70-200 as a landscape lens

Just wanted to share this...when I was in Tuscany, I almost exclusively used the 70-200 for landscapes.

So I guess, there is no such thing as a typical landscape lens

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Very nice....

I certainly don't know why so many folks here associate "landscape photography" with nothing but ultra-wide focal lengths. That's quite silly in my opinion. All the experienced photographers I know use every lens they have in the bag at one time or another for "landscape" photos.

That's one darn pretty photograph. Now I want to grab my 70-200 and head for the hills.

plumgoo wrote in post #16146003
That's one darn pretty photograph. Now I want to grab my 70-200 and head for the hills.

Checking your location.....you should come back with something pretty

Very cool; I use the 70-200 and 100-400 for landscape shots quite often to isolate something cool or to cut out extraneous "noise"

Thats an awesome shot mate!!!

My 100-400L works much better for landscapes than the 17mm end of my 17-50 works for portraits.

Tele's are certainly great for low distortion shots like these. Just different working distance. That shot was probably a mile away.

If anything it's the opposite, I think many folks are aware that Tele's make for good landscape pictures. (Good photo BTW). Basically, unless there is something of interest in the foreground, tele's can often make for more interesting landscapes than Wide angles. They are different tools for different intentions.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #16146387
If anything it's the opposite, I think many folks are aware that Tele's make for good landscape pictures. (Good photo BTW). Basically, unless there is something of interest in the foreground, tele's can often make for more interesting landscapes than Wide angles. They are different tools for different intentions.

Exactly. Ultra wides, normal zooms and telephotos all have their place in landscape photography. One is not any better than the other, just provide a different perspective on the scene.

Same goes with street photography where anything from ultra wide to telephoto can be used...yet it seems like we gravitate to the magical 35mm focal length when talking street photos. And what about portraits where the magical 85mm is regarded as king, yet you can get very interesting portraits shooting wide angle as well as telephoto.

There are no rules.

I agree, it definitely works just fine as a landscape lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x0ny/9227964778​/

Pretty happy with my F4 non IS version!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/68525435@N05/8​287909083/

love it....great light and mood

I also use mine to create vertical shots for pano stitches

Man that photo is terrific!

And I couldn't agree more. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is my favorite portrait lens, AND one of my favorite landscape lenses. I will never go on a landscape shoot without it.

Perfect lens when you want to isolate the good stuff and leave the boring stuff outside the frame.

Ace shot. The last photograph I published was shot at 400mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/9303668​944/