Question for landscapers

[jrvvn]

Hi,

I have a question for landscapers.

Consider that I own only 16-35mm and as hobby shooter (no income from photography) the budget is limited.
In the most recent experience, shooting The Dark Hedges, I found out owning only 16-35mm was not enough, I couldn't get a good composition at all with wide open lens on that spot.
Which would you choose as your next lens: 24-70 or 70-200?

Many thanks.

url picture

 

[steepjay]

70-200 and if you don't have it already, some form of 50mm lens (in the used market, this is a very cost effective addition to the camera bag).

Canon hasn't really made a bad 70-200 in my recollection, but if you're on a budget, the f4 IS model is a superb lens, and the non-IS model is excellent as well. If you can find the money, and of the IS 2.8 models is a good buy.

 

[ethanz]

I had a question for my landscapers this morning: when are you coming to mow my yard!

I think you wanted to know something else though. I agree with steepjay, a 70-200 is a good landscape lens. I own the f2.8 IS II and its excellent. I recently traveled with the 70-200 f4 IS and its really nice as well. Still good IQ but a lot less weight than the f2.8. And it is really cheap, less than a $1,000.

 

[Random Orbits]

Hi,

I have a question for landscapers.

Consider that I own only 16-35mm and as hobby shooter (no income from photography) the budget is limited.
In the most recent experience, shooting The Dark Hedges, I found out owning only 16-35mm was not enough, I couldn't get a good composition at all with wide open lens on that spot.
Which would you choose as your next lens: 24-70 or 70-200?

Many thanks.

Why was it not enough? Were you shooting it at the widest aperture or stopping down? For landscapes, it's typical to stop down to extend the depth of field. It seems like the 16-35 would work well for the dark hedges... if google search is showing what you meant accurately.

If you are finding that you need to get closer but can't to achieve the framing you want then a longer focal length might solve the problem. 24-70 and a 70-200 are both good ranges, but it really comes down what your subject is. However, there are a lot more affordable options in the mid-range (24-70) than the telephoto, so it might make sense to to get an inexpensive 50mm prime and pair it with a 70-200. Stitching is also another option.

 

[dak723]

Without question, the 24-70 (although I would consider the 24-105 a better overall option due to the extended range). But it depends on what you shoot. Probably between 80-90% of my landscape shots fall between 24 and 70. In fact, the vast majority probably fall between 35 and 70, so I would not want to have that gap between lenses.

 

[Hector1970]

Wow - slightly odd question.
In the end you probably need both.
The three would be a great combination.
24-70 and 70-200 are a natural combination.
Picking one over the other is difficult so it depends on what you are doing.
24-70 if its landscapes you are doing, 70-200mm for sport portraits etc.
I'm very impressed with the 24-70 II 2.8 but it was expensive.
The 70-200mm F2.8 II is a great lens.

24-70 F4 and 70-200mm F4 are another great combination - much much lighter

 

[privatebydesign]

TS-E50 and take pleasure in learning how to use it. Nothing improves landscapes more than skillful use of tilt and judicious use of shift.

Then get a 1.4TC so you ave a 70mm TS-E too.

 

[BillB]

I would get the 70-200 first. There would be a hole between 35 and 70, but to some extent the hole can be covered by zooming with your feet and cropping. More than the 24-70, the 70-200 would open up a different world from the 16-35 for landscapes as well as for other purposes. I have the 16-35, the 70-200 and the 24-105, and I use the 24-105 least of the three lenses, and rarely have it with me

 

[jrvvn]

I'm at work, don't have the pictures with me.
I've found some pictures on the internet that sums up quite well the situation.
Take a look.


url picture

 

[Bennymiata]

I think that jrvvn is really asking about is object "compression", that is making objects like these trees look like they are almost on top of each other.
The longer the focal length of the lens, the more it seems to bring far away objects closer to you and with groups of more or less evenly spaced objects, the longer the lens, the objects will look closer together.

The 24-105 L is a great lens to have and is very useful for a lot of scenarios, and the 70-200 is also an excellent lens and will give you more compression than the shorter lenses.

 

[jrvvn]

I think that jrvvn is really asking about is object "compression", that is making objects like these trees look like they are almost on top of each other.
The longer the focal length of the lens, the more it seems to bring far away objects closer to you and with groups of more or less evenly spaced objects, the longer the lens, the objects will look closer together.

The 24-105 L is a great lens to have and is very useful for a lot of scenarios, and the 70-200 is also an excellent lens and will give you more compression than the shorter lenses.

Maybe that's the correct word for what I'm looking for and this experince really changed my vision.
Just don't want to make a wrong step, as I mentioned before I get 0 income from photography and lenses are expensive. If 24-70 would be enough for sure I would go for this one since it is very versatile and all the pennies I throw in I will use them and well, on the other hand 70-200 I have serious doubts, I'm afraid most of the time the lens will stay in the bag and not used.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ethanz]

I do not think you would get the results on the far right with a 24-70. You would certainly get it from a 70-200.

 

[LDS]

Just don't want to make a wrong step, as I mentioned before I get 0 income from photography and lenses are expensive. If 24-70 would be enough for sure I would go for this one since it is very versatile and all the pennies I throw in I will use them and well, on the other hand 70-200 I have serious doubts, I'm afraid most of the time the lens will stay in the bag and not used.

That depends on your shooting style and subjects - if you need a telephoto just for this subject, yes, there a risk the lens will stay in the bag or at home.

The 24-70 is a good all-around lens when need one lens only, but it risks also to stay often in the bag when other lenses are available, and won't give you a real "tele" effect, you'd need 200mm or more.

You may look at the photos you'd like to take where the effective focal length is displayed also - it will give you an idea about what lenses you need. You may be tempted by a single image, but realize it's really a one-off for which isn't sensible to invest a lot of money in it. Borrowing or renting a lens may be a solution.

Anyway, if decide to buy one, you may save not a little going for the f/4 versions - if your main subject are landscapes you'll very rarely use large apertures, and the f/4 are also lighter to carry around, if you need to walk a lot to reach your subjects.

If you need to shoot without a tripod, an IS lens will also help you to shoot with smaller apertures without upping up ISO too much in many situations.

You may also opt for a fixed focal tele instead of a zoom, it may cost less, sure, less versatile, but if used less frequently it may not be a big issue.

Check also non-Canon lenses, they may cost less as well - they may be a little less performant, but again, stopped down usually this is far less visible (even to pixel peepers), and, after all you have to buy what you can afford, and avoid spending a lot of money on what may see little use.

 

[Hector1970]

If you buy either lens they won't stay in your bag as they will take your photography to a whole new level.
People will never look so good as they will with a 70-200 2.8 II (or even III soon).
It's very good for that compression you are looking at.
24-70 2.8 II is also a remarkable lens but that compression effect won't be as significant but it is a brilliant all round lens.
If cost is a big consideration look at second hand or the F4 versions of both which are also really good and alot lighter.

 

[geekpower]

the best landscape photography is not documentary, it is expressionist. you want the photos to express the feeling of the place, not the exact appearance. therefore, a 16-35 and a 70-200 is an ideal combo, because both perspectives can exaggerate the parts of the frame that are important while minimizing the parts that aren't.

this is not to say that there aren't good landscape photos taken with standard length lenses, but i would say it's much more challenging.

 

[timmy_650]

I really like the 24-105 for landscapes. But it matter what type of photos and time you have. I use to carry 17-35mm, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200 f4 and sometimes 8-15mm. That was great but I was in good shape and unmarried. Now I am married and have a kid and not in as good shape. So Now I carry 24-105 and 17-35mm or a wide prime, on most of my adventures. I have a hard time not recommending 24-105 bc of the price you can find it and the quaily you get out of it.

 

[Mikehit]

Also bear in mind that perspective is a factor of distance from the object, not focal length. So if, the photos that jrvvn posted, you stood in position for the third photo and took the image using the 16-35 and the 70-200, then you could crop the 16-35 image to identical content of the 70-200 image. Of course, this all depends on how much you need to crop and how you intend to view the final image as to whether the image is good enough quality for you.

I didn't realise that the dark hedges was such a non-event other than as a photographic Mecca to take an image that you would not really see in real life.

 

[Sporgon]

I didn't realise that the dark hedges was such a non-event other than as a photographic Mecca to take an image that you would not really see in real life.

Yes indeed, the images prove that the camera doesn't just bend the truth a little, it can completely distort reality, and makes a mockery of so much of the much debated 'ethics' of photography, where images are damned for being 'retouched' or altered after the capture, when focal length can alter the image just as much, as does altering the response curve. How often do we go a place and think "it's so small" compared with what you saw in a picture, or much less dramatic as in the Dark Hedges. Glen Affric in Scotland is another one where most of the iconic images are taken with a 200mm lens.

So surely the answer to the OP is get a 70-200, or a 70-300 etc. Can't see why people are suggesting a 24-70 given the context of the thread.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes once the specific requirement was pointed out with an illustration the 70-300 became the most obvious tool.

I have kept my laptop off limits while all this talk of 'compression' has been going on, at least I didn't have to be the one to point out, yet again, there is no such thing, it's just perspective, and then choose your framing.

 

[Eclectik]

Yes, everything is a matter of perspective (the viewpoint you choose), but this is really cumbersome to simulate a 16-35 with a 70-200, and conversely... I find easier to use the 70-200 to shoot landscape. Photos are more "quiet", image is easier to compose (less disturbing elements). Pictures with UWA are often more striking, but a tele lens gives priority to background, rather than to foreground. Background does matter, in landscape.
A 70-200 is my easy second choice. Well, as always, a matter of taste...