steveo52 Loc: Rhode Island and Ocala Florida

I'm shooting with a Canon 60d that came with the 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I've also have a 50mm prime. Landscape photography is my preferred type of shooting. I'm considering adding a lens, but not sure which route to take. I'm on a budget and would like to keep it in the $600 range give or take.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

What CAN'T you do with your current lenses?

Buy a lens that will allow you to do it.

Cheers,

R.

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

If you're not getting the shots you want with the lenses you have,I'd suggest one wider than 18mm.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

For landscape I use the canon 10-22mm. I paid about $700 for it.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

that Canon 10-22 is a keeper of a lens on a crop sensor camera.

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

10-22 is good, no doubt, but I'd recommend using the 18-135 for landscapes until you max out it's potential. There's a lot to learn in landscape shooting and you may pick something else a year from now....

jkoolery Loc: North Jersey

I have the 60d also. As I have been shooting now for a while and have learned quite a bit. My advise to you would be to first decide the the pictures you will be taking most and what your interests are. As there so many lenses for so many occasions. Then there is is question of light the key to all the wonders of photragraphy! I have a son who plays a lot sports so I have been leaning toward light and shutter speed and in this case can get quite expensive as there is no substitute for a good peace of glass. My Main lens is the Cannon efs 17-55 f2.8 is usf. But this is expensive but well worth the money and it will do so much in so many occasions. If you shop around you can get this for $900.00 or so. This is really in my opinion a step up in lenses! Then there is the after market lenses such as tamron and Sigma which are also good lenses and will give you a lot of bang for the buck at a price much less. Good luck in your quest and go to YouTube and there is lots of people who will help you make your decision. :)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Absolutely right. I didn't mean to imply that the 18mm end of that lens wouldn't be good enough...it would. :)

DK Loc: SD

18-270 Tamron

steveo52 Loc: Rhode Island and Ocala Florida

HI Folks,

Thanks for the feedback, lots of good advice.

Roger, you pose a great question "What CAN'T you do with your current lenses"? Real food for thought. Right now I really can't answer that honestly.

I really need to look before I leap, plenty of food for thought. I know I haven't maxed out the potential of the 18-135.

You have all given me things to think about.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

DITTO.........

Adirondack Hiker Loc: Southern Adirondacks

For a couple of years, I used the Nikon 18-105 mm for my landscape shots, and kept wishing for more. Recently got the Sigma 10-20 mm. It is rarely off the camera. Why? Amazing depth of field, even at f/11, a foot to infinity. Just leave the distance scale at 3 feet, and shoot in manual focus, so no time lost while it focuses. Wider field, about 102 degrees at 10 mm, so I rarely have to stitch. If you are serious about doing landscape, an ultrawide (not a fish eye) is a must. Outdoor Photographer did a blurb on it a month or so back on ultrawides. Think it is at their website. This Sigma also has a Canon mount. price $479.

architect Loc: Chattanooga

The Tokina 11-16mm super wide angle lens is in your price range, and is great for landscapes, cityscapes and architecture. I find a lot of my close up nature shots are taken with a 200mm setting, but the 18-135 would do for most of those. If you ever want to do sports or wildlife, you will need a long telephoto of at least 270mm up.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I was a new comer that caught the dreaded Lens Lust Disease.. Bought 7 Lens and I only use two of them. 18-200mm and 70-300mm. I love these lens and find that if I can't get the shot then I need to hang the camera up. Glad that your considering some Good Advice......