sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

The Canon 10-18, as mentioned, will give you the most "bang for your buck".

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

How about the Tamron 15-30 f2.8.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

I have the 10-18 also. Pretty darn crisp at 10 and 18. Super at 12 to 16. Inexpensive very good lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tokina 12-28mm f4 - great range, great lens, reasonably priced.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/12-28mm.htm

gmango85

I also agree on the 16-35. It is a hell of a lens. But your format may lead you to the 10-18 which is a fine lens also.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Ok so you shouldn't mount a top quality $900 lens like an EFs 17-55 f/2.8 on a crop sensor body? Hmmm. I myself regularly use the incredible Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on my 7D Mark II, and it's a crop sensor lens.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Just to note, At 17mm up is wide angle (full frame) below that we get into fish eye and distortion.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

EF-s 10-22mm lens

I see that someone is selling one here in the classified section now. It's a good price too.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

I agree. The16 - 35 2.8 iii is a great lens, I use it for many landscapes. However, on a crop sensor it’s widest angle equals a 25 mm lens. I do not believe the very low cost canon wide angle zoom will provide print quality images.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Both the 16-35 f4L and the 17-40 f4L are good choices. Both are tack sharp and while not ultra wide on a crop body, they are plenty wide enough for most landscape work. An excellent 17-40L just sold on UHH for less than $400, and for the $, you’d be hard pressed to find a higher quality lens.

Paul Buckhiester Loc: Columbus, GA USA

Highly recommend Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

I've always had success with the f2.8 24mm. on a ff camera is gives great perspective, allows me to use foreground focus, and it doesn't weigh as much as many of the choices above. Really a key when backpacking..then I realized you aren't shooting with a full frame camera so the 24mm will be close to a 35mm. So I would go with the EFS 10-18. Shoot in middle f-stops and it is pretty sharp. Lightweight (again an ounce on the shoulders is a pound on the feet). If you aren't a backpacker than a really heavy L lens isn't an issue. If you are, it is..

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

How much do you want to spend? What focal length or range of focal lengths do you want (and what do you already have)?

When I think "landscape", I tend to think of standard to wide to ultrawide lenses. Yes, sometimes telephotos are used for landscape, but I think more often a wider angle of view is what's wanted. Based on that, some suggestions:

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is inexpensive (under $300), compact and lightweight, has amazingly good image quality considering its price and is one of only a few with image stabilization. Yeah, it's plasticky... But, hey, what do you want for under $300? 67mm filters, lens hood EW-73C sold separately (Canon $25, Vello $12.50).

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-5.6 USM costs more (about $650), is an older model now and is somewhat larger and heavier, as well as one of the more expensive. But it's also one of the best ultrawides made by anyone (excellent IQ: sharp, well corrected and very flare resistant), with USM auto focus drive, but without image stabilization. 77mm filters, lens hood EW-83E sold separately (Canon $30, Vello $10).

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a "walk around" or general purpose zoom, but could be useful for landscape shooters who want to keep to a minimum number of lenses, because it goes considerably wider than most (15mm doesn't seem a lot compared to 17 or 18mm, but actually is a noticeable difference). Superb image quality and overall performance with both image stabilization and USM focus drive, in a reasonably compact and very versatile zoom. But it's not cheap at about $800. 72mm filters, EW-78E lens hood sold separately (Canon $30, Vello $14).

Tokina AT-X 12-28mm f/4 DX is "L-like" in build quality and feel. Has very good image quality and overall performance. I used the earlier Toki 12-24mm f/4 version and found its images better than most and close to, but not quite as good as the Canon 10-22mm. All Tokina lenses use a rather unique "focus clutch" mechanism to shift from AF to MF, plus their focus and zoom rings operate the opposite direction from Canon (i.e., same direction as Nikon). Using some Tokina lenses I thought these might be an issue when shooting with them and switching back and forth with Canon lenses, but I really didn't notice either. This lens is on sale some places right now for $250 (normally $450). 77mm filters, lens hood included.

Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 DX ($500) offers the largest aperture available on an ultrawide zoom for APS-C cameras. This might be helpful by providing a brighter viewfinder for night time shooting such as astral photography or aurora borealis, but may not be necessary for most other landscape photography. To have a large aperture, this lens is necessarily one of the largest and heaviest, and has one of the narrowest ranges of focal lengths (although it improves considerably upon the Toki 11-16mm f/2.8 it replaced). Often larger aperture ultrawide lenses give up some image quality, but that's not the case with this one. It's quite sharp (so is the earlier 11-16mm, but that lens is VERY prone to flare issues). It uses 82mm filters, lens hood is included.

Tokina AT-X 14-20mm f/2.0 DX ($600) isn't quite as wide, but offers an even wider f/2 aperture. A rather new lens, I have no personal experience with it. Note the rather narrow range of focal lengths that don't go quite as wide as some others and that it appears to be one of the larger and heavier. Still... when you need f/2, it's one of very few UWA lenses to offer it. Uses 82mm filters and includes lens hood.

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM ($700) is the widest of the ultrawides, short of a fisheye lens. Note that at the widest, in particular, there's naturally a considerable amount of wide angle exaggeration in images. Also, due to a protruding, convex front element, standard filters cannot be used with this lens (special holders may allow oversize filters to be used). Lens hood is built in.

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ($450) is one of the largest and heaviest of the ultrawides. It also used to be one of the most expensive, but Sigma has put a pretty much permanent $200 discount on it, ever since Canon introduced their EF-S 10-18mm. It uses 82mm filters and includes a matched lens hood.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM is now discontinued and unavailable new... but can be found used for roughly $250 or less. I tested it and felt it's image quality wasn't as good as the Tokina or Canon UWA lenses. It's smaller than the f/3.5 version Sigma 10-22mm, but still fairly large using a 77mm filter. Lens hood included.

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD ($450) is an update that has improved focus drive and added stabilization. I haven't used it, but purportedly the image quality is improved, too.

Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f / 3.5-4.5 DI II is the older, discontinued model that can now be found used for under $300. Comparing it to Canon, Tokina and Sigma, I felt the image quality of this lens was the weakest, but it had the widest range of focal lengths at the time.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM (discontinued, $600 used) and Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM "Art" ($1600) are both actually full frame capable lenses... among the widest non-fisheye available for FF, in fact. As such, while they would act as an ultrawide on an APS-C camera such as the 7DII, you would be spending a lot more with no benefit at all. The older version has rather heavy distortions (may be correctable in post-processing). Both are large and heavy with protruding convex front elements that preclude using standard filters (holders for oversize filters are avail.) And both have built-in lens hoods.



Utter B.S.

Full frame lenses such as Canon's several 16-35mm and 17-40mm, and similar from third party manufacturers, really are more "normal" range lenses, not very wide on APS-C, as well as bigger, heavier lenses that cost a lot more for no gain... maybe even less benefit. In fact, of them all the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM would probably be the only one I'd consider (and only because I use both APS-C and full frame cameras), for it's superior image quality, more reasonable size, weight and cost, plus the image stabilization it offers. Still, that's a $1000 lens... A lot more expensive than most of the above (though a little or a lot less than the f/2.8 versions of EF 16-35mm lenses)... All to get a lens that's less wide and probably has greater overlap with focal lengths you already have?

The image quality and performance of EF-S 10-22mm USM, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and EF-S 15-85mm IS USM rivals that of any L-series... or even better than some (i.e., 17-40L, 16-35/2.8L II). Sure, those EF-S lenses aren't quite as well built or sealed for weather/dust resistance... But they're top performing where it really counts (image quality, focus speed & accuracy, image stabilization, etc.) and are FAR from "entry level". In fact, building them to L-standards would be overkill that just made them heavier and more expensive.

No EF-S lens will ever be labelled an "L" and get a red stripe painted on it. But this is only because of Canon's self-imposed definition of what constitutes an L-series... that an L must be compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future. EF-S lenses are not... they're only usable on APS-C models such as yours. Can't be used on the full frame, APS-H or film EOS. But in many ways, some of the better EF-S lenses can match or even beat L-series.

So, yeah... Sure! If you want to spend a lot more money and get nothing in return.... maybe even less... do as suggested and "only buy EF and L-series" for use on your 7DII. They'll work fine too. But if you just want to take great shots with your camera, want truly wide angles of view, would like to keep some of your money for other things and not weigh yourself down any more than necessary, thanks to your use of an APS-C camera there are some excellent EF-S lenses you can take good advantage of at reasonable prices... That will work just as well or maybe even better.



Well, unfortunately the Canon 7D Mark II isn't a full frame camera. It's an APS-C camera. On it a 24mm lens "acts like" a slightly wide "normal"... As such, sure might be fine for some landscapes, but not wide enough for some others.



Another full frame camera with a full frame lens that wouldn't be particularly wide on a 7DII.

There aren't many prime ultrawides for crop sensor cameras, mostly just zooms. And I think the above covers most of the top choices that I'd consider at for landscape photography with an APS-C camera such as yours. There may be some I've overlooked... as well as some less wide options that you might want to consider, depending upon what you already have to work with and how wide and/or how expensive you want to go.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I've had good results with a Sigma 10-20mm.

gmango85

You guys are blowing smoke up your arses! You purchased a lens and are trying to justify it. I recommend the gentleman borrow a lens and see for himself.