Best lense for a Canon 450D

CMACSAFF

Hi,

Was wondering if anybody has advice about buying a lens for the Canon 450D?

I'm looking for something that will cover most eventualities but I mostly take landscape shots so will maybe end up going for a wide angle lens. I've got completely frustrated with the standard 18-55mm lens that came with it.

Does anybody know what I should be looking at and where is best to buy?

Cheers!

Brndn

The Sigma 10-20 is a good buy for a wide angle lens. Also you should think about a 50mm f1.8, it's cheap and useful. Keep a look out on Adverts.ie, it's a good site for photography bargains.

magicbastarder

frustrating how? not wide enough?

NothingMan

I've been eyeing up the 24-105 f4 L for a while now. Going for 999e most places at the moment. Good range, L glass and constant aperture.

hbr

CMACSAFF wrote: »

Hi,

Was wondering if anybody has advice about buying a lens for the Canon 450D?

I'm looking for something that will cover most eventualities but I mostly take landscape shots so will maybe end up going for a wide angle lens. I've got completely frustrated with the standard 18-55mm lens that came with it.

Does anybody know what I should be looking at and where is best to buy?

Cheers!

Welcome to the forum.

To save typing, I will copy&paste magicbastarder's question:
"frustrating how? not wide enough? "

The 18-55mm kit lens is reasonably good and wide enough for
most landscape shots. You can buy better wide angle lenses,
but the price of a good one can be alarmingly high.

CMACSAFF

Cheers hbr

Yeah it doesnt ever seem to give me the full shot as I see it - its always clipped - I'm also not always happy with the quality but I appreciate thats more likely down to me.

The lens seems to be neither one thing or the other - the zoom isnt great and as I say I'm not overly impressed with the landscape shots.

kelly1

CMACSAFF wrote: »

Cheers hbr

Yeah it doesnt ever seem to give me the full shot as I see it - its always clipped - I'm also not always happy with the quality but I appreciate thats more likely down to me.

The lens seems to be neither one thing or the other - the zoom isnt great and as I say I'm not overly impressed with the landscape shots.

The 18-55 kit lens isn't all that great, lacks sharpness, contrast, colour saturation etc. If you're doing serious landscape stuff, you'd want something a bit wider in the 10/12-20/24 range but you'd also want to be looking at a tripod
and graduated neutral density filters. Depends on how seriously you want to take it. But decide on a focal length range first. Also pixel count on the 450D isn't terribly high.

magicbastarder

pixel count is 12.2MP - hardly a limiting factor?

CMACSAFF

The 18-55 kit lens isn't all that great, lacks sharpness, contrast, colour saturation etc. If you're doing serious landscape stuff, you'd want something a bit wider in the 10/12-20/24 range but you'd also want to be looking at a tripod
and graduated neutral density filters.

Right I'm gonna be honest - I had to google what a graduated neutral density filter was!

But am I right in thinking that a better lens would not only give me wider shots but better quality as well?

I dont want to just buy a lens for the sake of it but I've played around with the camera settings and I'm still not happy.

jpb1974

Forgive me for asking but do you feel that you are proficient with your camera and understand what it takes to take a properly focussed sharp photo?

I just get the impression that you might not be (again forgive me if I am wrong) and your issues might me more so technique and understanding than actually being lens related?

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

pixel count is 12.2MP - hardly a limiting factor?

Would be if you were going for prints larger than 12 x 8 e.g 18 x 12. You'd want about 20MP for 18 x 12.

CMACSAFF wrote: »

Right I'm gonna be honest - I had to google what a graduated neutral density filter was!

We all have to learn. BTW, I want to get into landscapes too so I've done a little research.

CMACSAFF wrote: »

But am I right in thinking that a better lens would not only give me wider shots but better quality as well?

Not quite. The width or depth is determined by your focal length. If for instance you want lots of foreground in your shots to give a sense of depth, you'd need something wider that an 18mm (e.g 10 or 12mm) on a cropped sensor (APS-C). Quality is determined by the quality of the glass and you pay big money for quality glass!

CMACSAFF wrote: »

I dont want to just buy a lens for the sake of it but I've played around with the camera settings and I'm still not happy.

Why don't you post a sample shot and tell us what you're not happy with?

CMACSAFF

Well I'd definitely say I was a beginner but I've read a few books on it and been through the camera settings extensively. I also use it pretty regularly.

I'm not ruling out my lack of expertise but I honestly dont think that the lens gives me what I want.

I have also shown it to other people who have agreed. Not sure if that means anything though.

101001

for my 400d I upgraded from the stock lens (after it fell down a flight of stairs) to the Sigma DC 17-70. Just wanted a handy day to day lens (wide to slight zoom) that balanced quality and price (200-300) and thats what i came up with. Oh and I did want a lower a lens with a lower fstop (2.8) bit more depth of field. The difference between it and the stock lens was extremely noticeable. Im not sure what others will say about it but I was very pleased. worth the price i thought

CMACSAFF

Why don't you post a sample shot and tell us what you're not happy with?

Will do when I get a chance!

kelly1

CMACSAFF wrote: »

Well I'd definitely say I was a beginner but I've read a few books on it and been through the camera settings extensively. I also use it pretty regularly.

I presume you've used a tripod and small aperture (e.g. f/16) to get good depth of field and sharpness? Low ISO, self-timer, mirror-lockup?

CMACSAFF

I presume you've used a tripod and small aperture (e.g. f/16) to get good depth of field and sharpness? Low ISO, self-timer, mirror-lockup?

Yeah used all of those

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

Would be if you were going for prints larger than 12 x 8 e.g 18 x 12. You'd want about 20MP for 18 x 12.

i've printed up to bigger than A2 on canvas of an 8MP scan from slide, with no real issues. 12MP is absolutely fine for 18x12, and larger.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've printed up to bigger than A2 on canvas of an 8MP scan from slide, with no real issues. 12MP is absolutely fine for 18x12, and larger.

I'm confused now! I thought you needed 300PPI for decent print quality
and 18 x 12 translates to 5400 x 3600 pixels = 19.4MP

No?

hbr

CMACSAFF wrote: »

Cheers hbr

Yeah it doesnt ever seem to give me the full shot as I see it - its always clipped - I'm also not always happy with the quality but I appreciate thats more likely down to me.

The lens seems to be neither one thing or the other - the zoom isnt great and as I say I'm not overly impressed with the landscape shots.

Just going off on a slightly different tack... You can take wide landscape
shots by mounting the camera on a tripod and making a panorama out
of two or more shots. A simple panorama of two or three shots will
have the same image quality limitations as a single shot. You can
get improved image quality by making an image from a huge array
of shots, stitching them together and then shrinking the end result
down to a few Mp or even a few tens of Mp if you like.

Like you, I sometimes find I can't get the shot I want using the
standard kit lens. I couple of weeks ago, I was trying to get a
shot of the old Cork Bonded Warehouses in the evening
when the little light that was available was on the opposite side
of the building. After several attempts with a Canon 18-135mmn
lens, I found that any shot that showed the full length of the
building was lacking in detail and noisy. I eventually used a
Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro lens which is noticeably sharper
than the 18-55mm or the 18-135mm and took two shots. These
were later stitched together using Hugin. It still isn't a great
shot, but it would not have been possible at all using the kit
lens. http://pix.ie/corkpix/1722637

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm confused now! I thought you needed 300PPI for decent print quality
and 18 x 12 translates to 5400 x 3600 pixels = 19.4MP

stcstc is the man to explain this, but basically, afaik, 300dpi is pretty standard for reproduction, etc., and that's to allow for a context where people will be looking at the print from a foot or so away. if you're framing a print (which i assume would the destination of an 18x12 print), people will only very occasionally look at it from the same distance, so you can get away with lower print resolution, or by increasing the image size in PS and tweaking it a bit.

Thecageyone

kelly1 wrote: »

Would be if you were going for prints larger than 12 x 8 e.g 18 x 12. You'd want about 20MP for 18 x 12.

Are you having a laugh? You're seriously saying you think you'd require a 20mp sensor, to print above 18 x 12?

I shoot with a 10.2mp camera. One of my pictures is hanging across 3 canvases in a guy's house in England, I think the full width is 60"+ and it looks amazing.

I've printed up to 10 x 15 myself, just normal matte prints. And they turn out brill.

Nonsense, sorry.

AnimalRights

24-105L is what you require.

Xiney

for landscape I agree, a 10mm or thereabouts is what you want since its equivalent on the 450D is a 16mm.

once you get up to 24mm on the 450D you're shooting with what is essentially a 38mm lens, not particularly wide at all.

kelly1

Thecageyone wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? You're seriously saying you think you'd require a 20mp sensor, to print above 18 x 12?

I shoot with a 10.2mp camera. One of my pictures is hanging across 3 canvases in a guy's house in England, I think the full width is 60"+ and it looks amazing.

I've printed up to 10 x 15 myself, just normal matte prints. And they turn out brill.

Nonsense, sorry.

I have to admit I haven't done any prints larger that 12 x 8 but if you want to print at 300ppi, you'd need 19.4MP for 18 x 12 (5400 x 3600). Of course if you're not looking at it close up, you could use less than 300ppi.

Promac

I've printed up to A3 with images from my 450D and they're perfect. Even up close. The only time I've had better results was about 15 years ago printing shots from a 120mm bronica.

leche solara

Have a look at the Tamron 18-270 IS Macro Lens. It covers the whole range from wide to fairly long zoom. You should get one for about €500

5uspect

People often overlook the potential of the telephoto lens in landscape photography.
They let you do a lot more with a few interesting foreground and background elements.
Wide angle shots tend to be big and empty unless you have some amazing scenery and a spectacular sky with a polariser making those clouds pop out.

The 18-55 has a lot of sharpness and chromatic aberration issues around 18mm.
That's not to say its a terrible lens. Also I've heard good things about the MkII version.

+1 for showing us an example!

Thecageyone

kelly1 wrote: »

I have to admit I haven't done any prints larger that 12 x 8 but if you want to print at 300ppi, you'd need 19.4MP for 18 x 12 (5400 x 3600). Of course if you're not looking at it close up, you could use less than 300ppi.

For our recent collections for the fund raiser, we had 2 6ft posters of our daughter printed - The image used was one I took of her and heavily cropped down so it's just her in the picture. Even on close inspection they are smooth as butter. not a pixel to be seen. I think you underestimate lower end Dslr sensors. Unless you want Billboard sized prints, 10mp is sufficient.