Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk
Thread started 23 Dec 2014 (Tuesday) 18:51
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Favorite lens for landscape?

 
LeeRatters
Goldmember
LeeRatters's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
Bristol, UK
Mar 04, 2015 17:01 |  #16

I would guess the 17-40L would be the common suggestion for size, availability, cost etc if it's within your budget of course. I've owned one a few years, not used it really the past 12 months as I started to find it too wide with too much distortion so the 28/1.8 seems to be my go to lens now for landscape. Just to add, my 'landscape' tends to be the local coast with piers & 'uprights' in the scene. I'd guess up in the mountains etc the distortion wouldn't be as noticeable ;)


>> Flickr <<external link


LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Reservoir Dog's Avatar
Joined Jan 2013
Out of the pack
Mar 04, 2015 17:11 |  #17

rgs wrote in post #17352175external link
Don't make the mistake of going too wide. Some people seem to think that landscape is automatically WA but, often a normal to short tele is a better choice. For instance, large mountains can be rendered as insignificant hills by too wide a lens. Additionally a long lens can compress and flatten a view in very interesting ways.

That ! is the best comment of this thread IMHO


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by ejenner.
Mar 04, 2015 21:56 |  #18

LeeRatters wrote in post #17460740external link
I'd guess up in the mountains etc the distortion wouldn't be as noticeable ;)


I assume you mean perspective distortion (not lens barrel distortion) and it's perhaps not as bad for mountains, but if you have trees in the scene then it can still look pretty bad if you tilt the camera. This is why a am a big fan of a shift lens for landscapes, at least the landscaper es I do. Even at 24mm shift is definitely preferable to tilting the camera IMO.

If you have no trees and no close foreground it doesn't matter so much though. Even for close foreground like rocks and such I think using shift rather than tilting the camera down makes a huge difference. I also think it makes the shot less UWA-looking which is often nice - you get the UWA without the weirdness.

But of course that is a large jump in expense.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
LeeRatters
Goldmember
LeeRatters's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
Bristol, UK
Mar 05, 2015 03:42 |  #19

^^ Yes. I meant perspective distortion sorry :)


>> Flickr <<external link


LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitlyn2004
Goldmember
1,561 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Mar 05, 2015 07:49 |  #20

I am curious - how come everyone seems to be mentioning the 17-40 over the 16-35 F4? A bit pricier but isn't it regarded as a great landscape lens and better than the 17-40?


New Zealand Travel Photography (external link)
My Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
mike1812
Senior Member
283 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Houston, TX
Mar 05, 2015 11:00 as a reply to kaitlyn2004's post |  #21

I suspect that it's because the 16-35 f/4 is relatively new, and more people have used the older 17-40. If budget is not an issue, the newer lens is sharper in the corners than the 17-40 and worth the upgrade.


1DX | 5DIII / BG-E11 Grip | EF 135L | EF 70-300 L | EF 24-70 L (I) | EF 50 1.4 | EF 200 2.8L | Sigma 85 1.4 | EF 16-35 f/4L | (2) 600EX-RT / ST-E3-RT | 430EX | (2) AB800s | (4) Einstein E640s | Sekonic L-758 | Sony A7RII Gripped | Sony FE 55 f/1.8 | Sony FE 85 f/1.4 GM | Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G | Sony HVL-60M | Sigma MC-11 | plus too many doodads to list

LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
SuzyView's Avatar
32,072 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Joined Oct 2005
Northern VA
Mar 05, 2015 11:17 |  #22

The 17-40 was one of my first L lenses and I treasure it. I have it on my 7DII right now. It is sharp and performs well for landscapes. Indoors, not so great, but for some of my winning shots, it's that lens. And I should upgrade to the 16-35, but I'm not sure I need to spend the extra money. It's not on my short list of new lenses. I will sell my 24-70 and get the new 24-70 before the 16-35.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, 7D2, SL1, G12, iPad Pro, iPhone 6P, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
Joined Apr 2010
New Zealand
Mar 05, 2015 17:48 |  #23

Probably a 3 way split for me, 16-35f4L IS, 24mm tsemk2 and a sigma 50


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner. 2 edits done in total.
Mar 06, 2015 11:14 |  #24

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #17461548external link
I am curious - how come everyone seems to be mentioning the 17-40 over the 16-35 F4? A bit pricier but isn't it regarded as a great landscape lens and better than the 17-40?

Because David, the OP, did not ask us what we thought the best lens would be - rather, he asked us what we use. It seems reasonable to me that there are a lot more people using the 17-40 than there are using the 16-35, primarily because the 16-35 hasn't been around nearly as long.

For landscapes, I use both the 24-105mm and the 100-400mm, with the 24-105mm getting slightly more use. I recently acquired a Canon 50-200mm f4.5, and now I also use that for landscapes.

I have never seen any scene before me and wished that I could shoot wider than 24mm. In fact, of all the landscape shots I've taken with my 24-105mm, hardly any have been taken at 24mm.

A lot of this decision comes down to what types of images you like, and how you prefer to capture the scenes before you.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitlyn2004
Goldmember
1,561 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Mar 06, 2015 17:10 |  #25

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17463367external link
Because David, the OP, did not ask us what we thought the best lens would be - rather, he asked us what we use. It seems reasonable to me that there are a lot more people using the 17-40 than there are using the 16-35, primarily because the 16-35 hasn't been around nearly as long.

For landscapes, I use both the 24-105mm and the 100-400mm, with the 24-105mm getting slightly more use. I recently acquired a Canon 50-200mm f4.5, and now I also use that for landscapes.

I have never seen any scene before me and wished that I could shoot wider than 24mm. In fact, of all the landscape shots I've taken with my 24-105mm, hardly any have been taken at 24mm.

A lot of this decision comes down to what types of images you like, and how you prefer to capture the scenes before you.

True... :)

For me it is currently the 24-105 and 17-40

I am replacing 17-40 with 16-35 F4L and I think I want to replace my 24-105 with 24-70 (not sure which variation yet) but worry about the loss on the long end... But also given the value of a 24-105 I might just keep it for it's lightness and versatility...


New Zealand Travel Photography (external link)
My Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by ejenner.
Mar 06, 2015 23:02 |  #26

SuzyView wrote in post #17461832external link
The 17-40 was one of my first L lenses and I treasure it. I have it on my 7DII right now. It is sharp and performs well for landscapes. Indoors, not so great, but for some of my winning shots, it's that lens. And I should upgrade to the 16-35, but I'm not sure I need to spend the extra money. It's not on my short list of new lenses. I will sell my 24-70 and get the new 24-70 before the 16-35.

On a crop, that's a harder call. The 16-35 f4 would still be sharper, but since you are not seeing the very corners of the 17-40 the difference will be much less than on FF. Only problem IMO is the 17-40 still degrades pretty quickly away from the center, so there still is some uplift to the 16-35f4.


Tom Reichner wrote in post #17463367external link
In fact, of all the landscape shots I've taken with my 24-105mm, hardly any have been taken at 24mm.

Probably better that way. 24mm isn't exactly a sweet spot for that lens. Once you get to 35-70mm its much, much better IMO for landscapes (less CA and distortion and sharper int he corners).

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #17463779external link
True... :)

I am replacing 17-40 with 16-35 F4L and I think I want to replace my 24-105 with 24-70 (not sure which variation yet) but worry about the loss on the long end... But also given the value of a 24-105 I might just keep it for it's lightness and versatility...

As said above, the 24-105 is not that bad above 35mm. Maybe not as good as the 24-70 II, but for the weight and versatility not bad, and you'll have up to 35 sharp with the 16-35. For instance stopped down to f8+, the 24-105 is just as sharp as the 50 1.4 across the frame. I know the 50 is not an L lens, but it is a prime and not considered 'soft' stopped down. I've looked around for something in the 50mm range that is stellar for landscapes and have come up short (24-70 II too heavy for just using it 35-70 stopped down to f8+, Zeiss too expensive really and also heavy). Waiting for a TS-E 45 II.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
klaptastic
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Apr 2014
Jul 24, 2015 16:03 |  #27

In order of both most-used and favorite-to-use:

1) Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon
2) Zeiss 100/2 Makro-planar
3) Zeiss 50/2 Makro-planar

I don't own any other lenses :D




LOG IN TO REPLY
PCousins
Senior Member
PCousins's Avatar
Joined Nov 2014
Weston-Super-Mare (UK)
Jul 24, 2015 22:03 |  #28

I'm finding I use my 24-70 f/2.8 II more so than my 16-35 f/2.8 II. I took the below shot at a focal distance of 70mm only a few days ago.
When I decide to have an afternoon of landscape photography the 16-35 is the first lens I put on the camera only to find it's not the image I'm looking for and more often I find my-self taking it off and replacing it with the 24-70.
24mm to me seems adequate and f/2.8 un-necessary.
This thread has got me thinking how little I use the 16-35. In fact I will see how much they go for and will consider selling it


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Preeb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Logan County, CO
Jul 26, 2015 10:24 |  #29

I can't really say that I have a favorite. The setting dictates the lens. I've been using my 70-200 f4 IS a lot more lately, even to the point of looking for good situations for it, and stitching images together if necessary.

That doesn't mean that I've retired my 10-22 or 17-55. The circumstances determine the lens I use.


Rick
60D - EF-S 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 -- EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS -- EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

LOG IN TO REPLY
welshwizard1971
Goldmember
1,237 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Southampton Hampshire UK
Jul 26, 2015 10:38 as a reply to kaitlyn2004's post |  #30

That's my current situation and thinking exactly! Still going to buy a Sigma Art 24mm as well though, which I suspect will become my fav landscape lens. Oddly my most used landscape lens at the moment, maybe because I'm doing coastal stuff so it's middle distance all the time, is the 100mm L macro, superb bit of kit to have in your bag...

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8674/16500991937_c9592d0cf6_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/r98U​1Z] (external link)

5DIII, 40D, 16-35L 35 ART 50 ART 100L macro, 24-70 L Mk2, 135L 200L 70-200L f4 IS
Hype chimping - The act of looking at your screen after every shot, then wildly behaving like it's the best picture in the world, to try and impress other photographers around you.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

9,077 views & 1 like for this thread
Favorite lens for landscape?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.55209 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.79s
Latest registered member is andrewwong927
769 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016