October 20, 2014, 02:18:27 PM

Author Topic: Landscape Lens advice  (Read 8026 times)

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Landscape Lens advice
« on: March 29, 2013, 11:07:05 AM »
Hi Guys

I m a hobbyist and my current gear is: Canon 5d2, canon 7D, 17-40 F4, Sigma 35 1.4 and 70-200 IS 2.8 II.

I m pleased with the results of the 17-40 for Landscapes, but it`s not stelar. I`m considering the Zeiss 21 2.8, any thoughts?

Thanks
João
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

canon rumors FORUM

Landscape Lens advice
« on: March 29, 2013, 11:07:05 AM »

willis

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2013, 01:11:15 PM »
Landscape lens, any wide angle like 14mm prime, 16-35mm, 17-40mm.
EOS 7D

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2013, 01:13:47 PM »
Why are you not pleased with the 17-40 results?

NWPhil

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • one eye; one shot - multiple misses
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2013, 01:16:37 PM »
- nothing wrong with the zeiss 21mm; really a great lens, but...

what's your prefered focal? look at your past pictures and get an idea of most used with the 17-40
It might be that 17 is the most used - then you might find yourself unhappy with just 21...you get the point

zoom or prime?
budget?
MF or AF?
to use on the FF body?
can you rent/borrow it?
Canon shooter, but anything goes as ammunition (L, non L, Zeiss, Leica, Rokinon,Sigma)

Schruminator

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm just kidding, seriously.
    • View Profile
    • M Schrum Photography
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2013, 01:18:39 PM »
For landscapes it's unlikely you'll need a wide aperture (unless you're shooting at night), so a f/1.4 or 2.8 isn't a must. 14L is the widest rectilinear lens Canon makes-- but sometimes I find it a bit too wide, making the composition difficult. the 16-35 is a favorite of many as well if you're wanting to stick with an L lens.

However, is there anything in particular you don't like about your 17-40? I don't know that the 16-35 or even the 14 will be a whole lot wider if that's what you're looking for.
5D III | 14 2.8 L | 24 1.4 II L | 35 1.4 L | 50 1.2 L | 85 1.2 II L | 24-70 2.8 II L | 70-200 2.8 IS II L | 40 2.8 | 1.4x Mk. II T.C. | M Schrum Photography

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2013, 01:31:21 PM »
14L just doesn't look or work right for landscape photography.  Plus it's too expensive and does too little.

If you REALLY want to go full-blast landscape, and are willing to put down the bucks, the 17-TS lens is probably the best, next to the 24-TS.  Then I'd go Zeiss 21mm.

If you don't want to lay down all that dough, then it'll be tough because even the 16-35L II is expensive, and in landscape wouldn't offer much over your 17-40 at f/8.

My opinion of course.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Policar

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2013, 01:43:23 PM »
Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2013, 01:43:23 PM »

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2013, 01:46:58 PM »
Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

I'm weird but I actuall like 100 or 135 :).
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Niterider

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2013, 01:53:08 PM »
I would go with the 24mm TS-E ii F/3.5 over the zeiss. You would be able to take so many pictures you wouldnt have been able to take before.

hsbn

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2013, 02:07:29 PM »
If you choose Zeiss lens, you don't mind manual focus then I would get a Nikon 14-24 F2.8 with adapter.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2013, 02:09:55 PM »
If you choose Zeiss lens, you don't mind manual focus then I would get a Nikon 14-24 F2.8 with adapter.

I think you'll lose a lot of sharpness/detail, which might be important for his type of landscape photography.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

joaopedroglm

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2013, 02:31:29 PM »
I normally shoot between the 17 and 24 range of focal. I don't mind MF because i normally do it on the 17-40. The main down with the TS lens are the filters, that i use a lot.

The 17-40 is good has i said, but the corners are not so fantastic. I thought the Zeiss because mainly because sharpness and IQ
Canon 5d2, Canon 70-200 2.8 II, Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE, Sigma 35 1.4, Fuji x100s

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2013, 02:35:57 PM »
Joaop...If you aren't shooting buildings or other things with straight lines, then the Zeiss 21mm is supposed to be fantastic.  I have not tried it, but have tried other Zeiss lenses, such as the 35 and 100 f/2.  Be prepared to compensate with a tad of negative exposure comensation, unless you like blown out highlights (you could try HTP, but that's not always the best thing to use).  Zeiss glass has a very wide dynamic range.  And you probably already know, but the 21mm has "mustache" distortion that is hard or almost impossible to correct.  I assume you aren't interested in going wider than 16 or 17mm?

I personally doubt you will prefer the Zeiss 21mm Distagon, over your 17-40L, given the price difference, and the fixed focal length.  Sure it will be better, but the results you will get, won't be indicative of the price difference, in my opinion.  If the price difference was a bit less, then I would probably say go for it. 

If you plan on even doing part of your landscape work in a city, then I would say either the 17 or 24mm tilt-shift lenses would be essential.  Also, if you plan on shooting mountains, from a location well below them, in a valley or something...a tilt-shift would come in handy there as well.  The same goes for if you are in a high location looking down on something.

You might also consider trying the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, since the cost is so low.  I bought the 85mm 1.4, and it is extremely sharp.  Its color and contrast are not "L" quality, but the sharpness is.  My copy at least, also has essentially no CA.  Of course there is no AF or aperture control via the camera body.  I have no idea how the 14mm would compare; I doubt it is as good, and costs more than the 85, but it's a bit less than any other wide angle lens...and certainly a lot less than any f/2.8 wide angle.

Or, if you are open to other longer focal lengths, I can attest that the Zeiss 35mm f/2, is fantastic.  I don't know how it compares to the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (for the money and the ability to AF, I would certainly buy the Sigma without hesitation...just based on what I have read and seen...and based on my experience with Sigma).  But the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is supposed to be a tad sharper than the Zeiss f/2.  I frankly don't know how you could tell on a (current) Canon full frame body, although you could certainly tell a difference, if there is much of one, on a D800.

I personally plan on getting the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, because it is optically superior in some aspects, to the 16-35 Canon, yet costs around half the price.  I also need f/2.8 for night photography.  If I didn't need f/2.8, I would have just been happy with the 17-40L like you have.  It is one of the best lens values offered by Canon, or anyone.     
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 03:06:42 PM by CarlTN »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2013, 02:35:57 PM »

Policar

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2013, 02:41:50 PM »
Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

I'm weird but I actuall like 100 or 135 :).

I do, too, but it's hard to get enough depth of field. Do you ever do focus stacking? I've been thinking about it. Lenses are so close to orthographic when zoomed in that a tilt/shift seems unnecessary if you do focus stacking.

I don't get why landscapes are so often associated with UWA lenses. I prefer much longer lenses for landscapes.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2013, 03:00:10 PM »
Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

I'm weird but I actuall like 100 or 135 :).

I do, too, but it's hard to get enough depth of field. Do you ever do focus stacking? I've been thinking about it. Lenses are so close to orthographic when zoomed in that a tilt/shift seems unnecessary if you do focus stacking.

I don't get why landscapes are so often associated with UWA lenses. I prefer much longer lenses for landscapes.

I agree with you.  And no, I don't focus stack yet.  Landscape photography is something I haven't really learned to do well yet, but something I'm going to try to learn this spring and summer.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Landscape Lens advice
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2013, 03:00:10 PM »