HarveyRothbeind

I'm an older man who is not into digital camers, etal. Therefore would some person out there define IQ as it relates to photography. I collect old film cameras, 35mmRF,SLR,P&S, but no where do I see IQ used with film.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

You are aware, aren't you, that IQ stands for "Image Quality"? While the term may not have been as highly used with film, there were certainly IQ issues to be addressed with film. (especially some I shot!)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IQ is nothing new ! With digital it is the sensor/lens/post processing/printing relationship - with film it is the film/chemical processing/lens/printing relationships.

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I'm with the guy's saying 18-300, 18-270, 16-300 ect. I see the 150-600 as a specialty lens. For me, same on the wide angle end.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

For wide angle shots, I'd definitely take the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. I'm presently in the mountains of Maine, and my copy of the 10-22mm is mounted to my 7D Mark II. It gives almost "L" quality shots but for a cropped sensor, as your 60D has. Post some shots when you return, I'm sure they will be stunning.

B

Vi Loc: Upper Midwest

Beautiful pictures. Hope mine turn out as good. I really like the one of downtown MPLS looking across the old bridge. Brings back memories of home. Also thanks for the help with the lens issues.

Vi Loc: Upper Midwest

I will post some shots of Nepal but I will be practicing in the Yellowstone, Grand Tetons and the Black Hills the first of August. Cant wait. Everyone is so very nice and helpful. Thank you so much.

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Have a wonderful trip and we'll be looking forward to the photos!

rugerbearcat Loc: Newport Beach, Calif.

Just got a Tamron 18-270 a few months ago for my "walk around" lens and so far am pretty happy with it. Landscape AND zoom shots. . .

Vi Loc: Upper Midwest

I wont be doing to much hiking but will visit their national park. It is a mission trip and the pastor wants to have me ride an elephant. Heaven help us all! Should I invest in the 70-200 L from Canon or go with the 70-300 I already have from Canon?

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

It sounds like you really do not need the 70-200 L but if it a lens you want and can afford then by all means buy it. It is a great lens!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Well, definitely NOT the Tamron 150-600mm! Now, I'm not saying that it's completely out of the question but that extreme a telephoto would be a very unusual lens to use for landscape photography. It would be more appropriate if you were shooting distant and/or small wildlife. Are you going to try to get a shot of an elusive Snow leopard... or a Yeti?

Wide angle (such as your 10-22mm) and mid-range (such as 24, 28, 30, 35, 40, 50mm) are the "bread and butter" lenses for landscape photos. Without more detail about your "variety of smaller lenses", it's hard to make any recommendations. You might already have it pretty well covered.

However, some folks do like to use moderate telephotos, too (40mm and 50mm are very short and short telephotos on your camera). So, a 70-200mm isn't ruled out for that purpose, by any means. It's also a good lens choice to for candid portraits from a moderate distance.

If do you decide you want a 70-200 and are travelling and carrying your kit around yourself (i.e., no Sherpa), you might want to consider the Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM instead of the f2.8 version. It's not only cheaper, it's also about 2/3 the size and weight. An f2.8 is a pretty hefty lens to lug around. The f4 is equally sharp and high performance, it just won't be able to render quite as strong background blur.

EDIT: Okay, so NOW your have revealed that you already have a Canon EF 70-300mm. They make several of those. The EF 70-300 IS USM is a good lens and reasonably compact... smaller and lighter than the 70-200/4 even. The EF 70-300 IS USM DO is quite compact, so is a very good "travel" lens. The EF 70-300L IS USM is a tougher, better sealed, premium quality/top performance lens, though rather large and heavier. All those would work fine, instead of a 70-200mm. The only disadvantage is that they are f5.6 lenses at their longest focal length (instead of f4 or f2.8, which the 70-200s offer).

Just so long as it's not the EF 75-300 non-IS, non-USM lens. That's one of Canon's cheapest and worst lenses. I'd replace it with something better, for a once-in-a-lifetime trip!

Yes, those 18-300mm and similar lenses can be convenient for travel... Personally I would never use one because of all the compromises they make in order to cover such and extreme range. And I have no problem carrying a couple other lenses and am not afraid to change lenses when I need to do so. But you may like one of those extreme range zooms. Depends upon your expectations.

It would be very helpful if you would further reveal to us what other lenses you have... before asking for recommendations. As it stands now, for your stated purposes, it doesn't appear you need to buy anything at all.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Either one will be fine, but the Tamron may be a bit more limited. I use my 70-200 a lot for landscape, also my 400 and I like 'em both.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Remember that your 60D is not full frame. That means any EF lens is 1.6 times it's range of focal length. Therefore, the 70 - 200 really becomes a 70 x 1.6 - 200 x 1.6 or 102 x 320. I agree with other's comments - you do need a wide angle lens. If you can afford the price the canon 16 - 35mm L is an excellent choice. There are others, including Tamron, that will serve you well for landscapes.

Have a great trip,
Mark :)