landscape photography lenses

You can get the Sigma 10-20mm (instead of the EF-S 10-22mm) and the Tamron 28-75mm for about $800. I'm very happy with this combination - both lenses are extremely sharp and not too big and heavy.

I have a 17-40. It is a great lens. I am very happy with it and I would advise you to buy one too. Don't buy the EF-S crap, FF for everyone is coming fast... $650 for the 17-40 is a good deal.

I'm mostly worried that with 10-22 and 50 you won't have a single "normal" lens. I'm tempted to recommend a 24/2.8. On your 20D it's a great "normal-wide" lens.

FWIW, "landscape" isn't necessarily about having the widest possible view. One of my favorite lanscape pictures was actually shot with a long lens (and a vertical framing).

If you're worried about the long end, the 85/1.8 is worth considering.

Go for the 135 f/2.8 SF. It's relatively inexpensive, performs excellently, and the AF is quick and quiet.

Otherwise, I'd go for the 20 f/2.8 or the 24 f/2.8. You can get both the 135 and the 20 or 24 for your $800 budget, and the lenses will be 1-2 stops faster than what you'd get if you got a zoom.

I do a lot of landscape work and own both the EF-S 10-22mm and the 24-70mm f2.8L. They complement each other nicely. But if I had to choose just one lens for landscape I would definately go with the EF-S 10-22mm. It has the equivalent field of view of a 16-35mm on a full frame camera which is perfect for landscape. And despite what detractors may say about EF-S lenses, this one is very very good optically.

Let me second the recommendation for the Canon EF-S 10-22; it's a great lens, and it's a bit lighter and smaller than anything like it on a FF system.

I've never* had anything wider than an effective 28mm and while there have been a few times when I've wanted wider, they've been relatively infrequent. There are many times I want something between 28mm and the effective 80mm of your 50/1.8, though. So to me, the 17-40 or 17-85 would be a much more useful lens as part of a two-lens kit with the 50. Sure, the 10-22 would be nice to add to it, as there are times you need to go that wide, but given the crop factor, the 10-22 and the 50 alone leaves a gap that's far too wide for my comfort.

There are lots of comments about the 17-40 vs. the 17-85 so you can do your own research there; there are pros and cons to each. Personally, when I bought the 17-40, I bought it as a companion to my 28-135 as I prepared to go digital with a 20D, so the lack of IS and the lack of telephoto coverage wasn't a problem - I already had both of those taken care of. I also wanted the possibility to use it on a film body, as I wasn't sure if I'd simply stop using film when I got the 20D or if I'd use both for a while (as it happens, I haven't taken a single picture with my film body since the 20D arrived).

*: OK, technically, I do; I still have a film body, and I have the 17-40. But I only ever once used this combination for anything, and that was shooting indoors in a tight space. I've never used this combination for anything else, as I didn't do much shooting in the time gap between getting the 17-40 and getting the 20D.

I have the 10-22, and it's a wonderful lens. But Casey, you're going to PATAGONIA. If you're trying ot shoot it with an ULTRAWIDE, you're in for a big dissapointment. I normally use my 10-22 in very cramped spaces, or indoor structures (cathedrals, etc).

You're also used to what the 50 can deliver. Set yourself up with either the 17~40, or even better, a set of high quality primes: 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8, or 135/2.8 SF.

One more vote for the 10-22.

Forget the nay-sayers on this EF-S lens. Most of them have never even tried it. If you have an EF-S capable camera, this is the lens to have.

Despite a FF upgrade some time in my future, this is the one EF-S lens that I have no regrets owning. If I broke my copy, I would not hesitate to buy another.

I have to disagree that the EF-S 10-22mm is only for useful for indoor aplications. I use it almost exclusively for outdoor landscape photography. One thing I know for sure is if I were going to Patagonia, it would go with me.

I think that if you already have the 50, the 17-40 will be redundant. 10mm of difference? No big problem.

The 10-22 seems fine, and if you can afford it, get the 70-300 DO as well, you need flexibility, and a telezoom is invaluable in isolating details in the landscape. The other option could be the new 70-300 IS.

If you do buy a 10-22, make sure you practice with it before you go. I've used my 17-40 on my EOS 630 and I'm always amazed how what I thought I was going to get thru the viewfinder isn't what I get on film. You have to get REALLY close to things or else you can end up with distant looking pictures. Posting on the web accentuates this even more since the pics are small and of low resolution. Tilting up and down adds distortion.

Practice, practice.

Mark

If EF-s is a downer, how about the Sigma 12-24, its full frame. Also, maybe you can rationalize more glass by buying used with the thought that you'll sell it when you get back. I'd try fredmiranda.com for their Buy&Sell, lots of Canon gear going around.

Take a sharp prime with as few elements a possible to maximize contrast and color, like a Tessar, and do your zooming at home in PhotoShop.

Thanks to everyone who responded. I very much appreciate all of the advice.

"Take a sharp prime with as few elements a possible to maximize contrast and color, like a Tessar, and do your zooming at home in PhotoShop.

Good advice, except it's utterly useless. The only wide angle primes for the 20D are the 14mm and the 20mm. The former is outrageously expensive, and the latter is no better than the 10-22.

For travelling, I always take a 10-22 + 28-135 IS. You may also consider the Sigma 18-125 or 18-200. Even if it's not the best optical setup ever, you'll have a dustproof solution, can shoot under rain without needing to exchange lenses, and something easy for backpacking too.

Tom-

Your comment "Good advice, except it's utterly useless. The only wide angle prime..." is, of course, utterly useless since the original poster stated - "The only lens I currently have is THE 50/1.8, WHICH I AM VERY HAPPY WITH so far." This seems to imply he is "very happy with" a normal focal length lens, not a wide angle.

If the original poster can find a Canon Tessar of suitable focal length, which apparently for him is a normal focal length, then I stand by my recommendation. If he cannot, I suggest a switch to Nikon.

If a 50mm lens is all you personally need thats wonderful. Thats not the case for most people. Cropping after the fact is not possible if you are in a situation that calls for wide angle. In situations where you need a 200mm or 300mm lens, but use a 50mm instead you can crop but you can forget about making prints of any decent size.

Cropping is no substitute for having used the correct focal length to begin with. It should be used as a last resort, not a first.