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 08 Nov 2017 (Wednesday) 14:56
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Prime Lens Landscapes

 
Steve ­ Sanchez ­ Photography
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Nov 08, 2017 14:56 |  #1

Do any of you use prime lens for landscape or cityscape photography?
Thanks
Steve




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
gremlin75
Goldmember
gremlin75's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
Detroit, MI
Nov 08, 2017 16:09 |  #2

I do. On my Fuji I uses a 16mm f1.4, 12mm f2, 35mm f 1.4 and some times a 56mm f1.2 ( though that'd rare as I will usually use the 18-55 or 50-140 if I need that focal length)

The thing with primes vs zooms for landscapes is that once you stop a lens down to f5.6-f11 the image quality is usually pretty equal.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Steve ­ Sanchez ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Nov 08, 2017 16:40 as a reply to gremlin75's post |  #3

How about using prime lens for night cityscape and with lee ND filters?
Thanks
Steve




LOG IN TO REPLY
gremlin75
Goldmember
gremlin75's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
Detroit, MI
Nov 08, 2017 21:55 |  #4

Steve Sanchez Photography wrote in post #18492121 (external link)
How about using prime lens for night cityscape and with lee ND filters?
Thanks
Steve

I don't shoot cityscapes or lee ND's. I do howeve use ND's (Firecrest filters) with my primes with no issues.

Primes have the speed advantage for night shooting when you need the extra speed. However if you're stopping down then again, the image quality is about equal.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Steve ­ Sanchez ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Nov 10, 2017 08:43 as a reply to gremlin75's post |  #5

Great thanks so much
Steve




LOG IN TO REPLY
jcothron
Goldmember
jcothron's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
Gainesville, GA
Nov 10, 2017 09:02 |  #6

I use prime lenses only and Lee filters as well, do you have a question about either?


John
Gear List|My Flickr (external link)|Website (external link)|500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Steve ­ Sanchez ­ Photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Nov 18, 2017 15:25 as a reply to jcothron's post |  #7

well i wanted to know if i would get sharper images using prime lens, rather than zooms
Thanks
Steve




LOG IN TO REPLY
jcothron
Goldmember
jcothron's Avatar
Joined Nov 2008
Gainesville, GA
Post has been edited 4 days ago by jcothron.
Nov 18, 2017 17:39 |  #8

Steve Sanchez Photography wrote in post #18499292 (external link)
well i wanted to know if i would get sharper images using prime lens, rather than zooms
Thanks
Steve

Well, it depends really. It use to be that you could and did, but the distinction isn't so great anymore. Some of the more recent zooms are very nearly as sharp as some primes. I think it is probably still true that the "best" prime will be a little better than the "best" zoom. That isn't a rules it's a generality. Canons 16-35 f4L for instance i hear is VERY nice.


John
Gear List|My Flickr (external link)|Website (external link)|500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited 4 days ago by MalVeauX.
Nov 18, 2017 18:05 |  #9

Steve Sanchez Photography wrote in post #18499292 (external link)
well i wanted to know if i would get sharper images using prime lens, rather than zooms
Thanks
Steve

Greatly depends on the lens, sensor size, pixel size, and focal-ratio you use as a combination.

In general, most things are not very different at F8~F11 in terms of sharpness. Some of the newer zooms and primes look even sharper with the increase in micro-contrast. But in general, a 20 year old lens at F11 is really sharp and shooting a prime doesn't automatically make it sharper (the prime's advantage is maximum focal ratio really, but that's not really what you look at when it comes to a landscape lens for the most part).

I've used a lot of primes & wide zooms for landscape. Really can't say one is truly superior to the other. I more often reach for my zoom (old 17-40L) for it these days, but only for convenience.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Nov 19, 2017 02:23 |  #10

Yea, you can't make that distinction now. Depends what prime vs what zoom.


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
Bcaps
I was a little buzzed when I took this
Bcaps's Avatar
Joined Jun 2003
Bay Area, CA
Post has been edited 2 days ago by Bcaps.
Nov 19, 2017 16:26 |  #11

Sometimes the "shot" is outside of what you may have if you are shooting with a fixed focal length. I really like the versatility that zooms give you when shooting landscapes. Also, other than when shooting milky way/aurora shots when you are shooting landscapes you are typically shooting stopped down and that can negate much of the benefit you would have seen if shooting with a prime lens. Finally, for me, my landscape kit needs to be light as I frequently hike and backpack with it. I can cover 16 mm to 200 mm with three lenses and two of those lenses are f/4, much lighter than faster and heavier primes.


- Dave | flickr (external link)
Nikon D810
14-24mm f/2.8 | 16-35mm F/4 | 24-70mm f/2.8 | 70-200mm f/4 | Sigma 150-600mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,002 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Nov 21, 2017 18:28 |  #12

Really depends. If you're using something like a Tilt-Shift for perspective correction then yeah your prime will be better suited.

For sharpness it's not really easy to say which is better without knowing the lens.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is extremely sharp and has excellent corner sharpness that rivals primes.

The 24-70 f/2.8L Mk II also is extremely sharp and again rivals primes.

Same with the 70-200 f/2.8L Mk II.

I happen to have all three of these lenses. I also have a 35L, 85L and 135L prime. Once I got these Mk II's I don't even use the primes anymore for much other than very specific situations. I love the 85L for newborns or specific wedding shots for example. But nearly everything portrait wise and landscape wise can be done with the above 3 lenses.


Gear List

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

264 views & 2 likes for this thread
Prime Lens Landscapes
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 0.00143 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is Desser
911 guests, 450 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016