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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 10 Apr 2015 (Friday) 11:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

If Money Were No Object ..

 
alphamalex
Senior Member
Avatar
901 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 300
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Lexington, KY, U.S.A
     
Apr 10, 2015 11:00 |  #1

Maybe a simple question ...

If money were no object, and you shot a lot of landscapes, wouldn't a TS-E 17mm f/4L be the only lens on your FF camera?

Let's not complicate things by arguments like, "I shoot zoomed landscapes all the time", shall we?

All I'm saying is, if all you did was shot landscapes like this (external link), would you ever need a 10-22, or a 16-35, or what not? The TS-E's supposed to be (one of) the sharpest lenses ever, can do panos if shifted left and right (albeit quickly I presume), and if used properly, can make every blade of grass as sharp as a razor, etc. You wouldn't even need to worry about hyperfocus or anything like that. Only caveat being it's MF only, and has somewhat of a learning curve.

So what's wrong with my train of thought?

Freddy ..


Freddy the Freeloader (external link) aka Freddy the Freeloader (external link)
5DIII, 5D II, 5Dc, 7D with 24-70 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L, 24-105 F4L IS, 70-200 F2.8L IS, 100 2.8L IS Macro, 400 5.6L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 28-135, 55-250
Kenko EF/EFS Tubes, Canon 12mm Tube, EF 2x II Converter, 380EX, 580EX II, Manfrotto MT294A3, Manfrotto 804RC2 Head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,643 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 132
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Apr 10, 2015 11:24 |  #2

Not a damn thing wrong with your thought, and yes... it would be my main lens, no matter what. Most of the time it is my default lens on the camera.

It is one of the most versatile lenses made today and is blistering sharp.

You can't go wrong with either the 17 or the 24. I like the 17 better, but only because I lean towards the wide side. I also think it's more versatile since it takes a 1.4 TC and becomes the 24, quite nicely too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LeeRatters
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,972 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5934
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Apr 10, 2015 11:40 |  #3

I'm not really into wide landscapes but yes, I fully understand where you are coming from & I'd have the same train of thought too.


>> Flickr << (external link)


>> Instagram<< (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
someone0
Senior Member
436 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2014
     
Apr 10, 2015 12:07 |  #4

If money were no object, then I would buy two of all the canon L and prime lens and 3 of each top dSLR.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,718 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 620
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
Post edited over 5 years ago by maverick75.
     
Apr 10, 2015 12:43 |  #5

If money was no object I'd spring for the $250,000 digital 8x10 back and just shoot 8x10 all the time.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
15,816 posts
Gallery: 173 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5921
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Apr 10, 2015 13:30 |  #6

alphamalex wrote in post #17511926 (external link)
If money were no object, and you shot a lot of landscapes, wouldn't a TS-E 17mm f/4L be the only lens on your FF camera?

No, it wouldn't be the only lens on my full frame body. In fact, I don't think it would ever be on my full frame body for landscapes. Why? Because I have never wanted to shoot any landscape at a wide focal length like 17mm. The newer 24mm T/S, maybe.....but even that is quite a bit wider than what I normally shoot landscapes at.

The 17mm T/S wouldn't be of any use to me at all for landscape photography.


"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 "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,653 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 752
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Apr 10, 2015 14:12 |  #7

Nope.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Apr 10, 2015 14:15 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17512135 (external link)
No, it wouldn't be the only lens on my full frame body. In fact, I don't think it would ever be on my full frame body for landscapes. Why? Because I have never wanted to shoot any landscape at a wide focal length like 17mm. The newer 24mm T/S, maybe.....but even that is quite a bit wider than what I normally shoot landscapes at.

The 17mm T/S wouldn't be of any use to me at all for landscape photography.

I agree. The 17mm would be a specialty lens for me...definitely not my go to lens for landscape and a big definitely not my only lens for landscape.

When I go shooting landscapes, I carry an assortment of lenses spanning from 16mm to 200mm and depending on what I am shooting, different lenses get used. I very rarely need the extreme wide angle view.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Miki ­ G
Goldmember
1,157 posts
Likes: 301
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Ireland
     
Apr 10, 2015 14:57 |  #9

I love this lens on my full frame not only for it's sharpness and versatility, but also for it's perspective control in areas which when shooting, can be difficult to include everything that I want. That said, I don't think it would be my only lens, but it is certainly one of my favourites.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Apr 10, 2015 15:33 |  #10

If I didn't need to worry about the cost? I would probably have a custom 8x10 digital single chip large format camera made with a set of custom lenses to go with it.

But seriously, wide angle lenses are good... for wide angle photos. Some of the best landscape shots I've seen have been from an 800mm, so I would still want a range of lenses that I could use as needed for different styles of photos.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gremlin75
Goldmember
Avatar
2,738 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 226
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Apr 10, 2015 16:10 |  #11

Luckless wrote in post #17512275 (external link)
If I didn't need to worry about the cost? I would probably have a custom 8x10 digital single chip large format camera made with a set of custom lenses to go with it.

Pretty close to my first thoughts.

If money were no object I'd get a nice medium format kit. Though a custom 8x10 digital camera would be nice too!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,866 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8740
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Apr 10, 2015 16:12 |  #12

If cost were no object, I'd not be trying to limit myself to any one lens.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sacadelic
Senior Member
Avatar
585 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Madison, WI
     
Apr 10, 2015 20:39 |  #13

If cost were no object, Id probably have one of everything..


-Sac
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crbinson
Senior Member
614 posts
Likes: 89
Joined Jul 2012
Location: OKC
     
Apr 10, 2015 20:54 |  #14


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


My Flickr (external link) | My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,862 posts
Gallery: 2021 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12285
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 5 years ago by MalVeauX. (3 edits in all)
     
Apr 11, 2015 05:58 |  #15

alphamalex wrote in post #17511926 (external link)
Maybe a simple question ...

If money were no object, and you shot a lot of landscapes, wouldn't a TS-E 17mm f/4L be the only lens on your FF camera?

Let's not complicate things by arguments like, "I shoot zoomed landscapes all the time", shall we?

All I'm saying is, if all you did was shot landscapes like this (external link), would you ever need a 10-22, or a 16-35, or what not? The TS-E's supposed to be (one of) the sharpest lenses ever, can do panos if shifted left and right (albeit quickly I presume), and if used properly, can make every blade of grass as sharp as a razor, etc. You wouldn't even need to worry about hyperfocus or anything like that. Only caveat being it's MF only, and has somewhat of a learning curve.

So what's wrong with my train of thought?

Freddy ..

Heya,

Nope. If I were to go to a single lens, ever, it would not be ultrawide, nor telephoto. I'd probably want a 24~35mm focal length for "my only lens ever" for this endevour.

If money were no object, why are you even considering serious landscaping with 35mm format?

I don't even know what the highest order of equipment is in the world of large sensors (8x10, etc). But I am familiar with medium format and would START there, rather than with some 35mm format with a big budget. When you see the quality of a large sensor, the dynamic range, you don't even have to use filters for huge range shots, etc. And I'd be using anything from 40mm, 90mm to 180mm. Probably 80~90mm mostly. You can get crazy with $100k in medium format.

However, money IS object here, and if my budget could handle medium format, I would definitely add it to my setup. I'd still use 35mm as my fast equipment option for telephoto reach and action, as it's superior for this by far. But for landscape and portrait, I'd love to have a meager medium format setup.

So, on a budget (money is an object in reality, no sense in trying to just guess at the most expensive or highest praised item that is modern), I'd want:

Pentax 645z
Pentax 80-160
Pentax 120 macro
About $16k, reasonable, still costly, but reasonable. And not even the 'best,' not up there with a $30k Hasselblad. But better than 35mm format for landscape.

Very best,


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

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

3,084 views & 1 like for this thread
If Money Were No Object ..
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 is rush1981
600 guests, 254 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.