Landscape Photo's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Tazdog.
Just my 2 Cents Opinion, Your 16-35mm. L MK II is already wonderful for Landscape Photography, As long as set F = 5.6 to F= 10.0 ( the Sweet spot F = 8.0) that you will get all sharp / Max. DOF.---But Not try to open MAX. at 2.8, That will be not sharp at the corners of the picture. I use Canon EF 17-40 mm F/ 4.0 L USM almost 10 years and still love this Cheap " L " baby ( you can see the Photos Below), Yes, Most of The " PRO" tell me that If I want to get the Best of Wide Angle Canon Lens that Total sharp from F = 3.5 and All range, I must get Canon TS-E 24 MM. F= 3.5, L MK II, Tilt and Shift Lens, And That will add so many Functions that Normal Wide Angle Lens ca not do. Yes, I agree with the PRO, But Learning Curve are take me too long in leaning/ how to use this Great Lens. BUT, I keep on trying.
Nice to talk with you.
Surapon
 

Attachments

  • OTR-2.jpg
    OTR-2.jpg
    114.7 KB · Views: 940
  • OTR-27.jpg
    OTR-27.jpg
    129.1 KB · Views: 958
  • OTR-28.jpg
    OTR-28.jpg
    105.5 KB · Views: 921
  • OTR-29.jpg
    OTR-29.jpg
    112.2 KB · Views: 967
Upvote 0
Hi,
use the lens you already have for the landscape pictures. The 16-35 is a pretty good lens for this job. More important than the lens is patience and a good composition. Patience is needed to find the right location and wait for good light.

BTW, some grad ND filters and a pol filter are much more helpful in landscape photography than the best lens. Really useful is also a tripod with a ball head and maybe a panorama plate on top. It slows you down but helps a lot to fine tune the composition of your photo.

If you are really serious about landscape photography, get the TS-E 24 L II. It's a great lens and probably the best 24mm lens for a Canon camera available. The difference to the 16-35 is easily noticeable in the corners. But the pol filter, grad nd filters, tripod and ball head are much more useful and should be bought first. The lens alone doesn't make great pictures.

Best regards,
Robert
 
Upvote 0
tazdog said:
I have the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, will this be fine for doing landscape images? Or should I look at a prime lens and which one?

8857066803_80980fa4b6_b.jpg


stop it down to 5.6+ and it'll do just fine. get a zeiss if want to shoot landscapes wide open... although i can't recall the last time i used 2.8 for landscapes...
 
Upvote 0
RobertG. said:
Hi,
use the lens you already have for the landscape pictures. The 16-35 is a pretty good lens for this job. More important than the lens is patience and a good composition. Patience is needed to find the right location and wait for good light.

BTW, some grad ND filters and a pol filter are much more helpful in landscape photography than the best lens. Really useful is also a tripod with a ball head and maybe a panorama plate on top. It slows you down but helps a lot to fine tune the composition of your photo.

If you are really serious about landscape photography, get the TS-E 24 L II. It's a great lens and probably the best 24mm lens for a Canon camera available. The difference to the 16-35 is easily noticeable in the corners. But the pol filter, grad nd filters, tripod and ball head are much more useful and should be bought first. The lens alone doesn't make great pictures.

Best regards,
Robert


Yes, I agree wit Mr. RobertG 250% " If you are really serious about landscape photography, get the TS-E 24 L II. It's a great lens and probably the best 24mm lens for a Canon camera available. "---Yes, I have The Lenses from 8mm. to 600 mm, And this Baby is on one of my Full frame camera all the times.
Thanks , Dear RobertG.
Surapon
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.