Chuckwal Loc: Boynton Beach Florida

try and find used 100 400mm f4 canon or 70 300mm inexpensive also
shoot with 6Dll chuck

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Nothing, you’re covered for landscapes. You’ll get the most use out of the 24-105. Your 50mm prime will also produce great landscapes.

rcarol

The 10-18mm lens is an EF-S lens and will not mount on the 6D.

Bill P

There is no law that requires a landscape be show with a WA lens. Back in my film days, I departed on a trip to Colorado, and took a 135mm and used it to shoot all my landscapes. The first few shots I took felt a little weird but after that I discovered that with the 135 I was getting photos that looked both good and not like anyone elses.

Al Freeedman

It will mound on a Canon 6D but will no longer be a 10-18 mm lens.
It will be approx. 15 MM-27 MM.

Captain Al

Buck1949 Loc: Phoenix

I recently purchased a Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5 - 6.3 for my 6D Mk II that I am very happy with. It is my walkaround lens, but it was a bit more than the $500 limit you have....unless you can find a refurb or used one. Take a look at it... it is relatively lightweight and compact. It measures around 4 1/2 inches tall with the lens caps on. I am plan on using it on a future trip to Hawaii.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

My first choice would be Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM for use on your 6DII (though an EF lens will work on both your cameras). However, this lens is on sale for $1000 right now (normally $1100), so it's well over your budget. It's also relatively new, so there aren't a lot of used or refurbished ones around and, even if you can find one, they don't get discounted very much. The 16-35mm f/4L is very nearly equal to the even more expensive EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM "III" (it took three tries for Canon to finally get that one right... but the "III" is $2000 on sale, normally $2200). The f/4 lens is smaller, lighter, less expensive... plus it has Image Stabilization, which the f/2.8 lens lacks. And you really don't need f/2.8 for landscape photography. f/4 is plenty fast. For landscape shots, we're usually stopping down considerably, plus the shorter focal lengths can be handheld at slower shutter speeds, so f/2.8 isn't very necessary (and in many cases makes for a less sharp lens).

I will be buying a 16-35mm f/4 along with my next full frame camera purchase (I'm just waiting til I win the lottery ).

But for now I "make do" with a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM, which an older lens but still quite good. It's not as convenient as the zooms. I had an EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM in the past, when I was shooting film, but sold it when I "went digital" in 2004. The old 17-35mm wasn't as sharp and had more chromatic aberration than the 20mm f/2.8 or the current 16-35mm zooms. The 16-35mm f/2.8 that replaced it and the 16-35mm f/2.8 "II" that followed were better, though not a whole lot.... the f/2.8 III and f/4 IS finally got it right!

New a Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM sells for about $540, plus another $25 or so for the separately sold lens hood. It's been around since the days of film and can be found for under $400 use, but not abused.

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM on full frame:




Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM on APS-C/crop sensor:



I've even occasionally used the 20mm f/2.8 with extension tubes for close-up/macro shots (here on film/full frame):



I use the 20mm lens to complement my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, which was used on full frame for the following:



The old EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM worked okay for film, but I wouldn't recommend it for digital where you'll no doubt be looking at your images much more critically, at "100%" on your computer monitor. These images were shot on film with that lens:





The last image was taken on a very "blah", gray, rainy day and has been "Photoshopped" to add filter effects, hoping to make it a little more interesting.

But, no, the flight of pelicans above the lighthouse in the panorama were not added in Photoshop.

There are crop only ultrawides that you could use on your 7DII, too... though I think you'd be better served using a full frame capable lens on your 6DII. Canon's EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a bit plasticky, but cheap at about $279 (plus $25 for lens hood), has decent image quality and even has IS. Canon's EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is a bit faster, better built and excellent, too (though it doesn't have IS)... sells new for around $600 (plus lens hood), but has been around for some years now so can be found used for $500 or less. These lenses use the EF-S mount to prevent them from being fitted to full frame cameras like your 6DII, but some people modify them (by removing the plastic part that keeps them from mounting) and find they can be partially used on FF, zoomed to around 18mm before they start vignetting heavily. However, these lenses will tend to show have stronger wide angle distortion effects than the full frame lenses mentioned above.

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM on APS-C/crop sensor camera:



It's possible to minimize those distortions by backing off and careful positioning of the camera in relation to the subject:

clickety

Why do you say that? Is it the crop factor or something else?

Selene03

My favorite Canon landscape lens is the 16-35 f4 -- very sharp and quite light. It is my most used lens and would go along with your 24-105 nicely at the wide end.

Selene03

The 10-18 is a lens for a crop sensor camera, I think. Not a bad lens though

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Crop sensor cameras lend themselves to use with telephoto lenses. They make a telephoto "more powerful". But they also make a wide angle "less wide". Or, another way of looking at it, in order to be "as wide" as full frame, a crop sensor camera requires a more extreme, short focal length, which is more difficult to fully correct distortions and maintain sharpness from corner to corner.

Conversely, full frame are more ideal for wide angle lenses, which is often what's wanted for landscape photography. Since the wide lenses don't need to be as extreme, they can be better corrected and potentially sharper. But FF is less ideal for telephoto work, because to have the same "reach" as a tele on a crop camera, a FF camera will need to be used with much bigger, heavier, and often far more expensive lens.

Full frame also have less "crowded" sensors and larger pixel sites, which are better capturing fine detail and may have less heat gain during longer exposures.

Plus, often relatively small apertures are used for landscape photography in order to maximize depth of field. Diffraction is a problem that occurs with small lens apertures... But a little less so with full frame cameras. They can be used approx. one stop smaller aperture before diffraction becomes an issue. The reason for this is indirect.... It's because the FF image requires less magnification to make any given size print, than the APS-C camera does. For example, to make an 8x12 from a FF image means approx. 8X magnification, while making the same size print from an APS-C images requires approx. 13X magnification (this assumes no cropping and all other factors the same, such as lens acuity, etc.) If you use the same aperture and lens with both cameras, they actually see the same amount of diffraction.... but because the FF image will be less magnified for any given use, the fine detail robbing effects of the diffraction will be less of a problem.

So while crop sensor cameras are ideal for some things, full frame are a better choice for others.... including much landscape photography.

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

Three thumbs up! (Or two thumbs and a big toe) I' believe that equipment expenditures are justifiable only when the photographer's capabilities exceed those of their equipment. Spend your money improving your skill set for the biggest return on your investment.

rcarol

This is an EF-S lens and will not mount on the 6D without physically modifying the lens

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

On your 7dII, you could use a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 - https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras-Essential/dp/B00WUWTLD8/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1549913567&sr=8-3&keywords=sigma+10-20mm+canon. $399. No image stabilization, but do you need that on a 10-20? It will only fit on the 7dII, not the 6D. Contrary to what others may have suspected, this combination has produced great results for me with my 7dII, both for conventional wide angles and for panoramas.

User ID

I have a 10-18 for my SL1 but it cannot
fit on my 6D. EF vs EF-S issue.

.