Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
- Thread starter scaptic
- Start date
My 2 cents worth....
As others have mentioned, from a landscape perspective, considering IS or AF isn't really the main issue, the Canon 24mm TS would be an excellent choice, with its great sharpness and ability to T/S. Closely followed by the Zeiss 21mm. I've rented the Zeiss 21mm before I bought the Zeiss 15mm and the 21mm had slightly better sharpness and contrast than the 15mm (I bought the 15mm mainly for astro/full sky shots). Plus, the Zeiss lenses have a hard infinity stop, which makes night shots really easy
As a "pan and stitch" lens, the 40mm pancake is superb when stopped to f4-5.6. A really under rated lens IMHO.
At the moment, my current "go to" lenses in my kit for landscape are the 40mm pancake (and stitch) or the Canon 24mm f1.4 II, which isn't the sharpest lens (wide open), but, stopped down, it does have a beaut contrast/colour about it.
As others have mentioned, from a landscape perspective, considering IS or AF isn't really the main issue, the Canon 24mm TS would be an excellent choice, with its great sharpness and ability to T/S. Closely followed by the Zeiss 21mm. I've rented the Zeiss 21mm before I bought the Zeiss 15mm and the 21mm had slightly better sharpness and contrast than the 15mm (I bought the 15mm mainly for astro/full sky shots). Plus, the Zeiss lenses have a hard infinity stop, which makes night shots really easy
As a "pan and stitch" lens, the 40mm pancake is superb when stopped to f4-5.6. A really under rated lens IMHO.
At the moment, my current "go to" lenses in my kit for landscape are the 40mm pancake (and stitch) or the Canon 24mm f1.4 II, which isn't the sharpest lens (wide open), but, stopped down, it does have a beaut contrast/colour about it.
Upvote
0
My own experience suggests the following Lenses, I can recommend them on the Basis I own them & use them.
Canon 17f/4 TSE II
Canon 24f/3.5 TSE II
Zeiss 21f/2.8 Distagon
Zeiss 15f/2.8 Distagon
All are Manual Focus, the TSE's give some latitude if you want to Photograph Architecture, if I'm heading off to do Landscape, these are the Lenses I throw in Bag.
Other Lenses I have & use for Landscape that are very good
Canon 24f/1.4 II (Very good for Landscape, not good for Night time star Imaging, quite bad Purple Fringing & Coma, I agree with CarlTN on this, I don't think the issue is relevant to my own Lens, it's an issue with the 24f1.4 II generally, but, not an issue if night time Imaging is not in your bag of tricks) The 24f/1.4 is also an excellent Underwater Lens (when used in a Housing of course : )
Canon 8-15f/4 @ 15 (also excellent underwater Lens, Housing rule applies)
Sigma 35f/1.4 Art
Canon 35f/1.4 (not quite as sharp as the Sigma Art 35 (in my experience), but slightly better Bokah)
Canon 17f/4 TSE II
Canon 24f/3.5 TSE II
Zeiss 21f/2.8 Distagon
Zeiss 15f/2.8 Distagon
All are Manual Focus, the TSE's give some latitude if you want to Photograph Architecture, if I'm heading off to do Landscape, these are the Lenses I throw in Bag.
Other Lenses I have & use for Landscape that are very good
Canon 24f/1.4 II (Very good for Landscape, not good for Night time star Imaging, quite bad Purple Fringing & Coma, I agree with CarlTN on this, I don't think the issue is relevant to my own Lens, it's an issue with the 24f1.4 II generally, but, not an issue if night time Imaging is not in your bag of tricks) The 24f/1.4 is also an excellent Underwater Lens (when used in a Housing of course :
)Canon 8-15f/4 @ 15 (also excellent underwater Lens, Housing rule applies)
Sigma 35f/1.4 Art
Canon 35f/1.4 (not quite as sharp as the Sigma Art 35 (in my experience), but slightly better Bokah)
Upvote
0
scaptic said:
+1 about those shots.
Interesting to see Sporgon and a few others saying very good things about the 24-70 f/4 (which, as Sporgon said, is inconsistent with most of the reviews out there). And the macro mode on it sounds like it could be fun too, even if the working distance is short. I think I might have to take a closer look at the 24-70 f/4 one of these days.
Upvote
0
To recapitulate some of the mentioned options:
First the Zoom lens options:
Canon 6D + Canon EF 24-105 f/4L
The Canon EF 24-70 f/4 kit is the clear winner for me in this comparison; being only a little more expensive as the 24-105 (The Sigma losing out on weight and cost).
Next the Prime lens options:
Canon 6D + Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS + Canon EF 35 f/2 IS
Anything over €3000 ($4200) is too much for me, leaving only the Canon IS primes option.
The Canon EF 24-70 f/4 L looks like the most flexible option, see if I can take one for a test drive…
First the Zoom lens options:
Canon 6D + Canon EF 24-105 f/4L
- Cost: €2199 ($3040)
- Weight: 1350gr
- Cost: €2299 ($3178)
- Weight: 1260gr
- Cost: €2358 ($3260)
- Weight: 1565gr
The Canon EF 24-70 f/4 kit is the clear winner for me in this comparison; being only a little more expensive as the 24-105 (The Sigma losing out on weight and cost).
Next the Prime lens options:
Canon 6D + Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS + Canon EF 35 f/2 IS
- Cost: €2675 ($3698)
- Weight: 1295gr
- Cost: €4237 ($5858)
- Weight: 1795gr
- Cost: €4125 ($5703)
Weight: 1945gr
Anything over €3000 ($4200) is too much for me, leaving only the Canon IS primes option.
The Canon EF 24-70 f/4 L looks like the most flexible option, see if I can take one for a test drive…
Upvote
0
yorgasor said:
I would agree. And the more I've heard or read from pro landscape photographers, they tend towards wide angle or telephoto and rarely the middle focal lengths in order to capture unique perspective on the landscapes they see. I've gone with a Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 and a 70-200/f4is. A big criteria for me is portability.
Upvote
0
Like Mr_Canuck I also have a Voigtlander 20mm manual focus lens, which is great for weight and seems to be sharp enough, and having hyperfocal distance markings is something that I definitely appreciate on this lens.
If you want very wide, the Samyang 14mm lens could be worth considering - I say considering, as I don't have one myself, so cannot recommend - however it appears to be particularly good for night shots with stars due to very low coma, and the shots in the lens gallery for it seem to more than justify its very low price...
If you want very wide, the Samyang 14mm lens could be worth considering - I say considering, as I don't have one myself, so cannot recommend - however it appears to be particularly good for night shots with stars due to very low coma, and the shots in the lens gallery for it seem to more than justify its very low price...
Upvote
0
Mr Bean said:My 2 cents worth....
As others have mentioned, from a landscape perspective, considering IS or AF isn't really the main issue, the Canon 24mm TS would be an excellent choice, with its great sharpness and ability to T/S. Closely followed by the Zeiss 21mm. I've rented the Zeiss 21mm before I bought the Zeiss 15mm and the 21mm had slightly better sharpness and contrast than the 15mm (I bought the 15mm mainly for astro/full sky shots). Plus, the Zeiss lenses have a hard infinity stop, which makes night shots really easy
As a "pan and stitch" lens, the 40mm pancake is superb when stopped to f4-5.6. A really under rated lens IMHO.
At the moment, my current "go to" lenses in my kit for landscape are the 40mm pancake (and stitch) or the Canon 24mm f1.4 II, which isn't the sharpest lens (wide open), but, stopped down, it does have a beaut contrast/colour about it.
I agree, although the Zeiss 21mm is really still the best overall lens for day or night wide angle shots (at least of nature). I would not rank the T/S 24mm higher than it, at least from what I have read, and given its slower aperture. However, if you ever do any sort of architectural wide angle, then it makes more sense to rank the T/S above the Zeiss. Also, your experience confirms what I've seen online as well...that the Zeiss 15mm is noticeably softer than the Zeiss 21mm. The 15mm actually also appears softer than the cheap 14mm Rokinon (at wide aperture). It just also has better color and contrast than the Rokinon. As Zeiss lenses go, the 15mm appears to be a poorer value than other Zeiss offerings, since it is not the sharpest EF-mount lens in the world at or around that focal length, yet still costs around $3000. At least with the new Otus 55mm, it still clearly is the sharpest of all lenses around its focal length, so the price is more justified, in my opinion.
Upvote
0
scottburgess said:
Fair point. I've only owned one Rokinon lens so far, the 85mm f/1.4. It held its value very well on the used market, and I lost very little when I sold it. But it definitely did not have good contrast. The resolution was ok, and the CA was not too bad. Certainly not a bad value for money (because it was so inexpensive). But it was a manual focus / aperture, so it was cumbersome to use...especially since I was only using the standard focusing screen, and this focal length is especially demanding of good manual focus technique, if the lens is manual. I'm still considering trying the 14mm f/2.8, though. From what I have seen, it might have the best overall image quality of all the Rokinon focal lengths. Both the 14mm and the 85mm, cost around half what their 24mm f/1.4 sells for, though, so to me it seems like a poor value...especially given photozone's review. Not saying people can't take good images with it, though.
Upvote
0
Looks like I’ve made my decision: It’s going to be the Canon 6D kit with the 24-70 f/4 L lens, just a matter of waiting on a good deal (Canon Cash-back, a good shop discount or both).
The 24-70 f/4 should be able to produce the results I’m after, but I’ll put aside the money I save so I can always “upgrade” to some prime lenses when needed (with or without selling off the 24-70 f/4).
Maybe in the long term save enough to get some Zeiss glass, but meanwhile the FF upgrade should keep me satisfied.
The 24-70 f/4 should be able to produce the results I’m after, but I’ll put aside the money I save so I can always “upgrade” to some prime lenses when needed (with or without selling off the 24-70 f/4).
Maybe in the long term save enough to get some Zeiss glass, but meanwhile the FF upgrade should keep me satisfied.
Upvote
0
scaptic said:
Good choice; we bought a 6D kit with 24-70 IS and the two go really well together. With this lens I think you'll find that any future purchase of a prime in the same focal length range would be for faster aperture.
Upvote
0
If the question is whether IS is useful for landscapes, the I would have to answer yes. Now obviously the best solution is to us a tripod and carefully set everything up, but in reality it is often the case that you do not have time to do that.
Having IS on my wide angle lens means that I can often hand hold exposures for 1/2 a second or longer allowing me to get smooth waterfalls and good depth of field at low ISOs. My work often takes me into the field, and I have a walking stick I mounted a tripod mount on that I use as a Monopod. Using IS and a monopod I am consistently getting good shots at 2 seconds exposure.
Having IS on my wide angle lens means that I can often hand hold exposures for 1/2 a second or longer allowing me to get smooth waterfalls and good depth of field at low ISOs. My work often takes me into the field, and I have a walking stick I mounted a tripod mount on that I use as a Monopod. Using IS and a monopod I am consistently getting good shots at 2 seconds exposure.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
