Dabbling in Landscape

Just some advice.... My photography has mostly been of birding with my 400L lens as well as digiscoping wildlife etc... But, I like to dabble in landscape although have no real lens.

At the moment if I want to landscape I use my 18-55 kit lens or the 28-135 lens or my SX10....but I am looking at either the Canon 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24mm for a landscape lens.

Since I am not really into it that much, I am thinking the Tokina...

A quick question ...when shooting landscapes at f8-F16...do you guys use a tri pod or just handhold? ... I don't have any particular scene in mind but when I am walking around birding in all regions I run across some lovely scenery and want to take better advantage of it... Advice appreciated, jim

I always use a tripod if I can. The thing with good landscapes is they are not usually shoot from the hip. They require preparation and timing, something that lends itself well to a tripod.

I also use a tripod if I can. I tend to shoot low ISO, and f/8-f/16 and this usually leads to a slow shutter speed that I shouldn't hand hold. Sometimes, if I'm just walking around and taking pics as I go I'll use ISO-400 to ISO-800 and f/4 to be able to get a hand holdable shutter speed. Only when I really find something I like and want to prep for is when I want to get the tripod out, or when I want to blur motion like rivers or waterfalls.

Good landscapes (as a very general rule) tend to have very large depth of field. This requires the use of narrow apertures which of course leads to longer shutter speeds and the need for a tripod.

There are a lot of good landscapes to be shot with the kit lens. Have to say though that having the wide angle does open up a whole range of shots that wouldn't have been possible without stitching panos (which is not always possible or desirable). Just watch out for distortion. Have you considered the Sigma 10-20? I have it and its a great lens.

Thanks all....I figured as such as the shaking is always in issue even in bird photos...appreciate the response.
Neilwood...I have considered the Sigma along with the Tokina,....both look solid so will look into that more. I have a Tokina already so that was why I leaned that way in my thinking with the Tokina 12-24 bu I have no qualms about looking into Sigma,....both are quality, jim

Tripod, mirror lock-up, remote, etc. To me, they are all mandatory. You really want to do whatever you can to get that shot as sharp as possible. Also, you're generally going to be shooting during low light times, dawn/dusk to get the best shots possible, which really slows down shutter speeds.
You don't seem too worried about the lens, which is good. I think it's good you want to fill that wide angle gap, but besides that, I'd nail down your technique first. You can decide if you'd like to invest money in a sharper wide angle down the road.

As the others have said, using a tripod is pretty much standard practice for landscape photographers. It's not only because of the technical benefits but also because landscape photography tends to require a lot of waiting around (much like wildlife photography). The usual drill: set up the tripod, dial in the composition and settings, and then wait...for the sunset to peak, for the clouds to part, for the next set of waves to crash on the beach, for the moon to rise, for the wind to settle down...whatever. Lots of waiting!

As Phrasikleia has touched upon, landscape photography has a lot to do with patience. Waiting to get the "right light" is the hardest part as is "seeing" the right light.

...and, as long as you're waiting, that heavy camera/lens may as well be supported by a tripod!

If i"m shooting for a nice image, the tripod is always in use. I will admit that when I'm out for a casual hike or just enjoying nature I usually do not carry a tripod. In the end I think it depends on if you are looking for a great shot or just a snapshot. IMO, the great shot requires a tripod.

Can't remember who said it but "the best tripod is the one you have with you". In other words if the tripod is so heavy and cumbersome that you never carry it, then there is no point having it.

That was why I went for carbon fibre as it almost halved the weight of the tripod meaning I was more likely to carry it.

Neil, it's not a big deal if you're a human tripod like I am myself... LOL

Tripod.

I tend to use a longer lens myself, so there is no such thing as a "landscape" lens, its what you are comfortable with given the scene you wish to capture.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15702892
Neil, it's not a big deal if you're a human tripod like I am myself... LOL

I think i saw that photo a while back - was sick in my mouth!

HighPlainsPhotographer wrote in post #15700254
If i"m shooting for a nice image, the tripod is always in use. I will admit that when I'm out for a casual hike or just enjoying nature I usually do not carry a tripod. In the end I think it depends on if you are looking for a great shot or just a snapshot. IMO, the great shot requires a tripod.

This is one reason why I bought my Gorillapod. I also have a Vanguard ball head on it which takes the same plates as my big tripod, yet the whole thing is only a little over a foot tall. It's surprisingly rigid, and the legs can be wrapped around a pole or tree branch so it's quite versatile. Although I get it close, I don't worry if it's not perfectly level, since it's easy to straighten a slight tilt in post.

When I'm out in the car and don't plan any long walks, then I take my 6 foot tripod. With the ball head, it's tall enough that I don't have to crouch to shoot with it unless the composition calls for a low angle.