Prime Lens Landscapes

Do any of you use prime lens for landscape or cityscape photography?
Thanks
Steve

I do. On my Fuji I uses a 16mm f1.4, 12mm f2, 35mm f 1.4 and some times a 56mm f1.2 ( though that'd rare as I will usually use the 18-55 or 50-140 if I need that focal length)

The thing with primes vs zooms for landscapes is that once you stop a lens down to f5.6-f11 the image quality is usually pretty equal.

How about using prime lens for night cityscape and with lee ND filters?
Thanks
Steve

Steve Sanchez Photography wrote in post #18492121
How about using prime lens for night cityscape and with lee ND filters?
Thanks
Steve

I don't shoot cityscapes or lee ND's. I do howeve use ND's (Firecrest filters) with my primes with no issues.

Primes have the speed advantage for night shooting when you need the extra speed. However if you're stopping down then again, the image quality is about equal.

Great thanks so much
Steve

I use prime lenses only and Lee filters as well, do you have a question about either?

well i wanted to know if i would get sharper images using prime lens, rather than zooms
Thanks
Steve

Steve Sanchez Photography wrote in post #18499292
well i wanted to know if i would get sharper images using prime lens, rather than zooms
Thanks
Steve

Well, it depends really. It use to be that you could and did, but the distinction isn't so great anymore. Some of the more recent zooms are very nearly as sharp as some primes. I think it is probably still true that the "best" prime will be a little better than the "best" zoom. That isn't a rules it's a generality. Canons 16-35 f4L for instance i hear is VERY nice.

Steve Sanchez Photography wrote in post #18499292
well i wanted to know if i would get sharper images using prime lens, rather than zooms
Thanks
Steve

Greatly depends on the lens, sensor size, pixel size, and focal-ratio you use as a combination.

In general, most things are not very different at F8~F11 in terms of sharpness. Some of the newer zooms and primes look even sharper with the increase in micro-contrast. But in general, a 20 year old lens at F11 is really sharp and shooting a prime doesn't automatically make it sharper (the prime's advantage is maximum focal ratio really, but that's not really what you look at when it comes to a landscape lens for the most part).

I've used a lot of primes & wide zooms for landscape. Really can't say one is truly superior to the other. I more often reach for my zoom (old 17-40L) for it these days, but only for convenience.

Very best,

Yea, you can't make that distinction now. Depends what prime vs what zoom.

Sometimes the "shot" is outside of what you may have if you are shooting with a fixed focal length. I really like the versatility that zooms give you when shooting landscapes. Also, other than when shooting milky way/aurora shots when you are shooting landscapes you are typically shooting stopped down and that can negate much of the benefit you would have seen if shooting with a prime lens. Finally, for me, my landscape kit needs to be light as I frequently hike and backpack with it. I can cover 16 mm to 200 mm with three lenses and two of those lenses are f/4, much lighter than faster and heavier primes.

Really depends. If you're using something like a Tilt-Shift for perspective correction then yeah your prime will be better suited.

For sharpness it's not really easy to say which is better without knowing the lens.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is extremely sharp and has excellent corner sharpness that rivals primes.

The 24-70 f/2.8L Mk II also is extremely sharp and again rivals primes.

Same with the 70-200 f/2.8L Mk II.

I happen to have all three of these lenses. I also have a 35L, 85L and 135L prime. Once I got these Mk II's I don't even use the primes anymore for much other than very specific situations. I love the 85L for newborns or specific wedding shots for example. But nearly everything portrait wise and landscape wise can be done with the above 3 lenses.