henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

No particular point.It's just h ow I do it. No big deal

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No, it wasn't. Actually, Monte Zucker passed away in 2007, two years before the first Canon EF-S 18-135mm lens was introduced. And that lens wouldn't even fit on his cameras anyway. When he wasn't using his medium format Hasselblad with assorted lenses, he frequently used a Canon 28-135mm on film and full frame digital cameras. He also used 17-35mm and others, but the 28-135mm was a lens he talked about a lot and felt was ideal FOR PORTRAITURE (Monte's specialty)... NOT landscape photography.

I would bet that Canon T5 came with an EF-S 18-55mm II "kit" lens, which is actually pretty good optically, though it's a bit plasticky, not the fastest focusing (micro motor) or sealed at all for weather resistance. T5 also were sometimes sold in two-lens kits, where the second lens often was a EF 75-300mm III (an inexpensive, less than top quality telephoto... the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM is a much better lens in almost all respects).

One of the EF-S 18-135mm would be an upgrade: better built, better range of focal lengths for some things (telephoto), image stabilized, plus the $400 STM and $600 USM versions of it have better image quality and both are faster/quieter focusing.

Another potential upgrade is the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM lens... which goes a bit wider, has top image quality, is somewhat better built and has faster/quieter USM focus drive... but costs about $800 (plus lens hood). In fact, on a T5 camera with it's APS-C size sensor, the 15-85mm would be roughly equivalent to the 28-135mm that Monte recommended frequently for film/full frame.

Yet another possible upgrade is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... a better built, somewhat better sealed lens with larger max aperture that make it better in low light conditions, but costing about $900 (plus lens hood).

HOWEVER, all the above lenses most likely would just duplicate focal lengths they already have.... Particularly if they got the T5 in a two-lens kit.

To me it makes a lot more sense to complement the current lens(es) with another that EXPANDS their capabilities, rather than just duplicating what they already have.

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM would do that.... and is one of the most affordable lenses of that type (under $300 new... plus about $25 for the lens hood).

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is a faster (larger aperture), better built lens, but higher priced (about $600, plus about $25 for lens hood).

Both the above Canon EF-S wide angle lenses have excellent image quality and general performance. The 10-18mm is compact and lightweight, while the 10-22mm is a bit more premium quality build.

Tokina currently offers two excellent lenses: AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 and AT-X 12-28mm f/4. The 11-20mm in particular is a lot bigger & heavier than the Canon lenses, and f/2.8 is unlikely to be needed for landscape photography. That's more of an astrophotography/journalism lens. Actually, though the two Tokina are very good, the Canon lenses both have better image quality (and superior AF performance/functionality). There also were earlier Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, sharp but VERY prone to flare and a narrow range of focal lengths... and 12-24mm f/4, very good but not as good IQ as the newer Tokina or the Canon.

Sigma offers a 10-20mm f/3.5. It's rather big and heavy too. In the past they made a smaller 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6, which cost less but has been discontinued. Sigma also makes the widest non-fisheye lens of all .... an 8-16mm that's pretty pricey and has very strong exaggerations and distortions.

Tamron has offered two different 10-24mm... The latest with "VC" image stabilization is improved in a number of ways over the original.

All these third party lenses cost a little to a lot more than the Canon EF-S 10-18mm.... And most cost a little less than the Canon 10-22mm. Though some of them are pretty good, NONE of the third party have better image quality than the EF-S 10-18mm OR the EF-S 10-22mm. Optically speaking, those two Canon are among the very best ultrawide zooms made by anyone.... They're very sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner, with excellent color rendition, minimal chromatic aberration, the best flare resistance, best correction for distortions, etc.





Virtually any focal length can serve as a "landscape lens" at one time or another. HOWEVER, the vast majority of serious, experienced landscape shooters think FIRST of a moderate wide to ultrawide lens, such as those described above. Yes, they exaggerate perspective and size relationships.... can distort objects. Photographers learn to work with the lenses and utilize those aspects to their advantage, rather than "fighting" it. Many less experienced shooters find telephotos easier to use... Perhaps because teles are "subtractive", nicely isolating subjects from their surroundings. Moderate to ultrawide lenses are "additive", the broader angle of view encompasses more objects may require more effort to make them "fit together"... It's a different way of thinking, you might say. In general, wide lenses are used closer to subjects.... and some people, especially less experienced photogs, may find that uncomfortable or disconcerting. Telephotos let you stand off at a distance.

For a young person starting out doing photography, I'd want to encourage them to try things and experiment... and a wide zoom might be just the ticket (especially if they already have a standard zoom... and possibly a tele zoom).

A few wide angle examples....

20mm lens on full frame (equiv. to 12.5mm on an APS-C format T5):



17-35mm lens on full frame (equiv. to 10.5-22mm on APS-C T5):



10-22mm lens on APS-C camera (same format as T5):



I think many people find wide angle lenses more challenging to work with. But if they stick to it and figure them out, they can do a lot of interesting things utilizing the broader view and perspective relationships of objects within their images.



I agree with your initial points, although I am not sure how the subject has turned to mirrorless cameras. Just to clarify, all EF and EF-S lenses can be used on the APS-C format Canon M-series mirrorless cameras right now, via an adapter (Canon's EF/EF-S to EF-M adapter is expensive, there are much cheaper Vello and Fotodiox that work the same.) There's no need to wait for a future APS-C mirrorless either.... The Canon M-series have been in production since 2012 and there are currently four models availabl (EOS M5, M6, M50 and M100).

You're correct too, that the new Canon EOS R (their first full frame mirrorless camera, expected to be in stores in about 3 weeks) also will be able to utilized EF and EF-S lenses via an adapter (three types will be offered). HOWEVER, when an EF-S lens designed for the smaller APS-C size sensor camera is adapted for use on that camera, it will crop the image accordingly. As a result, instead of it's full frame 30MP, the EOS R will be reduced to around 12MP. The T5 has 50% higher resolution than that - 18MP - so spending $2300 for an EOS R body to use EF-S lenses on it would be rather counter-productive. It would be much better to invest in EF lenses (adapted) or the new RF-series lenses (no adapter needed), to be able to use the EOS R to its full potential.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

You need to ask yourself what you are looking for when shooting landscapes, what angle can't you get now. When I am shooting landscapes I reach for a longer lens more often than a wide angle. Look at what you have and the scenes you can't shoot now that you wish you could. Think about your vision and the way you shoot for your next lens purchase. Landscape does not necessarily mean wide angle.
...Cam

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Gorgeous photos, Alan! But most appear to have been cropped as they are not 3:2 aspect. That may be important to understanding the focal lengths being discussed, depending on the young man's experience (or for others following along). And which obviously didn't occur to me when I posted my own wide angle example

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If your definition of landscape is a wider lens AND you are serious about image quality, I can recommend the Samyang manual focus 16mm f2 - which is also quite good for astro work. The Manual focus of the 16mm takes some trial and error and marking of the lens barrel tho.

The Irix 15mm f2.4 is another very good manual focus lens.

Not so wide, but a very GOOD zoom is the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.

..

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

I use a 17-85 with my Xsi that gives great images, but when I want wide angle, I grab the 10-22. I love that lens. Reasonable price is in the eye of the beholder, but as lenses go, neither of these were expensive.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

A landscape lens fir a cropped sensor can be anything from 10mm to 100mm - depending on the creative intent. I tend towards longer focal lengths, and resort to stitching a panorama when I want a wider view.

The image below was done with an 85mm lens on a full frame camera, a 4 frame pano. I tend to use 85mm or longer for the majority of my landscapes.

(Download)

Morry Loc: Palm Springs, CA

For a very reasonably priced wide angle lens -- have a look at Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f2 lens. I think it's available in Canon mount but not sure. Be sure to look up internet reviews.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Canon EFS 15-85 might just be a very good choice :) :)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, you're correct. Most of those images are cropped to print 11x14 or 16x20 (or 8x10, both are 5:4 ratio). I rarely print 8x12 or 6x9 or any other 3:2 aspect ratio.... mats and frames are uncommon to fit those. However, I always try to "fill my viewfinder" and keep crops to a minimum.

And thanks!

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

When I had my Canon T4i, my favorite lens and I would still own it but have gone full frame, is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens - f/2.8. You can pick up a used one for a pretty good price. This lens is "L" quality. Great for landscapes and street photography to portraiture. I still miss mine.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

On a crop sensor the 18-135 is STM is a very versatile lens. Works well for landscapes with it's 28mm equalivant and makes a good portrait lens at longer lengths (out to 202mm equalivant). My copies of that lens were very sharp, fast focusing and accurate.

I like this range so well that I just got one for my Sony A6000 for an all around lens.

Bill

georgeretired Loc: Manitoba Canada

lots of interesting replies for you to consider. I always carry three lens (a bit heavy at times but manageable). 10-22, 24-70 and 70-200. Most of my shots are with the canon 10-22 especially if I'm going to do HRD pictures. I've thought about the 18-135 but am so accustom to the "3", it may be hard to break the habit and the $$ are a consideration as I'm retired.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

I have both of these lenses for my 80D and am very happy with them. Unless I'm at the sports car races, I take the vast majority of my photos with the 18-135. I use my EF 70-300 for most of my on-track photos. When I bought my 10-18, there was a package deal from Canon that you could get the EF 50 for an extra $40; hopefully it's still available.