Prime vs zoom for landscape?
- Thread starter bereninga
- Start date
Not so sure that the label 'zoom' or 'prime' comes into play as a definitive in landscape work. Different zooms and different primes will give you different images, DOF, angles etc. So, the lens itself at a specific length makes that decision as opposed to the type of lens.
One thing does come into play (as mentioned above) distance and long zooms makes a difference -- compression in the longer zooms makes a difference as well.
I can say tho', that I own NO primes - have always shot zoom as my primary work is sports and wildlife ... but, I've also shot a lot of landscapes (why not?) even with the zoom, and some are nice enough to hang on our walls. The fact that a 'zoom' tends more to capture a piece of a great landscape emerges as well -- and the zoom can pull that piece in closer than a prime in some cases (Not the supers, or course, but those are not usually landscapes anyway)
One thing does come into play (as mentioned above) distance and long zooms makes a difference -- compression in the longer zooms makes a difference as well.
I can say tho', that I own NO primes - have always shot zoom as my primary work is sports and wildlife ... but, I've also shot a lot of landscapes (why not?) even with the zoom, and some are nice enough to hang on our walls. The fact that a 'zoom' tends more to capture a piece of a great landscape emerges as well -- and the zoom can pull that piece in closer than a prime in some cases (Not the supers, or course, but those are not usually landscapes anyway)
Upvote
0
If only one lens, I say a good versatile zoom, like the Canon or Sigma 24-105. Why? Because, first impressions are the most important, and composition is more into the first impression than, say CA in the corners! Nobody gonna care if your corners are sharp if they don't have a good first impression (composition) and rapidly click or walk on to the next shot.
There is a reason why my Dad (who was a pro who shot with a Rolleiflex 2 1/4" and medium format) got so excited when he got his first 35mm zoom in the early 60's, and why they have come to such prominence. It's that composition is more important (in the bigger scheme of things) than sharpness in the corners. If people have a good impression with their first glance, sure, they may come to inspect your corner sharpness, but if they never get that far because they moved on to the next pic, it doesn't much matter.
Just my $0.02 worth.
There is a reason why my Dad (who was a pro who shot with a Rolleiflex 2 1/4" and medium format) got so excited when he got his first 35mm zoom in the early 60's, and why they have come to such prominence. It's that composition is more important (in the bigger scheme of things) than sharpness in the corners. If people have a good impression with their first glance, sure, they may come to inspect your corner sharpness, but if they never get that far because they moved on to the next pic, it doesn't much matter.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Upvote
0
With the latest release of 16-35mm f4L IS and 24-70mm f2.8L II the statement that IQ of primes 'can't be beat'or 'is hard to beat' is not longer valid. These two are amazingly sharp troughout the whole FL and from edge-to-edge of the frame.bereninga said:
Anyway in the f/8-f/16 range, almost all lenses have good performance.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
I have to agree...I sold my 16-35 f/2.8II to buy the 16-35 f/4 IS. (Even wash financially...for ONCE, LOL!). It's a killer lens for the money...so much so that I sold my beloved 21mm Zeiss 2.8. I just stopped using it. I felt that the image quality was comparable, and with the Canon I had a full range zoom, AF and IS. I don't miss the extra f stop..and to talk about low DOF on lenses in this range is just silly in my book. That was a lot of cash tied up in something I had to let go of. I know that some purists would find that to be blasphemous! LOL! ...but it's just silly not to grab the new Canon...there is just so much more lens in your hand for less money. THAT NEVER HAPPENS!
Upvote
0
Hello,
in my honest opinion, zooms. They equal to flexibility, meaning that if you are going hiking you can get widest range with zooms, meaning versatility (e.g.: 12-24, 24-70, 70-200.) Nowadays the quality of zooms is great and in that sense not major differences with primes.
Another case is if you are going to a certain location, you dont have to hike a lot to get there, there basically you can bring also primes and zoom with your feet if allows
I am in the process of selling a 24mm 1.4L II. I bought it to photograph stars, but the comma at f1.4 is horrible. once the 24 70 II was out I felt that I 2.8 is enough, mainly for landscapes and stars, so... no need to carry 2 24mm when I am out in the forest.... (the prime I used it also for landscapes).
Cheers!
in my honest opinion, zooms. They equal to flexibility, meaning that if you are going hiking you can get widest range with zooms, meaning versatility (e.g.: 12-24, 24-70, 70-200.) Nowadays the quality of zooms is great and in that sense not major differences with primes.
Another case is if you are going to a certain location, you dont have to hike a lot to get there, there basically you can bring also primes and zoom with your feet if allows
I am in the process of selling a 24mm 1.4L II. I bought it to photograph stars, but the comma at f1.4 is horrible. once the 24 70 II was out I felt that I 2.8 is enough, mainly for landscapes and stars, so... no need to carry 2 24mm when I am out in the forest.... (the prime I used it also for landscapes).
Cheers!
Upvote
0
I think this is a matter of taste, of weight if hiking for long distances, and sometimes a matter of multiple uses. For instance, if I combine a little golden/blue hour shooting with some astrophotography, I am going to take one or more fast primes. The f/4-ish zoom may not be the best option here, but if I am going on a 10 mile hike and I want to travel light, my 15-85 and 60D and tripod (filters, release) are the choices.
Upvote
0
