Landscape-Focal lengt?

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
A three-week trip will be expensive enough so buying another rig will add even more. So you need to define first what it is you are after.

If you are wanting to take quality pictures as a memory of your holiday then the kit you have is pretty good.
If this trip is an opportunity to take those amazing high quality images you always dreampt of taking then maybe the expense is worth it. Will your wife wait patiently while you are taking them (mine would, but only up to a point)?

The fact your asking the question makes me think it is the first one.
I searched for '7D2 landscape' on Flickr and this is what I got:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=7d2%20landscape

This one was shot with at 70-200 (probably stitched) - this is not mine but is from the Flickr page above

https://www.flickr.com/photos/theboyfast/21123653954/in/photolist-ybCfof-pEbkZ5-q4LdjB-pSkpVm-HTqFjx-Cv5CTU-J5tRxU-q9RFvx-peuL8e-r6EBXC-r94bth-JAPCXK-rcuR25-G45UeN-qbErB2-rbcMD4-qH5Nve-CarC1V-qZL2p2-q9AGyY-reJD7K-sqD3W1-qFPQ7p-reTf2T-nh9fy9-qBZVug-rkcNnx-qTTS1R-Gy2GX2-rbmErp-qDgGLY-FCgFBJ-ARLeFo-J8K4DE-sj66FD-BpGwds-q5PUPe-qrb3xU-rzmHJz-rhjcSk-qKpQYq-rvVtUw-tmp65s-DuXhg2-zTEFS7-FxwfW7-GVF1oj-Jgnf1x-CBxeqo-vy9F3U


Can you routinely beat these for quality? If not the maybe you do not need the 6D and instead, if you do not have one already, buy a good mid-range zoom as suggested.

As I mentioned above I have the 6D with the 24-105 and I have been finding that the 24-105 on my 7D2 makes an excellent 'round town' for portraits and short telephoto and you can have the 17-50 in your bag for anything wider.
 

chauncey

EOS RP
Jun 5, 2011
564
1
Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
What's your skillset?
Are you a "work the shot" kinda photographer who prints or a snapshooter for social media?
Three weeks isn't long enough for the former.

IMHO...if you're adept at PS, the best all-around lens for any body is a 185 macro...
merge them for landscapes.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Steve Dmark2 said:
Hello colleagues,

Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.

I want to prepare for landscape photography.
Just a few thoughts:

For bigger / longer trips, especially when it's to take pictures in a realm of photography you don't shoot often, it's best to rent gear and not buy it. If I'm a lifelong street photographer and I go on safari in Africa, I'm not going to buy a 500 f/4L IS II -- I'd rent one.

But I'd echo other comments here. Basic landscape kit if you just own a camera and a wildlife lens:

Must: Ultra-wide zoom lens (on your 7D2, something like a 10-something lens: EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, etc.) is a staple choice, but you can also take terrific landscapes with longer lenses. Not knowing your itinerary, and knowing how we set up our parks to get as close as possible to 'the big view' (Grand Canyon, Zion, etc.) you will find that you can only 'back your feet up' so much and an ultra-wide will be needed at some point.

Must: Circular polarizer to tame bright skies and turn down reflections on water

Strongly recommended: Tripod (you can get by without one in good light, but you won't be able to take long exposures for waterfalls, shoot at low ISO at sunrise/sunset, shoot the stars, etc.)

Recommended: Cable release -- a shutter button on a cable that won't rock the camera. You can get by without one by using the 2 second timer on your camera as well.

Note that full-frame camera is nowhere on that list. FF helps all forms of photography, but beginning landscape work won't make your pictures that much better unless you get a high resolution rig like a 5DS R. I'd recommend you get better at landscapes with your 7D2 (a fine camera) and if you 'catch the bug' and start to love landscapes, you'll see why some folks love their FF rigs.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Mikehit said:
dak723 said:
I wouldn't bother with any filters.
DSLRs make it easy to do exposure bracketing which you can then combine in post processing but the one filter that photoshop cannot replicate is the polarising filter. If the glare burns out detail on wet surfaces or glass, you cannot recover it in post processing.
+1. CPLs are gold.

I would say you can pull some bright sky tricks in PS (lower highlights, lower blue luminance) to darken a blue sky, but (a) the sky can't already be blown out at time of shot and (b) you have to be gentle with these or it looks terribly artificial.

But for glare, reflections, etc. you simply can't back that out without some optical help.

- A
 

hbr

EOS RP
Oct 22, 2016
326
0
A lot of good advice here and most of us are somewhat in close agreement. Most of the advice though has been about landscapes only. Steve also said that he likes to photograph wildlife, so that is why I also recommend a 70-200 mm f/2.8L USM with a 1.4X teleconverter. Although it will add quite a bit of weight to his bag, this combo will at least insure some good wildlife shots for those animals that are not right next to the road and birds, especially if he goes to one of our beaches either in Florida or California. For the current price of a 6D he could pick up the original 70-200 mm f/2.8L USm which I find to be plenty sharp enough. He could also go with the f/4 model which would be lighter, but with a teleconverter it would take him to f/5.6. My 7D II is quite noisy at f/5.6. I also recommended the "nifty fifty" as it is so light and so inexpensive and it would give him a little more light for evening shots.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,693
921
candc said:
17-50 is a normal zoom on a crop body. If you are doing a lot of landscapes you will likely want wider. I would get a canon 10-18 or a sigma 8-16 to go with it.
+1 I was about to suggest that and then I saw it has been done already. That canon 10-18 is the best value for money uwa zoom lens.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
tron said:
candc said:
17-50 is a normal zoom on a crop body. If you are doing a lot of landscapes you will likely want wider. I would get a canon 10-18 or a sigma 8-16 to go with it.
+1 I was about to suggest that and then I saw it has been done already. That canon 10-18 is the best value for money uwa zoom lens.
I disagree. 17-50 (equivalent 24-80 on a 6D) is a zoom covering wide angle to normal.
Up until the early 2000s 24mm (on full frame) was as wide an angle as many people could afford and not long before that, 24mm was a luxury. For decades before that it was 35mm lenses that were producing stunning 'wide angle' scenic shots.

I have spoken to several people (including some landscape professionals) who bought these ultra wide-angles then sold it when they found they hardly used it because of compositional limitations. I agree that some people love these lenses but when you are wanting to get 'bang for the buck' it seems quite a few people don't think these lenses deliver.

I am not saying he shouldn't buy one, just to be aware that they are not the panacea some people make out. If the OP wants to buy one I would strongly suggest buying second hand because if (and it is an 'if') they want to sell it he will lose little on the resale.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,693
921
Mikehit said:
tron said:
candc said:
17-50 is a normal zoom on a crop body. If you are doing a lot of landscapes you will likely want wider. I would get a canon 10-18 or a sigma 8-16 to go with it.
+1 I was about to suggest that and then I saw it has been done already. That canon 10-18 is the best value for money uwa zoom lens.
I disagree. 17-50 (equivalent 24-80 on a 6D) is a zoom covering wide angle to normal.
Up until the early 2000s 24mm (on full frame) was as wide an angle as many people could afford and not long before that, 24mm was a luxury. For decades before that it was 35mm lenses that were producing stunning 'wide angle' scenic shots.

I have spoken to several people (including some landscape professionals) who bought these ultra wide-angles then sold it when they found they hardly used it because of compositional limitations. I agree that some people love these lenses but when you are wanting to get 'bang for the buck' it seems quite a few people don't think these lenses deliver.

I am not saying he shouldn't buy one, just to be aware that they are not the panacea some people make out. If the OP wants to buy one I would strongly suggest buying second hand because if (and it is an 'if') they want to sell it he will lose little on the resale.
I didn't say to replace 17-50 with it. It is very cheap to be bought and very small and light be carried with as an additional lens...
 

Duckman

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 5, 2013
56
0
37
USA
  • Steve Dmark2 said:
    Hello colleagues,

    Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
    Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.

    I want to prepare for landscape photography. I got two questions at the moment:

    [list type=decimal]
    [*]What focal length do you use for landscape? I got a 17-50 EX 2.8 sigma on my 7Dmk2. (27-80mm equivalent)
    [*]I don't want to spend any extra money. Is the 1000€ worth the IQ/DR upgrade to a 6D considering i also have to buy a full frame lens? Or is the improvement much bigger when i buy 2-3 ND filters + polarizer?
Steve Dmark2 said:
Thank you guys.[/list]
If nothing else I think purchasing ND + CPL filters is money best spent. Consider purchasing largest filter thread you own (or largest you will own in the future) and using step down rings to fit other lenses like the sigma. Buy quality filters.

Ultra wide angle lenses can give a very unique perspective but they can be difficult sometimes at times to find a pleasing composition. Consider renting one for the trip if purchasing is out.

Don't forget a tripod.
Enjoy your trip!
-J
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Mikehit said:
I disagree. 17-50 (equivalent 24-80 on a 6D) is a zoom covering wide angle to normal.
You might want to check your math. 17mm on a Canon crop is not a 24mm FOV. 15mm on Canon crop is 24mm on FF.

I don't mean to split hairs so much as make a point: 15mm crop / 24mm FF is a really satisfying inflection point for framing. Crop standard zooms like 18-55s or 17-50s tend to make me wish they went just a couple mm wider, whereas my two 24-70s on my 5D3 just feel perfect on that wide end. It also lets a standard zoom very capably serve a landscape need when you are bag-size/gear limited when you travel.

- A
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
Fair point. I was just challenging the idea that 17-55 is not a wide angle and is a 'standard' zoom. As I say, I travelled extensively with a 28mm lens and never felt I wanted anything wider, and the images I got still please me immensely.
UWAs are not 'cheap', and even renting for 3 weeks is not cheap. I just think that if money is tight, the money can be better spent.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Mikehit said:
Fair point. I was just challenging the idea that 17-55 is not a wide angle and is a 'standard' zoom. As I say, I travelled extensively with a 28mm lens and never felt I wanted anything wider, and the images I got still please me immensely.
UWAs are not 'cheap', and even renting for 3 weeks is not cheap. I just think that if money is tight, the money can be better spent.
Ah. 100% fair.

I still think a 28 FF prime (or the 18 end of a crop kit zoom) -- a FL I am personally very fond of -- would comically underpeg some of the National Parks' most signature vistas.

You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, but some should be, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.

- A
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
ahsanford said:
You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, but some should be, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.

- A
There comes a point where I take the view something is so awesome I haven't got a cat in hell's chance of capturing it in one shot so why even bother :p
Subsidiary to that is 'how often do I need to' - and when I do, 'on those few occasions, can I stitch it'.
 

geekpower

EOS 90D
Feb 22, 2015
187
0
some people say that in order to capture the "feeling" of a landscape, it's best to use a focal length that exaggerates the perspective one way or the other (ie, use other a wide angle, or a telephoto), and that standard perspective landscapes tend to be boring and not communicate the awe that one would experience actually being there. you will find a lot of landscapers who use a 16-35 and a 70-200 and don't bother with anything in between.

if you do want to shoot standard focal lengths, in my opinion, filters become very important because they can add to the "boring" perspective by creating motion in clouds and water, reducing glare, and helping colors pop (especially blue skies).
 

bholliman

EOS R
Dec 6, 2012
1,473
0
USA
www.flickr.com
Mikehit said:
Fair point. I was just challenging the idea that 17-55 is not a wide angle and is a 'standard' zoom. As I say, I travelled extensively with a 28mm lens and never felt I wanted anything wider, and the images I got still please me immensely.
UWAs are not 'cheap', and even renting for 3 weeks is not cheap. I just think that if money is tight, the money can be better spent.
Common usage is that 24-70mm+ full frame equivalent is "standard" zoom and zooms under 24mm fall into the UWA zoom range. Not sure if that is right or wrong, it however is generally accepted terminology.

Personally, I find great value in wider-than-24mm focal lengths for landscape photography. I do the majority of my landscape work between 16 and 35mm, but certainly do some at longer focal lengths as well.

I agree renting isn't cheap. I've had good success buying used lenses for specific trips and reselling them when I get back. I generally lose a little in the exchange, but its always less than what it would have cost to rent.
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
827
189
Mikehit said:
ahsanford said:
You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, but some should be, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.

- A
There comes a point where I take the view something is so awesome I haven't got a cat in hell's chance of capturing it in one shot so why even bother :p
Subsidiary to that is 'how often do I need to' - and when I do, 'on those few occasions, can I stitch it'.
That about sums up what goes through my mind every time I start to feel like I "need" a 16-35 ... haven't cracked yet, but I fear it's probably only a matter of time ...
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,693
921
jd7 said:
Mikehit said:
ahsanford said:
You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, but some should be, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.

- A
There comes a point where I take the view something is so awesome I haven't got a cat in hell's chance of capturing it in one shot so why even bother :p
Subsidiary to that is 'how often do I need to' - and when I do, 'on those few occasions, can I stitch it'.
That about sums up what goes through my mind every time I start to feel like I "need" a 16-35 ... haven't cracked yet, but I fear it's probably only a matter of time ...
I have been in an birders excursion recently. The best shots were with my ... 16-35. I coulnd't help it. The scenery was fantastic.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,313
502
tron said:
I have been in an birders excursion recently. The best shots were with my ... 16-35. I coulnd't help it. The scenery was fantastic.
;D
You rebel, you
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,693
921
Mikehit said:
tron said:
I have been in an birders excursion recently. The best shots were with my ... 16-35. I coulnd't help it. The scenery was fantastic.
;D
You rebel, you
This was a birders not a photographers group so appart from some exceptions most of which were shot during the birders lunch the landscape was by far the best. That and some butterflies and a mantis...
 

Steve Dmark2

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 30, 2016
92
21
32
Germany
Hello Guys,

I am stunned by the number of your helpfull replies :eek:
Thank you very very much!
This is what I want to do.

[list type=decimal]
[*]I want to go practising on Saturday with my current kit. 7Dmk2, 17-50 Sigma and my old Canon zoom 90-300 4.5-5.6 USM from my EOS 300V ;)
I know between 50 and 90 is a gap, but i can crop there a little bit.
[*]Comming down with that practise i gonna decide, wether i will order also the 10-18 STM.
[*]What i got is a solid tripod. I order for sure: A set of three ND filter. (because i also want to film a little bit.)
A infra-red remote release, a step down ring from 77mm to 58mm and a circular polarizer filter.
[/list]

Thanks again for your support. I will share results with you second half of next year! :)

Cheers,

Steve