Complete restart - suggest me a 2nd lens - for landscapes

Hello guys/girls.


I was sitting at home, and read about the Canon 50mm 1.0 L USM...
That was a bad idea, most likely, beause I started thinking...

You know, thinking is the worst thing a human can do. --> It causes all sorts of trouble.

I was like... Wow, that lens, some say, its really not sharp, others (Ken Rockwell) say, and has provided pictures,
that show the lens is sharp even at f/1. In other instances I have seen, that it is sharp, yet the main problem with it is fringing.
That takes away sharpness...

Anyway, the newest lens is 15 years old at this moment, and I don't really feel confident, it will not fail, and as Canon does not repair them anymore, (and its incredibly expensive - used), I got thinking again...

I do mostly portraits, and similar pictures. (tight head shot, full body portraits, glamour/nude.)

For that I mainly use my 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II lens, mostly around 135mm.
But I use it mostly around 135 because the background blur at 70mm 2.8 ist that nice.
Its on the other hand just beautyful at 135 or above.

I know a 50mm lens would be a bit too wide, or I would need to get too close to my subject, and I like to keep a distance.
A 135mm would be nice for outdoors, but indoor or in tight places its too much "zoom".

So I decided to go for the Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L USM II.

But then I continued to read some photography aricles...
Ohh my, seriously guys, NEVER EVER read, and think, that is just the worst you can do

So I read about that Canon 5Ds...
I figured its not too much more xpensive then a 5D3 at this moment in my country, and I wanted to get the 5D3 for its autofocus system... But the 5Ds would be even better for portraits...

So I was thinking... IF I would sell my 5D2, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, and the 24-70, and the 16-35, I could buy myself a 5Ds (+ 85mm 1.2 L II anyway) for Xmas.

I used the 70-200 almost only for portraits, and the 24-70 for portraits in tighter palces, and some landscapes.
Obviously the 16-35 I used for Landscapes (mainly) - wide angle shots.

So there I am, if I sell all my gear, I could by a 5Ds and 85mm 1.2 L for my portraits.
I am convinced, that the 85mm would deliver stunning results, and that it is the best focal lenght for my for portraits
(out of the prime lens options.) 50 - 85 - 135

BUT I like to shoot some Landscapes too...
And the 85mm would not be the best for that.

So what should I do?

I would prefer a Prime, because of the large apeture, that I could use in some tight places for portraiture, to seperate the subject.)

Here are the options:
Canon 35mm 1.4 L
Canon 24mm 1.4 L II

Or I could get a 16-35 f/2.8 zoom. - Yes I have it, but to enable me to buy the 5DS+85L for Xmas I need to sell it.
Or get a 24-105 L - Jack of all trades, but then I could not use the large apeture to seperate subjects.
So it needs to be one of the primes.

What should I choose?

The 35mm 1.4 L should be replaced shortly by Canon, but I can wait for that, I think it would be better for tight places, and portraits. Yet it is not wide enough for some landscapes. - Of course I could do multiple pictures, and stich them together.

The 24mm 1.4 L II should be better for landscapes, but I fear it would be a bit wide for those portrait works, where I need something wider then 85mm.

What is your experience, what would you guys suggest?

Thanks for reading it all

update: kindly read, to better understand me
To understand me better.

I know, that for what I do, the 5Ds + 85L combination would be ideal.
I do 85% of the time portraits, and full body portraits, mostly outdoors, or in a large hotel room.

The question is that in the remaining 15%, where I need a wider angle shot, or I go to a party with friends, and would like to take some pictures there, or in tighter places, there the 85mm is just too "zoomed in", or when I travel, to capture the scenery, what lens would your suggest.
I am looking for opinions of those, who own a 24 or 35mm lens, why they would choose one over the other.
The lens should be able to take nice landscape shots, BUT it is not its primary use.
It should be able to isolate the subject from the background. That is why I am looking at the primes.

Of course, I could take a zoom, for landscapes, and I might go for a zoom in the end, I am at this point interested in the Primes, what is your opinion about them, I know a zoom is more versatile, I knwo that you do not need f/1.4 for landscapes, I woudl want opinions, that you guys and gils share your experience with me.
Yes the lens would be used for landscape shots too, about 50% of the time, but still I would prefer subject isolation capability, that I cannot get with an f/4 or even a f/2.8 zoom. (Yes they can do it too, just not as goor as a f1.4)


btw: how to change the title of a thread?!
If a mod reads this, please change the "- for landscapes" to "- 24 or 35mm".
Thank you

If I were in the market for a fast, wide prime, I'd be shopping the Σ24 f/1.4A.

If you are getting a Sds/r and an 85L as first lens why do you need a fast aperture for the second lens for landscapes.....Never use anything less than f8 anyway so a 12-24mm or 16-35f4IS would be better than a prime ...Infact the 5dsr works best with Mk2 IS so the 16-35 f4iS would be the better ultra wide to wide for landscapes . Better than the 16-35 2.8 because the f4 IS will give you at least 1 stop better handheld in lower light than the 2.8 could give .....
And if you are adamant that you want fast aperture because you will do some other non landscape work with it then your only choice will be 24mm as 34 a bit to long to be a landscape lens .......If you get the 24mm be aware that handheld with the prime and the 5dsr will be harder to shoot than the 16-35 f4IS....Expect to use shutter speeds even on the wide angle 24mm of at least 1/60th of a second hand held and more likely 1/125th of a second to be on safe side..

Thats why i bought a 16-35Lf4 for landscapes my 5dsr. Although having said that my best landscape so far since getting the 5dsr was shot with my 100-400LMk2IS at the 200mm end !!....So nothings firm on what lens constitutes the perfect landscape lens because all L lens will take a decent landscape just its just from a different perspective thats all.....Its the 5dsr you need to worry about more and what lens best suits that in the areas you want to cover

Clipper

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17680832
If you are getting a Sds/r and an 85L as first lens why do you need a fast aperture for the second lens for landscapes.....Never use anything less than f8 anyway so a 12-24mm or 16-35f4IS would be better than a prime ...Infact the 5dsr works best with Mk2 IS so the 16-35 f4iS would be the better ultra wide to wide for landscapes . Better than the 16-35 2.8 because the f4 IS will give you at least 1 stop better handheld in lower light than the 2.8 could give .....
And if you are adamant that you want fast aperture because you will do some other non landscape work with it then your only choice will be 24mm as 34 a bit to long to be a landscape lens .......If you get the 24mm be aware that handheld with the prime and the 5dsr will be harder to shoot than the 16-35 f4IS....Expect to use shutter speeds even on the wide angle 24mm of at least 1/60th of a second hand held and more likely 1/125th of a second to be on safe side..

Thats why i bought a 16-35Lf4 for landscapes my 5dsr. Although having said that my best landscape so far since getting the 5dsr was shot with my 100-400LMk2IS at the 200mm end !!....So nothings firm on what lens constitutes the perfect landscape lens because all L lens will take a decent landscape just its just from a different perspective thats all.....Its the 5dsr you need to worry about more and what lens best suits that in the areas you want to cover

Clipper

You mention that a lens should suit the Camera.
Are you referring to the higher resolution, and thus higher shutter speeds?
I mean like a little move of the camera would be more visible. Or is there something else I should know?

I really would prefer the prime, as it would help me with situations outside landscape photography.
And for landscapes I would use a tripod-monopod anyways


Thank you for your input, much apreciated.

NemethR wrote in post #17680764
Obviously the 16-35 I used for Landscapes.

I have no idea how the idea of ultra-wide-angle focal lengths equating to "landscape" photography came to be. I use focal lengths from the shortest to the longest that I have available for "landscape" photography, depending on the scene and what I want to make as an image.

I think we should replace the term "landscape" with other terms that really define what an individual is thinking about because I cannot ever feel that I'd do someone justice by recommending a single lens (or, especially, a single focal length) to use for "landscape" photography.

SkipD wrote in post #17680868
I have no idea how the idea of ultra-wide-angle focal lengths equating to "landscape" photography came to be. I use focal lengths from the shortest to the longest that I have available for "landscape" photography, depending on the scene and what I want to make as an image.

I think we should replace the term "landscape" with other terms that really define what an individual is thinking about because I cannot ever feel that I'd do someone justice by recommending a single lens (or, especially, a single focal length) to use for "landscape" photography.

True, yet are we arguing about me not writing down every single instance of what I used the 16-35 for, and just writing "Landscapes"? Come on

To be more precise:
I am looking for a wide-angle lens, that I can use to do some half/full body portraits in tighter places, do some pictures of couples, do indoor pictures, "wide-angle" landscape photos, and still can seperate the subject from the background.

The 35mm I think would excel at the portrait / subject seperation part but lack at the wide angle landscape-street part.
While the 24mm would excel more in the wide angle landscape part, but would maybe not be ideal to seperate the subject from the background.

I am looking for input about these two, who would choose what, and why over the other.
As I did not ever owned any of them, and they are a bit expensive to just buy before I have goog info, i was thinking maybe you guys could give me that info.

Yes, we can argue about what landscape photography is, and so on, BUT I would prefer, if it would not be about agruin that I did not write another 25 lines, just to be totally correct.

Large apertures on your wide lenses is a bit overrated. You don't need them for landscape work, and those focal lengths, certainly wider than 35 are not great for most portrait uses.

I think landscape photography depends on location first, lens second. I don't get to take a lot of nice landscapes because we don't travel all that much.

However, when we do travel, the lens that I take out really depends on the scene that I'm looking at. Sometimes, my landscape is taken from the road or a hiking trail and a long lens is the best option to "get closer" to the scene and also to separate unwanted elements out of the frame. If I'm practically standing in the scene, for example sitting by a lake or on a kayak, then a wide lens helps to obtain that feeling of being there inside the landscape. There's everything in between.

There are lots of different types of landscapes, so I think it largely depends on where your location will be and how far you will be standing from it.

That said, I think I've taken landscapes with everyone of my current line up of lenses. I used to own a 24LII, as well. It was a nice, sharp landscape lens. Look at the lens sample galleries and you'll find landscapes from every lens model out there.

NemethR wrote in post #17680867
You mention that a lens should suit the Camera.
Are you referring to the higher resolution, and thus higher shutter speeds?
I mean like a little move of the camera would be more visible. Or is there something else I should know?

I really would prefer the prime, as it would help me with situations outside landscape photography.
And for landscapes I would use a tripod-monopod anyways

Thank you for your input, much apreciated.

WHen I was having problems when I first got my 5DSR 100-400Mk1 and 24-70L Mk1 I I rang Canon Professional services and told them what the issue was...Basically I asked them why i was seeing camera shake at speeds of 1/250th sec on my 400mm end of the lens( even with IS on!) and also shake on my 24-70 at 1/60th sec/\ when I had never had the issue before the new camera . Thats when Canon told me the lens that suited the 5dsr requirements . Also because the sensor resolves so high quite a few other L's that looked ok at 22 MP didnt looks so good when used on a 50megapixel sensor ...Basically the 5dsr sensor amplifies any imperfection and thats why Canon are recommending lens now for thsi camera......And hand held camera shake that wasnt evident on the previous cameras may infact show up now on the bigger MP sensor.....especially the older ISMK1 lens...So I upgraded the lens's and now Im ok....No camera shake blur at reasonable IS handheld speeds /ie 1/125th sec @400mm on the 100-400mk2 and 1/16th on the 16-35f4 @35mm end

here is the list


for EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R
By Canon Rumors | June 30, 2015
Canon Releases Recommended Lenses List for EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R
Canon has released their list of recommended lenses according to The-Digital-Picture.

Notable omissions from the list are the EF 35mm f/1.4L, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, TS-E 45mm f/2.8 and EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. Oddly enough, all of these lenses are on the “to-be-replaced” soon list (“soon” is always a relative term with lenses).

A couple of other oddities are the EF 50mm f/1.8 II appearing on the list and not the brand new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, as well as the EF 50mm f/1.4 making an appearance.

Zoom Lenses

EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x

Wide Angle Primes

TS-E 17mm f/4L
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
Standard Primes

EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
Telephoto Primes

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
TS-E 90mm f/2.8
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
EF 200mm f/2L II USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM


Read more: http://www.canonrumors​.com …-eos-5ds-r/#ixzz3jjszVJsD

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17680907
WHen I was having problems when I first got my 5DSR 100-400Mk1 and 24-70L Mk1 I I rang Canon Professional services and asked them what the issue was...Basically why i was seeing camera shake at speeds of 1/250th sec on my 400mm end of the lens( even with IS on!) and also shake on my 24-70 at 1/60th sec/\. Thats when Canon told me the lens that suited the 5dsr requirements both resolution wise but also because it packed so much data in the sensor50meg it meant that old IS wouldnt work as well at the lower speeds and thus camera shake would be evident at speeds I normally wouldnt have a problem with. Also because the sensor resolves so high quite a few other L's that looked ok at 22 MP didnt looks so good when used on a 50megapixel sensor ...Basically the 5dsr sensor amplifies any imperfection and thats why Canon are recommending lens now for thsi camera......

here is the list

I read that too, but tbh. I think its more about marketing then else.
I might be wrong too.

Looking at the pictures thread now, and I seem to convince myself to go with the 24mm 1.4 L

At least in the pictures thread it has more pictures I am loking for to make with it then the 35mm.

Of course I willl take a look in Lightroom, about what focal lenghts I used more (20-28) vs (30-40) for my shots, but its a decision I don't want to make lightly.

Most likely I will rent the lenses too before buying, I just wanted to hear the opinion of others too.

I traded my 24LII for a 16-35LII. I sometimes miss the 24LII because of it's great performance at f1.4 for indoor, event photography. However, the 16mm end lets me take images that I would simply not be able to take. One day, I'll purchase a 24mm prime again. Right now, having that wide end is very much worth more than f1.4-2.0. That goes for landscapes, too. For landscapes, I wouldn't be using a large aperture. I think pixelpeppers say that the 16-35 isn't sharp enough corner to corner, but it looks good to me.

Also, I take plenty of stitched shots shooting with 35, 50 or 70-200. Landscapes with little movement allow time for this.

For landscapes, one of the tilt-shift lenses would be a great choice, and provides other creative opportunities too...

Nearly all my landscape work is done with the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS and the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 - can't fault either of them! However I would suggest a telephoto lens for landscapes as well - they can be very interesting! I do, occasionally use my 300 and 800mm lenses for this sort of thing.

johnf3f wrote in post #17681422
Nearly all my landscape work is done with the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS and the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 - can't fault either of them! However I would suggest a telephoto lens for landscapes as well - they can be very interesting! I do, occasionally use my 300 and 800mm lenses for this sort of thing.

Thank you John,

I am not actually into landscape photography so much, but from time-to-time it is noce to be able to do some wide angle photos of places I go to. That is why I would prefer a fast lens, for subject seperation, that can also do some nice landscapes.

Really it is only about the 24mm and 35mm, I fear that the 35 is a bit too narrow for landscapes, and that the 24mm is a bit wide for what I would use it normally.

Ofc. I could get both, but I can't get them both the same time, so one needs to come first.

As said the 85 1.2 II L is my choice for Christmas, and sometime in spring I would be able to pick up either the 35 or the 24.

You can get "wide" with a longer focal lengths by stitching them together (both horizontally and vertically)... the benefit is not having the perspective distortion as you might get with a wide angle lens.