« on: October 10, 2014, 03:12:19 PM »
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).
I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.
You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...
I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).
However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.
Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.
yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....
Then he needs to come to terms with the unavoidable fact that life is a series of compromises, and always will be. He can use a Canon with native Canon lenses, he can use a Canon with third party lenses, he can use Canon lenses on third party bodies, he can use third party lenses on third party bodies, it isn't like he is stuck for choice, he just wants what isn't currently available and rather than acknowledge that and take the best option for him, he wants to make all our lives a misery.
But make no mistake, when he gets his D810 and 14-24 and Canon come out with a 50mp something and an 11-24 he will be on the Nikon forums making just as much noise, or Canon come out with the body he says he wants but not the lens, or the lens but not the body, he/we will never be offered the "best" of everything in a single package from a single manufacturer, that is just life, and constantly screaming that it isn't fair isn't achieving anything constructive.
Choose what is best for you and your image making from the options available, and we have more options now than ever before, don't see limitations in gear, there effectively aren't any, the only limitation is the one you set up yourself as a way of making excuses for your own short comings.