What do you guys prefer? The IQ of a prime is hard to beat, but the flexibility of a zoom seems more practical, especially since it's harder to zoom in and out w/ just your feet in the wilderness. Is the IQ of a wideangle prime worth it vs the flexibility of a wideangle zoom?
Prime vs zoom for landscape?
- Thread starter bereninga
- Start date
I went recently to Japan for 4 weeks, for the first time ever I went with just Primes, and all Manual Focus.
Zeiss 15f/2.8, Zeiss 21f/2.8, Otus 55f/1.4 & Zeiss 135f/2, I felt it worked exceptionally well.
I could have taken my Canon 8-15f/4, 16-35f/2.8, 24-70f/2.8 II & 70-200f/2.8 II, and perhaps my Images would have been just as good, but I don't think so, and there's just something extra satisfying in using good primes that makes me feel better about the resulting Images.
Zeiss 15f/2.8, Zeiss 21f/2.8, Otus 55f/1.4 & Zeiss 135f/2, I felt it worked exceptionally well.
I could have taken my Canon 8-15f/4, 16-35f/2.8, 24-70f/2.8 II & 70-200f/2.8 II, and perhaps my Images would have been just as good, but I don't think so, and there's just something extra satisfying in using good primes that makes me feel better about the resulting Images.
Upvote
0
Base on your question and not adding or taking away from it, it's not worth it! Your question is really narrowing it down between walking into the woods with one lens and have it be either a prime, or a zoom, and that's all you have.
Prior to getting my 21mm prime lens, which I use now for most of my landscapes, I used zoom lenses many times to get some images that I have blown up and are on my walls, and some that I have sold. What's going to make more of a difference in your keepers/ or sellers, is your research, composition, light, and luck of the weather when you make those shots, not the subtle improvement the glass will make.
I choose to carry two wide angle primes, and always have the zoom's 24-105, 100-400, to capture what ever I have stumbled upon, or deliberately went to capture. Versatility definitely means more to me than relying on one fixed lens.
Prior to getting my 21mm prime lens, which I use now for most of my landscapes, I used zoom lenses many times to get some images that I have blown up and are on my walls, and some that I have sold. What's going to make more of a difference in your keepers/ or sellers, is your research, composition, light, and luck of the weather when you make those shots, not the subtle improvement the glass will make.
I choose to carry two wide angle primes, and always have the zoom's 24-105, 100-400, to capture what ever I have stumbled upon, or deliberately went to capture. Versatility definitely means more to me than relying on one fixed lens.
Upvote
0
I think it is entirely personal choice. Primes don't meant having to zoom with your feet: you don't have to carry just one prime.
My personal choice is to use a few lightweight primes. My reasons are high IQ across the frame, light weight, bright viewfinder and easy balance on the camera. If I'm travelling light I'll have a couple of Lowepro cases on a belt with a couple of lenses.
Primes also mean that you use a proper hood for the focal length, which for me, as I'm often shooting across or into the sun, is beneficial. The 24-70 f2.8 mark one had a very clever system of a long hood and the longest focal length is the shortest physical length; thus the hood matches the focal length. However on all other standard or wide zooms this isn't the case. On my 24-105L I have a Hoya rubber hood which you can squash in for 24 mil and pull out for 105. This is a major improvement over the standard, wide angle hood. The 24-70 f2.8 II is an 82 mm filter and I don't think anyone makes one like that for this lens, so for me that is an issue.
Also because I'm mainly producing stitched images I don't use an ultra wide angle lens. 28 mil is as wide as I go, so I don't really have a vast range requirement. I suppose in summary, if we are talking about landscape photography where you are trying to resolve tiny detail that is a long way away, a 'standard' range on FF, if you want to make every pixel count at all the focal lengths of a zoom,( not just the one focal length and aperture combination where it may be excellent) you have to go for the 24-70 f2.8 II. As this is a heavy lump, and you cannot hood it properly at mid to longest length, I prefer a few high quality, light primes, and the 24-105L as a fall back position.
My personal choice is to use a few lightweight primes. My reasons are high IQ across the frame, light weight, bright viewfinder and easy balance on the camera. If I'm travelling light I'll have a couple of Lowepro cases on a belt with a couple of lenses.
Primes also mean that you use a proper hood for the focal length, which for me, as I'm often shooting across or into the sun, is beneficial. The 24-70 f2.8 mark one had a very clever system of a long hood and the longest focal length is the shortest physical length; thus the hood matches the focal length. However on all other standard or wide zooms this isn't the case. On my 24-105L I have a Hoya rubber hood which you can squash in for 24 mil and pull out for 105. This is a major improvement over the standard, wide angle hood. The 24-70 f2.8 II is an 82 mm filter and I don't think anyone makes one like that for this lens, so for me that is an issue.
Also because I'm mainly producing stitched images I don't use an ultra wide angle lens. 28 mil is as wide as I go, so I don't really have a vast range requirement. I suppose in summary, if we are talking about landscape photography where you are trying to resolve tiny detail that is a long way away, a 'standard' range on FF, if you want to make every pixel count at all the focal lengths of a zoom,( not just the one focal length and aperture combination where it may be excellent) you have to go for the 24-70 f2.8 II. As this is a heavy lump, and you cannot hood it properly at mid to longest length, I prefer a few high quality, light primes, and the 24-105L as a fall back position.
Upvote
0
I am still using my EF 20mm f/2.8 for landscapes. It dates from the days of the EOS-5.
Will Canon ever upgrade it? A 21 mm f/2.0 would be a cool piece of glass. They have too many quality zooms out there, it probably would not sell...
Will Canon ever upgrade it? A 21 mm f/2.0 would be a cool piece of glass. They have too many quality zooms out there, it probably would not sell...
Upvote
0
I don't think you're going to find much that will beat the 16-35 f/4 IS these days - at least on anything but distortion, which isn't all that important for landscape.bereninga said:
Upvote
0
bereninga said:
I have the 24/2.8 IS, which I'm happy with. It has great colour, great IQ generally and distortion is reasonable. The price is good too, it probably only lacks the weather sealing and greater selective focus offered by the 24/1.4L at twice the price. I quickly ruled out the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L zooms based upon reviews.
But now there is the 16-35/4L. It gives me buyers remorse. It's reviews compare it's IQ to a prime, and it's sweet spot for distortion is at 24mm. That's probably what I would buy now. Weather sealing is included for a price slightly below the 24L prime, and it comes with the flexibility. Has anyone used both, to give more insight?
Upvote
0
bereninga said:
Primes educate to have a vision of a photograph before you look through the viewfinder / change lenses.
Primes deliver - if well engineered - superior quality in contralight situations. The smaller number of lens groups helps here.
Zooms help to take photographs if your stuck on a small path and using your feet is dangerous/impossible.
Primes and zooms coexist peacefully in my drawer and backpack and a good combination is the best solution for ME (Info: I use APS-C bodies only):
A very flexible setup FOR MY STYLE is
EF-S 10-22 / EF-S 60 Macro / EF 70-200 with 2 or 3 bodies, lenses mounted on bodies
Add the excellent EF-M 22 mounted on EOS M and you have your moderate wide angle high aperture prime ... for optimum (contralight) qualities.
Usually I just use zooms as a multi-focal-length-lens: From my vision I try to estimate which focal length I need. Then I set the zoom to the selected value and try to compose. If my position is fixed I use the zoom ring, otherwise I use my feet. I would like to have selectable "click stops" on my zooms - let's say 10-14-17-22 for the ultrawide and 70-85-100-135-200 for the tele zoom!
Upvote
0
Hi, I don't travel light and so I bring primes and zoom lenses for a landscape shot. But normally I use only the primes. As primes I have 17, 24, 35, 45, 50, 55, 85, 90 & 135mm focal length available (I do have more lenses than listed in my signature below the post). For some focal lenghths I even have 2 different primes available. I prefer the superior quality of the TS-E primes over the quality of my "cheap" Tamron 24-70mm & EF 70-300mm L zoom lenses.
Upvote
0
bereninga said:
For landscape use the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS is pretty hard to beat. It has some of the best IQ Canon offers (including their primes) if not the best for landscape, and it offers the flexibility of a zoom. So if you want IQ and flexibility for landscape, EF 16-35mm f/4L IS wins in my book by a landslide.
However, the EF 16-35mm f/4L is not small. It is rather long and while not super heavy, it will still weigh you down on a hike. So, if you plan on taking you landscape shots on long hikes, for instance, you may want to sacrifice the flexibility of the zoom for the compact size of something like the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS - which also has excellent IQ.
So for me it would boil down to those two:
Great image quality and flexibility - EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
Great image quality, compact and lightweight - EF 24mm f/2.8 IS
Upvote
0
I primarily use zooms for landscape but would certainly be happy with primes if i had them. I've invested most of my photography budget in high quality zooms (16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II), the primes I own (35/2 IS, 100L, 135/2) have all been used occasionally for landscape work, but I often use 16-28mm for landscape and just don't currently have any primes in that range.
Upvote
0
surapon
80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
Dear Friends.
I will stick with my old-Cheapo , But Great Lens 17-40 mm ( 75%) to take the beautiful photos of Landscape, But another 25% I use TS-E 24 MM. MK II for great photos of Panorama ( 3-4 Photos =1 Photo)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Enjoy.
Surapon
I will stick with my old-Cheapo , But Great Lens 17-40 mm ( 75%) to take the beautiful photos of Landscape, But another 25% I use TS-E 24 MM. MK II for great photos of Panorama ( 3-4 Photos =1 Photo)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Enjoy.
Surapon
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
Did you ever use the TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24 II before making such a claim? I ask because I never had the chance to test the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS. But I know these two TS-E lenses pretty well...
Upvote
0
RobertG. said:
I did, the 16-35 f4 IS zoom is every bit as sharp and has much more contrast especially at the edges and corners at 16mm than the 17 TS-E, the zoom does have noticeable barrel distortion at 16mm, when the 17TS-E has none, but it is easily corrected in post without a significant impact on IQ. The zoom doesn't have movements but it does go to 35........
I own both and would really struggle to make a choice of one or the other unless I had a specific shoot to do and IQ would not be the determining factor, ever.
Upvote
0
I have all three lenses and owned the 16-35 f/2.8 II as well. The TS-E 17 and 16-35 f/4 IS are pretty much identical in terms of sharpness, but the 16-35 has better contrast and less CA. The 17 has far less distortion and almost no vignetting. The TS-E 24 f/35. II is sharper, has equivalent contrast and pretty much no CA or vignetting. Those are my observations from the (unshifted) lenses in a brick wall and real world test. Also, the 16-35 f/4 IS is more flare resistant. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is less sharp, has mediocre corners, fairly high CA in the corners, less contrast, but it does have one more stop and certainly isn't a bad lens by any stretch. It just isn't as good as the others.RobertG. said:
For me, the TS-E lenses are unbeatable for architecture, windy conditions (tilting to use bigger apertures), and they make panos super easy. The 16-35 f/4 IS is more versatile (as a zoom with IS & weather sealing) and would be my first purchase, followed by the TS-E lenses if I were doing it again.
I see Private has similar thoughts about these lenses.
Upvote
0
painya said:
I find that there can still be a real difference mid and edge of frame between lenses at f8, but they all do seem to begin to gravitate together at around f11 and beyond. Not that you have to take landscapes at f8. With wider lenses in particular you can go significantly wider than f8 with great dof.
Upvote
0
painya said:
In the context of common focal lengths for landscape, Canon have rewritten the rule book with the 24-70/2.8II and the 16-35/4.
However looking at other common FF standard or wide zooms such as the 24-105, the 24-70 IS, 17-40, 16-35/2.8II, a good quality prime is better edge of frame to mid, and in the four corners at f8. Centre can be identical. I am bearing in mind that 'landscape' normally means trying to define and resolve small detail that is a relatively long way away.
At f11 I cannot, for instance, see any difference between my 24-105 @ 50mm and my EF 50/1.4 at the same aperture, even at 100% on a studio tripod.
When shooting subject that are closer to the camera I find at f8 the differences are much slimmer, but landscape is a different ball game. This is why until recently the large format cameras reigned supreme in this sphere, and even now you are better with a larger format for serious work due to the greater magnification of the subject.
Upvote
0
