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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Jun 2014 (Friday) 10:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Full Frame Landscape Lens

 
nicshow
Senior Member
510 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Central IL, USA
     
Jun 27, 2014 10:30 |  #1

I'm considering going full-frame and am wondering what lens I would want to look at that would be equivalent in range and IQ to the EF-S 17-55 that I currently use 95% of the time?

Nic


My Gear

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nicshow/ (external link)
http://www.nicshowalte​r.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,824 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5833
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 27, 2014 10:39 |  #2

24-70F2.8
24-70F4
24-105F4

any will exceed the IQ


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TLN
Senior Member
284 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jun 27, 2014 11:05 |  #3

Yep, that all three listed lesnses are similar to what 17-55 gives.
But landscape lenses typically wider:
16-35/2.8
17-40/4
new 16-35/4

Depends on what you want: general lenses or landscape.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 27, 2014 11:23 |  #4

Most experienced photographers that I know use just about any focal length one could think of for "landscape" photography. That includes very long focal lengths, medium focal lengths, short focal lengths, and anything in between.

The apparent trend toward ultra-wide-angle lenses being synonymous with "landscape photography" is something that's relatively new and I, for one, do not understand why anyone would consider that to be a rule.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,824 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5833
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 27, 2014 11:34 |  #5

SkipD wrote in post #16997748 (external link)
Most experienced photographers that I know use just about any focal length one could think of for "landscape" photography. That includes very long focal lengths, medium focal lengths, short focal lengths, and anything in between.

The apparent trend toward ultra-wide-angle lenses being synonymous with "landscape photography" is something that's relatively new and I, for one, do not understand why anyone would consider that to be a rule.

+1

I dont particularly limit myself to a small focal range for "landscapes", however I think the reasoning for ultrawide is because ultrawides dont really excel at anything other than landscapes..... hence the recommendations.

to me, landscape lens would cover wide, normal, and tele. 24-105 is good for that, and If I were to shoot only 1 lens for landscapes, that would probably be it.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicshow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
510 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Central IL, USA
     
Jun 27, 2014 13:49 |  #6

Thanks for the help. Let me make sure I understand:

A 24-70 on my crop body would be equivalent to what I now know as 17-64?


My Gear

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nicshow/ (external link)
http://www.nicshowalte​r.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slookx24
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Los Angeles
     
Jun 27, 2014 13:58 |  #7

nicshow wrote in post #16998021 (external link)
Thanks for the help. Let me make sure I understand:

A 24-70 on my crop body would be equivalent to what I now know as 17-64?

No, it would be about 38-112




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,305 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 7925
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Jun 27, 2014 14:34 |  #8

slookx24 wrote in post #16998035 (external link)
No, it would be about 38-112

17 x 1.6 = 27.2 Where does 38 come from?


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicshow
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
510 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Central IL, USA
     
Jun 27, 2014 14:36 |  #9

I should have asked it the other way - the 24-70 on a full frame body would be equivalent to what I now know on a crop sensor as 15-44?


My Gear

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nicshow/ (external link)
http://www.nicshowalte​r.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jun 27, 2014 14:43 |  #10

nicshow wrote in post #16998099 (external link)
I should have asked it the other way - the 24-70 on a full frame body would be equivalent to what I now know on a crop sensor as 15-44?

Yes.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 36
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Jun 27, 2014 22:54 |  #11

I have the 24-70 2.8 II, 24-70 f4, and 24-105 on full frame. I have a very good copy of all 3. I would say all 3 are great. It partly depends on what other lenses you are using. I would say the absolute best bang for the buck setup would be the new 16-35 f4, the canon 24-105, and tamron 70-300. Tamrons primary weakness is AF speed, which does not matter in landscape. it is reasonable size, well built, very cheap, non rotating front element, etc.
I picked the 24-105 b/c it has the better range. it is the weakest of my 24-xx lenses at 24, but you could use the 16-35 in that range. If you are going with just a single lens, I would go with the 24-105 for the range, or 24-70f4, if you are looking for best image quality at a good price.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TweakMDS
Goldmember
Avatar
2,242 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Jun 28, 2014 03:53 |  #12

If I go out for landscape shots, I tend to bring 4 lenses: The 17-40mm, 24-105mm and Tamron 70-300mm. If you find yourself in good light, it's a shame and even a bit of a waste of time and opportunity to just focus on the widest of wide scenes. The 24-105 range is a good middle ground that you can throw a lit of scenes at, but at 24mm you'll need some distortion correction, so your final shot after post processing will be around 25 or 26mm.
The 17-40mm is not perfect but it did give me some great shots and it's very resistant to flares. I love it at 17mm especially if you have a scene with a lot of depth and a good foreground.

The Tamron 70-300 is just great value for picking out some details and it's not too heavy. Unfortunately it doesn't share the 77mm filter size so an extra CPL could be a good idea, assuming you'll want to use a CPL and a hood (otherwise just a step-up adapter).

The 4th lens I bring is usually a 100mm macro, just in case I want to get closer than the 24-105 allows me.
Ironically, my favorite landscape shot (https://www.flickr.com​/photos/mdstoop/771967​3988/ (external link)) was taken with the 85mm 1.8, but to be honest, that was just what was on my camera. The 24-105, 100mm macro or 70-300 could have easily made that shot as well.

Edit:
By the way, looking at your photostream, there's a strong case to be made for a 17mm or 24mm tilt shift. It would depend on your way of shooting, if that's controlled and deliberate, a tilt shift could be a very good option to go together with an all purpose zoom.


Some of my lenses focus beyond infinity...!
~Michael
Gear | Flickr (external link)
"My featured shots" (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
garbidz
Goldmember
Avatar
1,722 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 18
Joined May 2005
Location: Reunion Island
     
Jun 28, 2014 07:45 |  #13

the 20 mm f/2.8 is nice and light and cheap


bag

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mariosworld343
Goldmember
Avatar
1,204 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Jun 28, 2014 08:56 |  #14

Having just picked up the new 16-35 f/4 L, I would recommend it. Very sharp and its a 77mm filter size so you can use filters.


Nikon D850
14-24mm, 50mm Opera, 60g macro, 105g, 200mm f/2 vr2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jun 28, 2014 09:05 |  #15
bannedPermanent ban

SkipD wrote in post #16997748 (external link)
Most experienced photographers that I know use just about any focal length one could think of for "landscape" photography. That includes very long focal lengths, medium focal lengths, short focal lengths, and anything in between.

The apparent trend toward ultra-wide-angle lenses being synonymous with "landscape photography" is something that's relatively new and I, for one, do not understand why anyone would consider that to be a rule.

Sure, just like portraits can and are done with many different focal lengths from 24mm to 200mm yet people gravitate to the 50mm, 85mm or 135mm lenses when talking about portraits. If you actually look at a landscape forum, the majority of shots are taken with wide angle lens.




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

4,114 views & 0 likes for this thread
Full Frame Landscape Lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
893 guests, 219 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.