-85 would pretty much replace your kit lens and give you a bit more at either end of the range.

Personally I'd look at the new 10-18mm and the 50-250mm STM which would give me a varied range without too much of a price if I was trying to be sensible Shame I've never been sensible :|

 

[redstar1]

Thanks guys.

I think the issue is that I've been using the camera more or less exclusively for charity events, so taking photos of people dressed up etc. When I have tried to do some landscape pictures, I haven't been blown away, although my photography skills are still fairly basic.

 

[theheyes]

In what regard are you not blown away? Taking good landscape shots is a real skill.

 

[D.P.]

In what regard are you not blown away? Taking good landscape shots is a real skill.

yes, good landscape photography is incredibly difficult.
Not to detract anything from the professional portrait and event togs but it is much easier for a beginner to pick up a camera and get reasonable photos of people once they have mastered the basic technical side. The same is not true about landscape- engaging landscape photography involves creating interesting compositions under excellent lighting. Pointing your camera at a lake/forest/mountain and taking a snap doesn't work, snapping away at people having fun at an event tends to produce at least acceptable results. Excellent portraiture is an entirely different question.

Try to find captivating scenes and go back to those locations at different times of the day and the year. Some landscape work better in winter/spring/summer/fall. Summer is often a difficult time because the sun is strong, the air is hazy and distorted and on a fine day the sky can be dull. Sunset and sunrise are generally the best times, especially sunrise because the sky is clearer, but this all depends upon the angle of the scene WRT to sunlight. And sunrise doesn't mean early morning, it mean getting into position in the dark and waiting for the first sun rays to make an appearance.

Other than that concentrate on compositions. Look to find balance (shapes, colours or contrast), to have a perspective showing foreground, mid-ground and background interest and ideally paths that connect all elements. Move around th location to find different spots, sometimes walking 50ft one way will suddenly open up a much more intriguing vista, e.g. instead of a view across a river to a mountain you end up with a view down the river leading to the mountain which directs the viewers eyes form foreground to background.



Doing things like that should see you getting acceptable landscape results. Going form acceptable to excellent I have no idea because I am still failing to do that myself.

 

[At The Gates]

Thanks guys.

I think the issue is that I've been using the camera more or less exclusively for charity events, so taking photos of people dressed up etc. When I have tried to do some landscape pictures, I haven't been blown away, although my photography skills are still fairly basic.

What you have to understand, especially for landscape shots is 99.9% of the stuff you see on places like flickr and 500px will have had hours and hours of post processing..luminosity masks, hdr or manual multiple exposure blending, curves adjustments, levels etc etc. Also good landscape photographers will get up at the right times for good light, will use the right filters, will scope out the right places for shots weeks in advance. I know a few and it's probably 1/500th of a second for the shot and a month for the rest of the work!

Buying Canon's most expensive lens will not make the slightest difference unless you work on the rest of it i'm afraid.

I consider myself a fairly good portrait photographer and printer, but would consider landscape the hardest thing i try and do. Somewhat easier since the very few landscape stuff i do tends to be B&W film, and i'm better in the darkroom processing than in Photoshop but still hard.

 

[redstar1]

Buying Canon's most expensive lens will not make the slightest difference unless you work on the rest of it i'm afraid.

I've maybe given the wrong impression. What I was disappointed with was not the quality of any of the photos but the 'zoom' I suppose, or the lack of clarity on anything in the distance.

I'm not looking to win any prizes, or show off photos to anyone. Purely for personal collection etc.

 

[D.P.]

I've maybe given the wrong impression. What I was disappointed with was not the quality of any of the photos but the 'zoom' I suppose, or the lack of clarity on anything in the distance.

I'm not looking to win any prizes, or show off photos to anyone. Purely for personal collection etc.

Can you post any examples?



Make sure you stop down sufficiently (f/11 to f/13 is ideal, stopping down more will help the DoF but diffraction starts to cost you resolution) and focus on something about 1/3rd to half way into the scene to maximize DoF (this is a quick approximation of hyerfocal focusing).



However, it is actually often better if the far background is softer than the foreground. This gives increased realism and a greater sense of depth making the background feel further away. Secondly in the summer due to atmospheric haze, dust, UV, heat distortion etc. the far background will never be as sharp or contrasty as the foreground. If you shoot at sunrise then the air is cooler, less distorted and generally less hazy. Even better is a sunrise after a rainy day which helps clear the air out.


I doubt this is a lens issue unless your lens is broken. stopping it down to f/14 or so and you wont notice the difference between the kit lens and a 5000GBP prime without pixel peeping.