Do I need an ultra-wide zoom for travel landscapes on a Canon APS-C DSLR?

Asked 8/9/2011

2 views

2 answers

0

I shoot with a Canon crop-sensor DSLR and currently have the 18-55mm kit lens plus the 50mm f/1.8 II. I travel a lot and mostly photograph landscapes. I used to assume an ultra-wide zoom was essential for landscapes, but now I’m not so sure.

I can use the kit lens at 18mm, but I’m not fully happy with the results. Even on a tripod at around f/8, the images don’t seem very sharp, and the color/overall rendering doesn’t look as good as what I get from the 50mm.

I’ve been considering lenses like the Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, or Sigma 10-20mm, but they’re a significant expense for me. Is an ultra-wide zoom really necessary for landscape and travel photography on APS-C, or should I work with what I have? If I do buy one, what practical advantages would it give me over the kit lens at 18mm?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

6

A Wide angle lens is certainly extremely useful in travel photography, especially when taking shots not of sweeping vistas, but instead shots in close quarters, such as tight streets, small alleys and places where you can not stand back because of crowding.

A wide angle allows you to get very close to a subject and still have plenty of field of view.

On the downside, a good wide angle lens is expensive, as it is a big piece of surprisingly complicated glass. The Canon 10-22 is a very good lens worth pursuing. The Tokina 11-16 as well as the Sigma 10-20 are both very good alternatives. You may wish to consider used versions of these lenses to save a bit of money.

One suggestion: look at your current images. Go into your local town and take images in similar (ok maybe less interesting) places you might consider if you were traveling. Then review the images and see what focal length you used the most. If you find most of your images were at 18mm, and you came away dissatisfied with the results, then its a good bet you would enjoy a wider angle. However, if you find most of your shots are 50-55, then perhaps a wide angle isn't what you need after all.

Originally by user4880. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user4880

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

No—an ultra-wide zoom is not a must for landscapes. “Landscape” can include anything from sweeping vistas to tighter compositions, and many strong landscape images are made without ultra-wide lenses.

What an ultra-wide does give you is a noticeably wider angle of view than 18mm on APS-C, which is especially useful for travel situations like narrow streets, small interiors, alleys, or crowded places where you can’t step back. It can also help if you want dramatic foreground-to-background compositions.

That said, ultra-wide landscape photography is not automatically easier or better. It can be harder to compose well: foreground, midground, and background all matter, distortions are more obvious, and small camera movements can strongly affect perspective.

So the right question is whether your current photos often feel not wide enough. Review your images and see how often 18mm limits you. If that happens frequently, an ultra-wide could be worthwhile.

If you buy one, the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, and Sigma 10-20 were all recommended as strong options. Expect better angle of view and likely better image quality than the kit lens, but buy it for the creative need—not because landscapes “require” it.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer