Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I think you have most focal lengths you would ever need for landscape. If you are happy with the results of the 18-250 and have no problem lugging it around with you then stick with it. You have the ability to have a reasonably wide angle of view at the 18mm end and you can isolate interesting parts of the scene with the 250mm. If you find the 18mm not wide enough then the Sigma 10-20mm would complete your kit. I personally found the 10-20 too wide for my purposes so it sat in the bag, i eventually sold it to an epz member.....
Interesting pov from treebridge. Many landscapers like superwide lenses - your 18-55 will give a rough equ. of a 29mm lens which isn't that wide. The sigma 10-20 is super lens (based on independant reviews and popular opinion on here), and will give you a true super wide focal length. As with any kit the lens you opt for is only a tool - there is a learning curve with it, and you make like treebridge conclude that it does not suit your style of photography; certianly composition can be easier using less wide perspectives. Personally I like superwide perspectives and often shoot full frame at 17mm (nearly the same focal length you'd get on a sigma 10-20 using your camera). I know Canon & Tamron also do similar superwide lenses for cropped sensors, but the sigma seems to get the best of the reviews...
Adam
'Course the problem with 10-20's and the like is that 'Landscape' often ends up being 'Foregroundscape*' 
(*a sea of rocks/seaweed/grass/blurry waves with a titular 'subject' occupying approx 2-5% of the frame)
Quote: For a full frame camera the 17-40L can't be beaten in my opinion. However as you have a crop sensor the Sigma 10-20mm (full frame equivalent 16-32mm) is also unbeatable.
With Malcolm on this one my 17-40 rarely off my 50D
Brian...........................................
Hi all
Thank you for the replies and info, there is plenty to think about.
Moving on from lenses would you recommend any filters for landscapes also what about a tripod?
I also wonder if i am overcomplicating things and that I should just be out there taking photos
Tom
Yes, for landscapes a tripod is a good idea. It forces you to "slow down", allows one to fine tune the composition, adjust filters and then wait around for the light, people / cars to move out of the way etc without affecting the composition.
A small accessory that is very useful is a spirit level bubble that fits into the camera hot shot... helps get horizons or verticals straight 
Quote: Moving on from lenses would you recommend any filters for landscapes also what about a tripod?
For landscapes, a tripod is vital for best results in my opinion, enabling you to get maximum DOF by using slow speeds and large F values. This is even more important if you want to take shots of waterfalls.
As for filters, a circular polariser to make the most of skies and still water and a range of graduated neutral filters to even out unbalanced light levels from sky and land in bright conditions. However, you can use PS, take seperate exposures for sky and land and combine them. This almost removes the need for grad. filters completely, but not the polariser.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
Olympus 'Portraiture' Competition - Win £1000 Worth Of Gear!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
This month, to celebrate the launch of Olympus' new micro site Olympus Image Space, Olympus are giving you the chance to win £1000 worth of Olympus gear!...
Featured e2 Photo
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
