Landscape lens for Canon 80D

[Jbeck]

Greetings, I’m new to the forum. I’ve been shooting wildlife & landscapes for several years with a Rebel 100; 18-55 & a 75-300 zoom.

Recently I upgraded to a 80D and am looking for recommendations to shoot landscapes. The 80 came with a 18-135.  Research has brought up a variety of suggested lens; Canon 11-16, Canon 10-22 & a Tokina 11-16. I’m looking at used lens & would like to stay under $350. Thank for you feedback.

[Waddizzle]

My point was simple.  The OP seems to be looking for a wide angle lens that can outperform the EF-S 18-135mm for $300 USD, or less.  Such a lens does not exist, IMHO.

Most of my best shots captured with an APS-C body were captured with a using the T5 and a Rokinon 14mm T3.1.  The Rokinon is a manual focus lens that costs more than the budget.

[Tronhard]

I think that is important and respect your judgement and experience - not argument there.  I was just offering my 10c worth - I believe we can all contribute and let the OP decide on what works for them.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Tronhard wrote:

I think that is important and respect your judgement and experience - not argument there.  I was just offering my 10c worth - I believe we can all contribute and let the OP decide on what works for them.

---

My two cents worth was simple and direct, straight to the point.  You are not going to find a better wide angle lens for under $300 USD than than the lens the OP already has, the EF-S 18-135mm that came with the 80D.  I do not know which version of the lens, but I do not think it really matters much.

If you want to spend money on gear with a $300 budget, then buy a quality tripod, instead.

[justadude]

Personally, I would want the wider lens first - and it was the original question.   

However as far as tripods, I backup your choice with the Induro series.  I've owned their 4 section carbon fiber tripod (with a Manfroto head) for 15 years now, and it is one of the best tripods I have ever owned (well, except my telescope tripod which is heavy enough to give you a hernia).  Including the separate head, I paid about $450 15 years ago, so I imagine they are a little more costly now.

As far as JBeck's original comment - do you already own a tripod?  You will notice a difference in your results by using one.  

[Waddizzle]

“ Personally, I would want the wider lens first - and it was the original question. “

I understood the question.  My response is the budget is too small.  You are not going to improve upon the 18-135mm for under $300 USD.

I frequently shoot landscapes.  You do not really need a wide angle or ultra-wide angle lens to capture wide landscape views.  The wider the lens, the more distant objects seem to get pushed into the distance.

You do not have this issue with a longer lens and capturing a panoramic shot.  In fact, I prefer capturing panoramic shots because of the increase details and resolution in the final result.

Just remember to rotate the lens to portrait mode to capture your images.  For that reason my lens of choice is an 70-200mm because of the tripod foot.  I’ve gone down the L-bracket rabbit hole and did not like it.

[justadude]

"I understood the question.  My response is the budget is too small.  You are not going to improve upon the 18-135mm for under $300 USD."

The original post said that they were looking at used lenses, and that's why I believe if they look around, they could find a good deal on a nice wide lens.

I do know many landscape photographers who share your preference for the 70-200mm for landscape work, and I agree fully on the points you make.  However, I fall into the other half of the group that has also been shooting mostly landscapes for more years than I want to admit, and I often prefer wide.  On APS-C my go to choice is the 10-20mm, and on full frame I'm often shooting landscapes with my 17-40mm.    If I'm shooting nighttime landscapes with the sky, then it's always my 14mm.  I think what might be a difference between you and I is that a lot of my landscape work is around the Great Lakes shorelines, (seascapes, lighthouses, etc.) where I don't have to worry about things being pushed into the distance.  Either that, or I'm shooting landscape where things in the foreground are just too close at 70mm.  Bottom line, It's a matter of the OP's shooting style.

"I’ve gone down the L-bracket rabbit hole and did not like it."

I found the L-brackets as cumbersome and in the way.  I'm guessing you felt the same.  The tripod foot on the 70-200mm is something I wish was incorporated into every lens.  Only in the perfect world, huh?  🙂

Nice Benro/Induro tripod!  I have the same style clips to adjust the leg angles on my Induro.  That's one of the features I really like!  I also have the same padded grip on only one leg (I know now many have it on three legs).  It seems in the winter I'm always grabbing it by one of the non-padded ice cold legs by mistake.  

[shadowsports]

🤔 I'd probably want the tripod too.  All good info here.  The 18-135 was one of my favorite EF-S lenses on my T6s.  I had the 10-18 also.  After taking my tripod to Alaska last summer, I realized the value.  Mine is under 3 lbs and is only rated to about 30lbs.  But it held my RF100-500 and R5 C no problem.   With a 10mm FL you do get about 30* wider FOV even with mag comparatively.  If you are going to stitch, 18 is plenty.  If single shots, the 10 will be wider by a small margin.  So armed with this info...  it's the OP's choice.  

[ebiggs1]

"You do not really need a wide angle or ultra-wide angle lens to capture wide landscape views."

This is so true. Landscape shots are determined by where you shoot from and what you are shooting not what name people associate with a certain FL. A 10mm FL is no more a landscape lens than a 200mm FL depending on the situation.

[MPBACK]

I would recommend a Canon EF-S, 10-18.  It has a plastic mount but it is pretty sharp and it's in the $300 range.

[justadude]

I had that EF-S 10-18mm back in the day.  That was a nice little lens for the price!