Nature/Landscape lens recommendation needed!

Good morning! What's your favorite lens to shoot with, as far as nature/landscape photography? I own lenses specifically used for portrait or sports, but not sure if I have any I can use for this genre. Thanks!

Very difficult to give definitive response...after all, some photographers think:

• 'landscape' needs a wide angle FL lens, and yet others think
  
• 'landscape' is done when you splice together a series of shots taken with a medium or longer FL lens on a panorama head
  

Wilt wrote in post #18275514
Very difficult to give definitive response...after all, some photographers think:

• 'landscape' needs a wide angle FL lens, and yet others think
  
• 'landscape' is done when you splice together a series of shots taken with a long FL lens on a panorama head
  

You're right, Wilt. I almost always think wide angle lens for landscape, but then someone proves me wrong. I just want to make sure I have all the focal lengths covered before we move up to WA. Have to make the most of my time there, with the beautiful scenery.

Maybe what I have in my current arsenal will work.

The interesting aspect about 'landscape' is often that the detail in the distant background is important element to the scene, and that is lost when you use a WA lens which makes the distance receded into tiny nothingness.

Yet sometimes 'landscape' is when the importance is nearer to the camera with the distant background is still important to the emotional content of the entire scene, and WA works well.

All too often, the second comes to mind more than the first. But it only takes a few shots to be a disappointment when you are back at home, and what caught your eye during shooting is insignificant relative to the foreground emptiness!

Makes sense, Wilt. Focal length will depend on what's important to me in the shot I'm taking. I'll definitely keep that in mind.

Thanks for the tips!

my favourite lenses for landscapes
16-35 f/4 L IS
70-200 f/4 L IS

fplstudio wrote in post #18275953
my favourite lenses for landscapes
16-35 f/4 L IS
70-200 f/4 L IS

Awesome! That means my 70-200 f/2.8L will work, right? Also, my 17-55 f/2.8?

JennB wrote in post #18275956
Awesome! That means my 70-200 f/2.8L will work, right? Also, my 17-55 f/2.8?

There's nothing wrong with either lens...........go and have some fun

JennB wrote in post #18275956
Awesome! That means my 70-200 f/2.8L will work, right? Also, my 17-55 f/2.8?

absolutely yes! It is a hell of weight to take around but it will definitely do a wonderful job.
The most prize landscapes on specialized platforms were shot with the 24-105 f/4 L that most would consider an inferior glass...

If you're approching landscape photography now invest in learning light & composition, your tools are perfectly capable and definitely not the bottle neck of your artistic expression

As stated above, light and composition are going to be WAY more important than which lens you used to make the image. I've used a 17-50, 10-22, 18-35, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 for various landscape shots over the years; I use the 24-105, by far, the most followed closely by the 10-22, though. These are on a crop sensor; if I had a FF, I would likely use the 70-200 quite a bit more, due to what Wilt mentioned above. I tend to want what's "in the background" much more than I want a wide angle shot with something disappearing into the horizon. Or, because of our geography, just can't safely get closer to frame what I want with the wider focal lengths.

JennB wrote in post #18275956
Awesome! That means my 70-200 f/2.8L will work, right? Also, my 17-55 f/2.8?

Yup they will work just fine, you won't know if you're limited by your lenses until you go out and shoot the things you want to shoot.

photosbytw wrote in post #18275969
There's nothing wrong with either lens...........go and have some fun

I will certainly do that, tw! I wish there were more to photograph here in San Antonio. Unfortunately, I have plenty of buildings and houses, which I'm truly not interested in shooting.

fplstudio wrote in post #18276135
absolutely yes! It is a hell of weight to take around but it will definitely do a wonderful job.
The most prize landscapes on specialized platforms were shot with the 24-105 f/4 L that most would consider an inferior glass...

If you're approching landscape photography now invest in learning light & composition, your tools are perfectly capable and definitely not the bottle neck of your artistic expression

The 24-105 is a gem in landscape? Wow! Didn't know that. I just may get my hands on one. Will definitely be a lighter set up. Thanks!

Snydremark wrote in post #18276149
As stated above, light and composition are going to be WAY more important than which lens you used to make the image. I've used a 17-50, 10-22, 18-35, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 for various landscape shots over the years; I use the 24-105, by far, the most followed closely by the 10-22, though. These are on a crop sensor; if I had a FF, I would likely use the 70-200 quite a bit more, due to what Wilt mentioned above. I tend to want what's "in the background" much more than I want a wide angle shot with something disappearing into the horizon. Or, because of our geography, just can't safely get closer to frame what I want with the wider focal lengths.

I have both FF and crop cameras, Eric. The lightest to carry would be the 24-105 with my 7D, right? My 5D with 70-200 would be too much?

DesolateMirror wrote in post #18276189
Yup they will work just fine, you won't know if you're limited by your lenses until you go out and shoot the things you want to shoot.

I wish I can go out and shoot right now. No beautiful landscape in sight, unfortunately. I may have to do with what's around me, buildings and houses.