Lens choices for landscapes - too much choice!!

[Larsskv]

Thank you all for your input.
I am tempted by the 16-35 and to hear all the good comments about it makes it more tempting. I am thinking the 16-35 with the 70-200 as an ideal pairing and forget the gap. I have the 50mm plastic fantastic for anything in between.

I can see a lot of fun experimentation in the next 6 months...tough life, eh? ;D

Scrolling through the posts, I was just going to suggest that combination.

I find the 16-35 more versatile for landscapes than the 24-70 offerings. Whenever I take a 24-70 for hiking, most of my pictures are in the 24-35 range anyway. Sometimes, you want to go longer, and 70mm might be to short.

16-35 and 70-200 both f4 for light weight and landscapes. A fast 50mm for low light and supplement to the other two. Perfect!

 

[snoke]

I am tempted by the 16-35 and to hear all the good comments about it makes it more tempting. I am thinking the 16-35 with the 70-200 as an ideal pairing and forget the gap. I have the 50mm plastic fantastic for anything in between.

How many people recommend 16-35 was in New Zealand and make photo?

Any example of 16-35 photo from New Zealand?

 

[ahsanford]

I am tempted by the 16-35 and to hear all the good comments about it makes it more tempting. I am thinking the 16-35 with the 70-200 as an ideal pairing and forget the gap. I have the 50mm plastic fantastic for anything in between.

How many people recommend 16-35 was in New Zealand and make photo?

Any example of 16-35 photo from New Zealand?

You can use shutterdial to aggregate the public content out there:
http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=new%20zealand&f=16-35&a=0

- A

 

[snoke]

I am tempted by the 16-35 and to hear all the good comments about it makes it more tempting. I am thinking the 16-35 with the 70-200 as an ideal pairing and forget the gap. I have the 50mm plastic fantastic for anything in between.

How many people recommend 16-35 was in New Zealand and make photo?

Any example of 16-35 photo from New Zealand?

You can use shutterdial to aggregate the public content out there:
http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=new%20zealand&f=16-35&a=0

Good example why 16-35 bad.

http://www.wildernessshots.com/new-zealand-photography-locations/

 

[ahsanford]

You can use shutterdial to aggregate the public content out there:
http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=new%20zealand&f=16-35&a=0

Good example why 16-35 bad.

http://www.wildernessshots.com/new-zealand-photography-locations/

Forgive me, I may be missing your point.

If you are saying the shutterdial link I gave are not good examples of 16-35mm New Zealand photography, sure, it just aggregates what is on Flickr and other public sources that have EXIF data. The photos may not necessarily be good ones.

If, however, your link was meant to imply why a 16-35 lens is a poor choice for New Zealand, I did not understand your point. Those are fine shots you linked, but I don't see any information about the lens used or why a 16-35 is a poor choice. Could you explain yourself a bit more?

- A

 

[ethanz]

You can use shutterdial to aggregate the public content out there:
http://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=new%20zealand&f=16-35&a=0

Good example why 16-35 bad.

http://www.wildernessshots.com/new-zealand-photography-locations/

Forgive me, I may be missing your point.

If you are saying the shutterdial link I gave are not good examples of 16-35mm New Zealand photography, sure, it just aggregates what is on Flickr and other public sources that have EXIF data. The photos may not necessarily be good ones.

If, however, your link was meant to imply why a 16-35 lens is a poor choice for New Zealand, I did not understand your point. Those are fine shots you linked, but I don't see any information about the lens used or why a 16-35 is a poor choice. Could you explain yourself a bit more?

- A

I'm confused too.

The Wilderness shots article did say he used a 16-35 at the end.

 

[snoke]

If, however, your link was meant to imply why a 16-35 lens is a poor choice for New Zealand, I did not understand your point. Those are fine shots you linked, but I don't see any information about the lens used or why a 16-35 is a poor choice. Could you explain yourself a bit more?

"As for lenses, a standard landscape load-out of a 16-35mm and a medium zoom are what you’ll need (or equivalent primes). In reviewing all of my photos from New Zealand, I ended up most frequently shooting at 24mm. I also shot a lot at 16mm and 35mm, and then 50 and 100mm for panorama composites"

Got 24-70 or 24-105, cover most shots without new lens.
16-35+24-105, all you need maybe?

Poster has 24-105 LIS, 70-200f4LIS. Already most situations, no need anything new. 16-35 reflections and big sunset and 24-28mm without distortion. Leave 100-400 at home.

 

[hendrik-sg]

If you have 24-105 and 100-400, let the 70-200 at home.

If you want inexpensive UWA use the 10-18 on the 7d, otherwise beside the zoom options, there are some great primes. My (expensive) favorite is the 17 TS/e which is a fantastic UWA without torsion, and the shifting option is really great in tight spaces. On the 7d it's a great WA. but this one Needs some technical flair and you must be ready to control your shot manually.

other than that, a fast prime might be great, why not the 35 2.0 IS or a 50 1.4? the 35 is extremely handholdable in low light, 50 if you like little longer.

When you have the 100-400 on your 6d, there might be a "emergency", when you need a wider angle without having time to change lenses. So maybe get a 18-55 IS lens as a "camera cap" for your 7d, they are optically good.

If you want really wide, the 8-15 gets it all in, Fisheye Hemi makes the distortion more pleasant in post. This lens is great, but not cheap

Depending on your interests, you may want a macro, the 100 non-L's are really cheap, a dedicated macro Flash helps a lot but needs lot of space.

generally i have a flash with me, in case you must fill shadows in a face, and dont forget a polarizer, 77mm works on the 24-105 and 100-400

 

[ahsanford]

"As for lenses, a standard landscape load-out of a 16-35mm and a medium zoom are what you’ll need (or equivalent primes). In reviewing all of my photos from New Zealand, I ended up most frequently shooting at 24mm. I also shot a lot at 16mm and 35mm, and then 50 and 100mm for panorama composites"

Got 24-70 or 24-105, cover most shots without new lens.
16-35+24-105, all you need maybe?

Poster has 24-105 LIS, 70-200f4LIS. Already most situations, no need anything new. 16-35 reflections and big sunset and 24-28mm without distortion. Leave 100-400 at home.

Sorry! I totally missed that in your link. Thanks for clarifying.

- A

 

[Maximilian]

"As for lenses, a standard landscape load-out of a 16-35mm and a medium zoom are what you’ll need (or equivalent primes). In reviewing all of my photos from New Zealand, I ended up most frequently shooting at 24mm. I also shot a lot at 16mm and 35mm, and then 50 and 100mm for panorama composites"

Got 24-70 or 24-105, cover most shots without new lens.
16-35+24-105, all you need maybe?

Poster has 24-105 LIS, 70-200f4LIS. Already most situations, no need anything new. 16-35 reflections and big sunset and 24-28mm without distortion. Leave 100-400 at home.

Sorry! I totally missed that in your link. Thanks for clarifying.

- A

Even though I found that I wasn't sure how snoke's initial post with that link was meant.

Thanks, snoke, for clarifying. Maybe next time some more words in the beginning would have helped a lot.
At least this seconds my first post where I said, 24-105L + some tele of choice is enough.
If money "must" be spend a 16-35/4 L IS would be the lens of choice.

 

[Quirkz]

As someone fortunate enough to go back to New Zealand once or twice a year to visit family, I've just gone back through my photo's and looked at the data on some of my favourites - And they're all over.

Plenty wider than 24, and some that I really like at 16-20. lots from 24-100, and there are quite a few that are over 200 - Mountains, distant landscapes, and close ups (almost macro) of some of the wonderful flora and fauna with a 70-300 or 100-400.

You're going to want to bring everything, but on the other hand there's lots of great walks and hiking, so travelling light is also a plus

I'd go with the 16-35 (or something like a 14-20 range prime), plus the 24-105 you have for casual walk around, then the 100-400. That way you don't have to buy much more than something to cover the wide.

Taking just the 24-105 would be almost criminal 70-200 would be ok, but I can't help but think that you'd have times that you wanted more reach. The landscape is pretty varied.

March can be a really nice time as well - though sometimes it might rain a bit much

 

[slclick]

Every lens is a landscape lens.

 

[ejenner]

If you only take the 24-105, make sure you shoot landscapes at f12 or smaller if you want relatively sharp corners at 24mm.

This is an OK all-around lens, but it is not a 'landscape' lens. Irrespective of FL, the variation in sharpness across the frame at the short and long ends - even at f8 - is not ideal for landscapes. It's not even a linear falloff in sharpness across the lens wider than f10.

I like super-wide angle and would never to to NZ without my TE-S 17mm. But I also own the 16-35 f4 and probably use that more for it's general versatility and AF. But it beats the snot out of the 24-105 @ 24mm anywhere away from the very center, and yes even at f8 or smaller apertures.

I do agree that going wider than 24mm does require some skill to get good/interesting images. Usually you need to get close to something interesting in the foreground.

I do own the 24-105 and have taken and printed (16x24 is my standard size) many landscapes taken with it and yes, they are OK, but the ones I shot at < 35mm I sure wish I had the 16-35 with me instead. I also nearly always had to apply variable sharpening using masks in PS.

If you want to hand-hold waterfall shots, take a series with different shutter speeds and as close tot he same framing as possible. I then use an HDR program to align them (PS or something else might work) and then blend them, using the higher SS for the non-water where it needs to be sharp and slower SS where I want to blur the water anyway. May not work for super-silky smooth water, but you could probably get SS to 1/2 - 1s with the IS on the 16-35 for the moving water without having things move so much that you can't blend exposures.

I would take 16-35 f4IS, 50 1.8 and 70-200 f4IS if I were going 'light' (I do own the 70-200f4IS as well, it is great for landscapes).

 

[jhpeterson]

Got back the other day from a ten-day trip to the Rockies. While I brought several lenses with me, from fisheye to 500, more than 90% was shot with either the 16-35 or 70-200 (both IS). I brought a 50STM with me to fill the in-between gaps, but hardly took it out of the bag.

 

[Ozarker]

I am tempted by the 16-35 and to hear all the good comments about it makes it more tempting. I am thinking the 16-35 with the 70-200 as an ideal pairing and forget the gap. I have the 50mm plastic fantastic for anything in between.

How many people recommend 16-35 was in New Zealand and make photo?

Any example of 16-35 photo from New Zealand?

16-35 doesn't work in New Zealand or Burma.

 

[ahsanford]

16-35 doesn't work in New Zealand or Burma.

I believe you started a post just there...

- A

 

[ethanz]

16-35 doesn't work in New Zealand or Burma.

Is it not licensed there or some force field that shuts it off?

 

[ahsanford]

16-35 doesn't work in New Zealand or Burma.

Is it not licensed there or some force field that shuts it off?

I think he forgot to take his lens cap off. #tripruined

- A

 

[Ozarker]

16-35 doesn't work in New Zealand or Burma.

Is it not licensed there or some force field that shuts it off?

Light spins in the opposite direction down there. The lens is not ambidextrous.

 

[ethanz]

Oh, I've never been in the southern hemisphere before. Its amazing the things you learn on here. What lenses should I bring if I ever venture down there? Maybe some Sony gear?