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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 25 Mar 2017 (Saturday) 17:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Recommend a lense for landscape photography

 
marsaz
Member
203 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Lithuania
     
Mar 25, 2017 17:34 |  #1

Hi,

I'm getting a 6D and wondering which lenses work well on a FF sensor. I mostly shoot landscape and some portraits. I currently have these Canon lenses - 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4L non IS. I'm looking in to standard or wide or ultra wide ranges. I have no problem shooting zooms or primes but mostly prefer primes due to usually good price and sharpness package.

Which ones would you recommend for landscape work that are sharp corner to corner?


flickr (external link)
6D and glass

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,325 posts
Gallery: 1715 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10760
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Mar 25, 2017 17:38 |  #2

Heya,

Your 70-200 will cover the telephoto side of landscape nicely.

A 16-35 F4L IS would be the gem to get on the wide side.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 2 years ago by Bassat.
     
Mar 25, 2017 17:42 |  #3

I think the question is a little off center. I have lenses from 12mm FE to 400mm. I believe I've used all of them for landscape type shots at one time or another. Generally, wide is accepted as landscape worthy, but you can use any lens that does what you want. I bought my latest lens, Σ12-24mm II, specifically for landscape/architecture stuff. But that may not work for what you want. My general lens is a 24-105, which does landscapes nicely. I have a 17-40, but don't use it much, and may be selling it because I have the entire range covered with 12-24 & 24-105.

I think most lenses are sufficiently sharp across the frame at f/8-11. Mostly none of them are wide open.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,427 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 3913
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Mar 25, 2017 17:44 |  #4

16-35 F4 if you don't mind spending a bit more, 17-40 F4 (used or refurb) if you want to keep the cost low.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 464
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Mar 25, 2017 17:46 |  #5

MalVeauX wrote in post #18310779 (external link)
Heya,

Your 70-200 will cover the telephoto side of landscape nicely.

A 16-35 F4L IS would be the gem to get on the wide side.

Very best,

+1 to the above.

The 16-35 f/4 isn't as sharp as the new f/2.8, but it's really very good.

The 24mm TSE is superb, but specialist and pricey. The 16-35 by comparison would be much more versatile.

The 16-35, with your 50mm and 70-200 would cover you for a really wide range of work, and shouldn't be too bad to carry.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 2 years ago by CheshireCat. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 25, 2017 23:43 |  #6

The best landscape wide I have in Canon mount is certainly the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8. Love the colors and sharpness.

I also have the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, which I use for everything else wide. It can be a very good landscape lens, and the 2 extra stops are really nice for some 3D pop. It also has AF but it misses a lot.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 865
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 25, 2017 23:50 |  #7

sploo wrote in post #18310788 (external link)
The 16-35 f/4 isn't as sharp as the new f/2.8, but it's really very good.

I guess I could check, but is the 2.8 much sharper at f8?


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DesolateMirror
Senior Member
Avatar
394 posts
Gallery: 134 photos
Likes: 359
Joined Oct 2015
     
Mar 26, 2017 01:08 |  #8

Above advice is all great.

When you shoot landscape do you carry a tripod or shoot handheld? If you carry a tripod then ~f/4 without IS is fine -BUT- if you are shooting only hand held (specially in low light) you might want to consider ~f/2.8 and/or image stabilization (even though the 6D high ISO performance is great).

ps. Always take a tripod :P




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Mar 26, 2017 01:59 |  #9

DesolateMirror wrote in post #18311021 (external link)
ps. Always take a tripod :P

My version is: Always take a friend who has a tripod :P


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marsaz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
203 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Lithuania
     
Mar 26, 2017 03:23 |  #10

DesolateMirror wrote in post #18311021 (external link)
Above advice is all great.

When you shoot landscape do you carry a tripod or shoot handheld? If you carry a tripod then ~f/4 without IS is fine -BUT- if you are shooting only hand held (specially in low light) you might want to consider ~f/2.8 and/or image stabilization (even though the 6D high ISO performance is great).

ps. Always take a tripod :P

I usually shoot between f8 and f11 and I do bring a tripod. I'd like a 2.8 lense for star photography but I'd probably get a Samyang 14mm 2.8 at some point for that purpose. Unless I get a fast zoom close to that focal range which I could use for both purposes. A used 17-40mm seems to be going around for quite cheap but 16-35mm sounds very nice indeed. I'll have to check the prices on those. I don't want to spend over a 1000$ (preferably as little as possible) but I understand you have to spend some money if you want better glass.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18311038 (external link)
My version is: Always take a friend who has a tripod :P

lol!


flickr (external link)
6D and glass

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 464
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Mar 26, 2017 05:58 |  #11

ejenner wrote in post #18311000 (external link)
I guess I could check, but is the 2.8 much sharper at f8?

Probably so close it doesn't really matter:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)

I usually take a bunch of shots on an ISO test chart when I get a new lens - mostly just to check there are no issues. My sample of the 24-70II seems good (it matched another one I tested, and did well against a Canon 50mm f/1.4 that was stopped down to f/2.8).

The 16-35 f/4 IS I have certainly isn't shamed by the 24-70II, so I was initially surprised to see that the f/2.8 III was even better still (hats off to Canon).

However, low-to-medium differences on a black and white test chart, zoomed in, are unlikely to be field relevant. I.e. for real world shooting the differences are far less obvious.

I'd definitely choose the f/2.8 III if I were an astro guy, but the image quality of the f/4 is good enough, and for shooting without a tripod (e.g. castle or stately home interiors where tripods aren't allowed) the IS makes a huge difference; as you can trade 2-3 stops of IS for a smaller aperture and lower ISO.

marsaz wrote in post #18311056 (external link)
I usually shoot between f8 and f11 and I do bring a tripod. I'd like a 2.8 lense for star photography but I'd probably get a Samyang 14mm 2.8 at some point for that purpose. Unless I get a fast zoom close to that focal range which I could use for both purposes. A used 17-40mm seems to be going around for quite cheap but 16-35mm sounds very nice indeed. I'll have to check the prices on those. I don't want to spend over a 1000$ (preferably as little as possible) but I understand you have to spend some money if you want better glass.

I'd really recommend the new 16-35 models (f/4 or f/2.8 III) over the old 16-35s or 17-40. Whilst the two new lenses are both very good, there is daylight between them and the old models in terms of sharpness.

The Samyang 14mm is a great budget lens. Just make sure you buy it from somewhere that will take returns, as the quality control is a little iffy. Some are great, but many (like the first copy I had) are really bad. Once you get a good one it's a gem though.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 865
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 26, 2017 09:20 |  #12

sploo wrote in post #18311087 (external link)
Probably so close it doesn't really matter:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)


Yea, it is a bit better in the corners, like you said, hats off to Canon. I have not noticed the CA stopped down on the f4, but if you were picky it might be worth a real-world test.

I do like the IS and weight of the f4 as well though - I hike with my lenses so that is important.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 865
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 26, 2017 09:25 |  #13

marsaz wrote in post #18311056 (external link)
A used 17-40mm seems to be going around for quite cheap but 16-35mm sounds very nice indeed. I'll have to check the prices on those. I don't want to spend over a 1000$ (preferably as little as possible) but I understand you have to spend some money if you want better glass.

lol!


The 16-35 is so much better IQ than the 17-40 that I would really try to spring for it. I guess if money is tight and you could get a 17-40 for $300 or so it might be worth it. I wouldn't pay more than 1/2 the cost of a 16-35 for a 17-40 if near-corner IQ is important to you though. You'll want to stop down the 17-40 to f11-f16 to get 'sharp' corners.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcothron
Goldmember
Avatar
3,345 posts
Gallery: 364 photos
Likes: 7720
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Gainesville, GA
     
Mar 26, 2017 09:30 |  #14

For zoom, the 16-35 f4L. You said you prefer prime, if so I would find a Zeiss 21mm Distagon.

That is taking into account what you already have.


John
Gear List|My Flickr (external link)|Website (external link)|
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marsaz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
203 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Lithuania
     
Mar 26, 2017 12:34 |  #15

Good stuff guys, thanks.
I'm only considering 17-40 because it goes for 300 or so used. I assume that's good value. I've tried a rented one on an aps-c sensor before and was not impressed with the IQ tho. New 16-35s sound the best and I need to look in to that Zeiss option :)

Btw, has anyone tried the 20mm f1.4 Sigma yet?


flickr (external link)
6D and glass

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

3,441 views & 5 likes for this thread
Recommend a lense for landscape photography
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 angkorphoto
869 guests, 355 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.