zooms vs primes for landscape

privatebydesign

Canon Rumors Premium
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,120
canonrumorstony said:
Zooms are versatile, primes are not.

You haven't used the 17 and 24 TS-E's, they are VERY versatile primes that can do things no zoom can, you can use them with TC's too, for added versatility with minimal IQ loss, and they are such high quality lenses cropping to get the same effective focal length of a zoom is not really an issue.

There are few black and white/right or wrong answers, just opinions.
 
Upvote 0
growler said:
Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

I'm going to take a little bit different approach. VERSATILITY/PRACTICALITY. If you are über serious about image quality, then the previous comments have given you much to think about.

Plan 1: Involves multiple fast(er) primes at differing lens/filter diameters (lens hoods, etc). If you think you will be using lots of various (expensive) filters to enhance your landscape captures, this could add up. Granted, the 35mm 2.0 IS and 100mm 2.8 IS L share 67mm filters as does the 70-200 f/4 IS. However, the prime set gives you all f/2.8 and faster optimum apertures which will aid your 6D center cross-type focus point. If you are only using LiveView focusing this may be a moot point.

Plan 2: Gives you more versatility and meshes well with your existing setup. The filter dilemma is minimized in that the 17-40mm shares 77mm filters with your 24-105mm and the 70-200 f/4 IS shares with the 100mm L macro.

I would love to have the luxury ($$$$$) of a dedicated landscape lens like a 24 or 17mm TSE, but I use my camera for everything, so every lens has to be versatile and lightweight. So I like a combination of slow zooms and fast primes........

Plan 3: Keep your 50 1.8 (until it breaks), keep your 24-105L (possibly the best bang for the buck L zoom lens), sell the others and add 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm 2.8 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS). All three use 67mm filters and lightweight. The 100mm L macro doubles as a great portrait lens, too. If you feel the 35mm isn't wide enough, then substitute the 24mm 2.8 IS and add the Rokinon 14mm as needed.

(Disclosure) I have recently added both the 35mm IS and 100mm L IS; both great, lightweight SHARP lenses! I have the 17-40mm L, and while it was great on crop, full frame not so much.
 
Upvote 0
growler said:
Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

I'd sell everything except the 24-105, and get a 100/2.8 macro. The 24-105 has nasty distortion at 24 and it's not very fast, so you could switch to the 24-70/2.8 II as soon as your budget allows. If you really want to go ultrawide, the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 is the one: it's cheap and with good image quality.
 
Upvote 0

tron

Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 8, 2011
5,227
1,625
chas1113 said:
FYI: I just noticed over on the fm website there is a nice comparison between the 24mm TSE and the 24mm 2.8 IS...in the photo samples the 24mm IS holds up very nicely to the 4X $$$ TSE.
In the-digital-picture site you can see comparisons between the 24mm 2.8 IS with the old 24mm 2.8. The old 24mm 2.8 holds up very nicely to the 2X $$ 24mm 2.8 IS....

But one thing is sure: the 24 2.8 lenses cannot tilt and shift and the old 24 2.8 does not have IS....
 
Upvote 0

greger

7D
Jan 1, 2013
259
1
I used the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens with the 1.4 extender until I had to have more reach, then I got the 100-400 L which I like very much. The 100 f2.8 IS Macro is a good choice for portraits,flowers and Macro shots. For landscape I might go for the 16-35 f2.8 and use it with a tripod. I don't shoot many Landscapes so my 17-85 fills that part of my kit shooting HDR until it breaks. Sometimes I turn off IS for panning shots and really miss it when i forget to turn it back on. ;D
 
Upvote 0
gshocked said:
I've been seeing a lot of neg. reviews on the 17-40 L? Is it really that bad?

I don't think it is. Some people have high expectations. For the price, on FF, there isn't really much else. Knowing the limitations of the lens and using it at the optimal focal lengths and apertures helps a lot. If you buy it for 40mm f/4 ability you will prob feel let down. If you shoot at 17mm f/8 you might be pleased with the results.

I upgraded from a 7D and EF-S 10-22 and in comparison to that I find the 17-40L sharper and with better contrast. The IQ is better than my 24-105L for sure. Maybe I have a good copy? Maybe my 24-105 is a poor copy? Who knows. In the end it gets the job done and that's all that matters.
 
Upvote 0
growler said:
Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

I recently came back from a trip from Death Valley and I've given your question more thought. In short, go with zooms, sell your Sigma and your 24-105 and get the 16-35 and a 24-70/2.8 either from Canon or Tamron.

Here is why i think you should to that, the long version.

1. As you had mentioned, weight is a great factor. If your style of landscape photography is the "touristy" kind where you don't go too far from the car, then it's not a factor at all, by all means bring the sharpest primes. But if you are going to climb up and down dunes, canyons and mountains it will eventually sinked in (to your shoulders) that you need to lighten up your load. For weight savings I would go with zoom lenses. The weight difference between 16-35 and 17-40 is barely noticeable, same goes between 24-105 and 24-70. Get the 70-300L.

2. Not having to change your lens too often. If you are a very experienced photographer and you can "see" the shot and which focal length to use for it then by all means go with the primes. If you're like me, having to move around and zoom in out to see the best composition, well you know the answer. Having to switch lenses too often is really taxing to your gear too. The weather sealing on the camera and lenses is mute at that point. Sand and salty sea mist will easily get in your camera no mater how careful you are. So zoom wins in this regard.

3. Versatility. I guess this depends on how you view a versatile lens. Zoom is more versatile than primes, except for Tilt-Shift lenses for reasons already mentioned in this thread. Here's my take on versatility. Having F2.8 may not seem important at first for beginning landscape photographer. Don't think of F2.8 for shallower DoF. Think of it as having a versatile tool. Focusing is easier with F2.8 and I don't mean the cross-type focusing points on your camera. It would be much easier to see in the view finder compared to an F4 lens. Most landscape photographers using modern digital cameras uses live view for focusing. But there would be times when you absolutely cannot see anything in live view, like at night are with the sun behind you. The F2.8 would also allow you to take pictures of the Milky Way at half the time or ISO that you would need with an F4 lens. So stars would be sharper and less noisy skies. Hence, I recommend getting the 16-35 and a 24-70/2.8.

4. Cost. I didn't do the price comparisons between you plan 1 or 2 but it seems to me that having 3 zoom lenses would be cheaper than buying several primes to cover the entire focal length. You may not find the need the 100mm macro if you get the Tamron 24-70 or the Canon 70-300L as they both have shorter focusing distance compared to other zoom.

5. Room in your bag. Aside from weight, there is only so much you can fit in your bag. I have the F-Stop bags and my favorite is the Kenti model. With that I am able to carry, a 5DIII, 7D, EOS-M, 70-300L, 24-70LII, 16-35LII, Lee filter set, jacket, flash light, water, some snacks and my iPad. My point here is, if you can't carry it, you can't use it.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 17, 2013
1,297
14
I have been a bit random about my migration to FF for landscape. I had intended to get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 as the "kit" lens with the 6D, but right there in the used lens section was a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for the same price as the Tamron. I made the "mistake" of trying it on the 6D, and ended up buying 6D plus 21mm. I am an "old fart" and am a sucker for manual focus. The lens is great, gorgeous color and contrast, sharp at f/2.8 corner to corner and sharp stopped down, doesn't have obtrusive coma at f/2.8, so it is good for astro-landscape. I already had a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that I had bought for astro-landscape and general fun on a crop camera, and a fast normal prime, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. So, for the FF normal and the medium telephoto, I am raiding the closet for late 1960s-1970s legacy all manual lenses in M42 (mine) and Nikon mounts (inherited). That covers the 50-60mm range and 105-135mm range for now - the old-timers are being tested for IQ and usability now. The old lenses are poor for astrophotography due to sizable coma, acceptable only at f/4. The fast normals have good color and contrast at f/2.8 and smaller, but are low-contrast at f/1.4, not surprising for lenses without aspherical elements or other fancy glass.

I will say that the primes approach can get heavy if you want to be ready for all eventualities. If you know what sort of shot you want, life is easier, you can take just one or two lenses. If you want to shake things up and just shoot with one prime for a day, that is good too. I have to say that I still see a lot of merit in taking my APS-C 60D and 15-85mm lens as a one lens solution on possibly long hikes in unfamiliar territory, when I am unsure of how long it will take me to get to point A, B, etc and when I really want to "take a sketch" of possible landscape shots to be set up at a future date for a better time of day, etc. I am also taking "ten essentials" just in case, plus an emergency space-blanket bivy. Some hikers froze to death in Missouri last winter after having gotten soaked.
 
Upvote 0

tron

Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 8, 2011
5,227
1,625
NancyP said:
I have been a bit random about my migration to FF for landscape. I had intended to get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 as the "kit" lens with the 6D, but right there in the used lens section was a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for the same price as the Tamron. I made the "mistake" of trying it on the 6D, and ended up buying 6D plus 21mm. I am an "old fart" and am a sucker for manual focus. The lens is great, gorgeous color and contrast, sharp at f/2.8 corner to corner and sharp stopped down, doesn't have obtrusive coma at f/2.8, so it is good for astro-landscape. I already had a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that I had bought for astro-landscape and general fun on a crop camera, and a fast normal prime, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. So, for the FF normal and the medium telephoto, I am raiding the closet for late 1960s-1970s legacy all manual lenses in M42 (mine) and Nikon mounts (inherited). That covers the 50-60mm range and 105-135mm range for now - the old-timers are being tested for IQ and usability now. The old lenses are poor for astrophotography due to sizable coma, acceptable only at f/4. The fast normals have good color and contrast at f/2.8 and smaller, but are low-contrast at f/1.4, not surprising for lenses without aspherical elements or other fancy glass.

I will say that the primes approach can get heavy if you want to be ready for all eventualities. If you know what sort of shot you want, life is easier, you can take just one or two lenses. If you want to shake things up and just shoot with one prime for a day, that is good too. I have to say that I still see a lot of merit in taking my APS-C 60D and 15-85mm lens as a one lens solution on possibly long hikes in unfamiliar territory, when I am unsure of how long it will take me to get to point A, B, etc and when I really want to "take a sketch" of possible landscape shots to be set up at a future date for a better time of day, etc. I am also taking "ten essentials" just in case, plus an emergency space-blanket bivy. Some hikers froze to death in Missouri last winter after having gotten soaked.
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
 
Upvote 0
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
[/quote]

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release. The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.
 
Upvote 0

tron

Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 8, 2011
5,227
1,625
Random Orbits said:
tron said:
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release. The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.
Maybe but future lenses do not take photos to day. Anyway, the 24-70 II coma performance is very reassuring and I hope that you will be proven right...
 
Upvote 0

GMCPhotographics

Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 22, 2010
2,045
877
53
Uk
www.gmcphotographics.co.uk
Random Orbits said:
I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release. The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.
[/quote]

Is Coma performance particularly important for landscapes? Wide open, how about at f11?
 
Upvote 0