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.