Please refer to topic of thread.dilbert said:
"Re: If you could only use one lens for landscape photography, which one and why?"
"are the best options for a single lens landscape system on full frame."
Upvote
0
If you could only use one lens for landscape photography, which one and why?
- Thread starter AlexB
- Start date
"Re: If you could only use one lens for landscape photography, which one and why?"
"are the best options for a single lens landscape system on full frame."
By default, my 'landscape' lens is my 10-22 as I'm still on APS-C but hopefully come November 2015, I'll have both a full frame and the 16-35 f/4.0!
I do have the 24-70 but no filters for it yet
For the record, my personal point of view is not to consider capturing a scene based on my lens's millimetres but rather to frame the scene in a way I find most compelling.
The beginning of 2014, I would never imagine capturing a landscape with a 70-200.
I do have the 24-70 but no filters for it yet
For the record, my personal point of view is not to consider capturing a scene based on my lens's millimetres but rather to frame the scene in a way I find most compelling.
The beginning of 2014, I would never imagine capturing a landscape with a 70-200.
Upvote
0
@Sporgon,Sporgon said:
Hoping to not offend the many excellent landscape photographers here, from what I've seen of your landscapes posted here, I rather consider that you've mastered the landscape genre.
With that in mind and along the theme of this thread, I'd like to know;
1) What "few lighter, high quality primes" make up your preferred landscape lens kit?
2) Is there one of that kit that gets predominantly more use than the others?
3) Is there one of that kit you'd choose as the only one if different from 2?
---
@Sporgon the 2nd comment, please, get thee to the Grand Canyon.
Of the many landscape and cityscape photos I've seen here that spark an interest and make me want to visit, the resent 'scapes of the Grand Canyon simply blew me away with the grandeur of the place.
I'd sure love to see what you might bring back from there.
---
edit...
What comprises the 5% you mention in your profile?
...edit
Upvote
0
For full frame my favorites would be the 16-35mm f/4L IS for zoom and the 17 TS-E. When not carrying a tripod the 16-35mm f/4L IS works wonders, getting very sharp images at 1/4s.
Upvote
0
tolusina said:
That's very kind of you.
I'm not suggesting that using primes produces better landscape pictures; the quality and versatility of a good zoom is undeniable. The trouble is I don't like a relatively large, heavy lens on a camera when I am roaming around the countryside on foot, but I do want speed and quality, so there is a conflict. I'm happy to carry a few light primes in lowepro cases on a belt.
Also I don't like ultra wide lenses because they make far away detail microscopic, and although the light passing through them is very dense - bright - there is a low amount of volume. If my landscape pictures do have an edge it is probably that many of them are ultra wide angle but not shot on a wide angle lens, because they are stitches, so my prime landscape lenses are 135, 50, 40, and 28. Nothing wider. Of these I would say that the most commonly used are 50 and 40, followed by 28 followed by 135. I have an 85 but have never produced a panoramic with it.
However a lot of my panos have been shot with the 24-105L, using it at 28 to 60 off the top of my head, but the distortion at the wider end and longer nodal point can lead to problems that lead to more work. Again this is why I favour shorter primes; no distortion and you don't need a panoramic head as much for difficult to stitch scenes. The 24-105L is not a lens I would recommend as a single frame shooting landscape lens because it is weak at 24 - 30 region. the 24-70 f4 IS is much better here. The 24-70 f2.8II better still.
Does one get used the most ? Yes, and its the cheapest of the lot, the 40mm pancake ! I love the way the camera handles with this lens on it but I don't love the fact it has no focus scale.
If I didn't have the 40 then I'd most probably be using the 50/1.4. If I didn't already have the 40 I would almost certainly have got the 35/2 IS to compliment the 28/2.8 IS.
If I was shooting single frame landscapes then I would almost certainly be using the 24 TS-E in the mix. In fact I'm going to rent one of these shortly and do some back to back shooting comparisons between this lens and a vertical three frame 1.5 x 1 'pano' shot on the 40. A 40 mil in portrait has roughly the same vertical field of view as a 24 mil in landscape format. The advantage of the TS-E is that you can reduce the lower light volume by using a wider aperture and tilting, but I will be interested to see if i can see a difference at normal viewing sizes. If there is a difference it wont be the 50 mp of the stitch, it will be the larger format giving it the edge.
One day I will get out to the Grand Canyon, but I am just so flat out busy it is difficult to get away for long.
The 5% ? Well I have loads of gear that never gets used. In fact I'm having a clean out, so my little personal slogan may not be accurate soon. 95% of the time I am shooting with 5DII + 40 or 50. Loads of other gear, some that never get used: 300/4L, 100L, 100-400L, battery grip, 50 macro, 200/2.8L to name a few !
Upvote
0
To the OP, I deliberately went through the same exercise prior to a trip last year given the airline I was traveling on was enforcing a strict 7kg cabin luggage limit. When I analysed my landscapes in the last few years, it was 50/50 with the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 and the 24mm TSE f3.5L II. I went with the 24mm TSE and a Zoerk Rear shift adaptor so I could shift pano easily to go wider if needed. I still love the perspective you get with UW like the Zeiss 15mm, but the 24mm TSE is so versatile. I managed to get under the 7kg limit with 1dx / 24mm TSE / various acessories & filters /RRS TVC-24 and BH-40 head.
Upvote
0
Outside of when I'm traveling I do little landscape photography, but when I travel I use the 17-40L for this. It's relatively affordable, compact, lightweight, weather sealed and with a modified EW-83H hood (trimmed side petals) I am able to use the same hood on both this and the 24-105L. For handling on a gripless 5D III, this lens is my favorite with that modified hood and it's great for adverse (dusty) conditions because the lens does not extend.
I suppose the new 16-35 f/4L has higher resolution but I use my 17-40L mostly at f/8 anyway. I would loose a lot of convenience if I were to trade in my 17-40 for this.
I suppose the new 16-35 f/4L has higher resolution but I use my 17-40L mostly at f/8 anyway. I would loose a lot of convenience if I were to trade in my 17-40 for this.
Upvote
0
I don't think it's easy or even possible to answer your question - it suggests that all landscapes are the same sort of thing and/or that one wants to achieve the same sort of effect in all of them. It makes a difference whether you're at the bottom of a narrow canyon, on a lake surrounded by mountains, in an urban park, in gently undulating terrain, on a flat prairie, etc., and what you want to do with what you see. Wide angle primes/zooms seem to be the default answer, but for my taste anyway I tend to think they're overused (partly for the reasons given by Sporgon).
Upvote
0
16-34 f4 IS for me. Since I seem to use that lens 95% of the time when taking landscapes anyway it seems like an obvious choice. YMMV.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
is that so...wow.
That lens could be next on my list, it depends...so I appreciate the info.
Anyway, I'd have to join the chorus and say the 16-35 f/4 IS, although a close 2nd would be the 24-70 f/4. (Have the 24-105 as well, but it distorts too much at 24 to be the best choice.) Don't always need the ultra-wide perspective, although it's cool to play with the optical effects of a UWA sometimes (like making buildings look taller than they really are, etc.).
Upvote
0
Act444 said:
Yep, from an image point of view they are identical, the optical formula is the same, the aperture is the same and the focus is the same, as is the closest focus distance. The body is slightly different but that is really because the MkI has the built in metal hood and the MkII had a separate, and longer, plastic hood. Oh, the MkII can take the tripod ring of the 80-200 f2.8, the ancient black zoom lens that preceded the white 70-200's, whereas the MkI couldn't.
Upvote
0
A choice of two, take images and stitch like crazy...
1. Hartblei 80/2.8 super rotator
2. Zeiss ZE or ZF.2 50/2 Makro
Both are superbly sharp and easily out-resolve my 5D2. The Hartblei also offers tilt-shift capability.
1. Hartblei 80/2.8 super rotator
2. Zeiss ZE or ZF.2 50/2 Makro
Both are superbly sharp and easily out-resolve my 5D2. The Hartblei also offers tilt-shift capability.
Upvote
0
