Originally posted by boone Is 16-45mm wide enough to get good lanscape photos?
This depends, not only on personal preference (as others have mentioned), but on what kind of landscape you're shooting. If you're shooting among high, towering mountains or narrow, deep canyons, being able to go wider than 16mm can be immeasurably convenient. That said, you could probably get by with the 16-45 in most situations.
Another consideration to keep in mind is the alternatives to 16-45, and what they present in terms of trade-offs. To go wider than 16-45 means either getting an ultra-wide prime lens (15mm or 14mm) or an ultra wide zoom (12-24, 10-24, 10-20, 8-16). To go wider, you have to sacrifice the longer end of the focal range. So what's more important: to go wider than 16mm, or longer than 24mm (or 20mm)? The 16-45 may be the best one lens solution for landscape shooting under $700.