Landscape photos (without a UWA lens)

kman

kman

Messages
2,104
Edit My Images
Yes
Need some advice please! I'm planning on doing a trek up Mount Snowdon end of this month and would like to take my camera gear up and do take some landscape scenes.

However, I don't have an ultra wide angle lens and am thinking that as its more or less a one-off thing I'm doing its not worth me buying one (as I'l hardly use it after). I don't want to have to carry loads of lenses either so the lens I have got and am considering taking is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5.

My question is will this lens be ok for me for the type of shot I want? I know its a bit difficult to judge without knowing the actual scene unless anyone's experienced with photography on/at Snowdon?

I'm just an amateur/hobbyist btw not looking to make photographs that are going to make me money but I want them to be of a near pro standard at least (for my own satisfaction).

If anyone has taken landscape scenes with this lens I'd really like to see if they dont mind showing?

I guess my other option is to look at hiring something like 10-20 Sigma but it seems quite pricy to me to do just that once factoring in delivery costs etc ends up being £50-60

Final option is if anyone near to me (Luton/bedfordshire) is willing to lend me a suitable lens for a day or two? I'd collect/return myself, pay a small fee even drop a deposit in case of any accidents!
 
Why not just use your normal lens and then stitch the images together?

I used my 18-55mm kit lens for the grand canyon and Yosemite National park and it was fine!
 
Hi,

I bought a Sigma 10-20 UWA a while ago to compliment my Sigma 17-70, the reason being I thought it would be very useful for my landscape shots, however I'm considering selling it as I still find 90% of my shots suit the 17-70 better...

my advice is take the 17-70, it'll be perfect !!

Simon
 
It's a myth that you need a UWA for landscape shots. Yes, you can use them to get exaggerated perspectives and 'forced diagonal' lead-in lines, but through experience, I've realised that that's a specific type of shot, which in no way is the be-all and end-all of landscape togging. If you look at the EXIF data on the shots in my recent poppy thread, you'll see a range of focal lengths used.

The Sigma 17-70 is a fine lens indeed - capable of some very good images.

Don't forget a tripod and a good selection of filters ;)
 
use your 17-70 lens. but try and take a tri/monopod with you for taking multiple pics to make a panoramics from.
 
I always find unless the landscape is substantial in size, a UWA without some foreground interest normally just looks like it's all "over there" and doesn't have much impact. If that makes sense.

I normally use a 10-20 Sigma, which I love. But I've found recently that my 70-300 is great for "selective" landscape shots.
 
17mm is absolutely fine for landscapes. You don't need a wide angle lens and tbh you really don't need to worry about stitching either.

JDholic described how a lot of UWA landscapes end up - it's all over there! Breathtaking mauntain scenery looks very small with a UWA IMO.

Take you 17-70 and if you can a circular polariser. Don't worry about tripods etc although if you use a walking pole see if you can get one with a screw on top to use as a monopod.
 
Great I'l take my 17-70 and practise a bit of panorama stitching. Have got a tripod to take but its a bit big/heavy so might look at something smaller and easier to carry or try taking shots whilst panning?

I've got a CPL filter to put on my Siggy too but won't be suitable for panorama type shot I think as the sky will band. Other shots I will use it and remember to have something of interest in the foreground too.

Thanks for the replies.
 
I don't know where you were planning to hire a Sigma 10-20mm from that would end up costing £50-£60, but you don't need to pay that much!

However, I agree that you don't want/need an ultra-wide lens. They're great for interiors, and for shooting in confined spaces (eg narrow streets), but not for landscapes. Your Sigma 17-70 will be fine.

You don't need a tripod for landscape panoramas either. So long as you don't have too much clutter in the foreground, parallax isn't an issue and you can shoot hand-held. These were all shot hand-held (click on small images to see bigger versions).





 
Which route are you doing? I did the Pyg track a few years back as part of a 3 peaks race, some great views untill we hit the mist lol.
 
Just to add a bit more..... I'd recommend definitely taking a polariser, I always use a monopod when in the mountains too, aiming for the sharpest shots possible (without tripod of course).

The obvious thing is that this time of year you'll be very lucky to get decent lighting during daytime, especially if it's warm as the haze soon builds up...an early start/late finish are your best bet if you want "ideal" shots

Simon
 
swanseamale47 said:
Which route are you doing? I did the Pyg track a few years back as part of a 3 peaks race, some great views untill we hit the mist lol.
Click to expand...

I'm doing the PYG track too. Going in a group so timings aren't flexible but hopefully setting off early enough in the morning to get some good shooting opportunities.
 
If you intend to stitch a couple of frames together, it is a lot easier if they are all exposed the same. Therefore, use fully manual and don't change the settings for the panorama series, otherwise you risk the camera deciding on new settings from frame to frame.

Also, the center of the frame will have less distortion than the edges, so get a good overlap and use 4 or 5 frames instead of 2. Consider shooting portrait format to get some height to the frame and then shoot 5-7 frames... you can always delete things later. Unless you take the tripod, try and keep the camera in the same place by pivoting your body around the camera, instead of the camera pivoting about your feet.
 
Hi

Just to add my 2p's worth too...

As someone who struggles with landscapes I bought a 15-30mm lens a few years ago thinking it would be the tool to revolutionise my landscape photography... I was so wrong... all it did was make it harder. Remeber im full frame too...

A shot can look good in the viewfinder with these lenses but as someone has mentioned before the end result can often just be a big disapointment... often the foreground is huge and the background is lost... these lenses really need alot of practace... so as this is a one off you are better the devil you know!

The two things I've learned recently that make fantastic landscape photos is keep it simple and the second is light is everything... but there is nothing you can do to change it!

I'd stick with the lens you have and make sure you have the technical knowledge on landscapes if you dont shoot them often... then simply pray the light is with you!

M
 
singlespeed said:
If you intend to stitch a couple of frames together, it is a lot easier if they are all exposed the same. Therefore, use fully manual and don't change the settings for the panorama series, otherwise you risk the camera deciding on new settings from frame to frame.

Also, the center of the frame will have less distortion than the edges, so get a good overlap and use 4 or 5 frames instead of 2. Consider shooting portrait format to get some height to the frame and then shoot 5-7 frames... you can always delete things later. Unless you take the tripod, try and keep the camera in the same place by pivoting your body around the camera, instead of the camera pivoting about your feet.
Click to expand...

Thanks those are tips I've come across reading up on creating panoramas. Its certainly the way I'm going to go. Shooting portrait should also mitigate distortion across the horizontal too I think.

One other thing I did come across was a tip NOT to use a polariser otherwise there would be banding in the sky shot to shot. Is this correct? Or should I just try to readjust the filter for each shot? :thinking:
 
kman said:
One other thing I did come across was a tip NOT to use a polariser otherwise there would be banding in the sky shot to shot. Is this correct? Or should I just try to readjust the filter for each shot? :thinking:
Click to expand...

If you're doing a Pano, as you mention, a polariser is definitely not a good idea as it will produce uneven lighting across the separate frames

simon
 
Had a first go at a pano the other day. Hope I'm on the right track here:

3633384473_fcfb600186.jpg


big image here
 
singlespeed said:
If you intend to stitch a couple of frames together, it is a lot easier if they are all exposed the same. Therefore, use fully manual and don't change the settings for the panorama series, otherwise you risk the camera deciding on new settings from frame to frame.

Also, the center of the frame will have less distortion than the edges, so get a good overlap and use 4 or 5 frames instead of 2. Consider shooting portrait format to get some height to the frame and then shoot 5-7 frames... you can always delete things later. Unless you take the tripod, try and keep the camera in the same place by pivoting your body around the camera, instead of the camera pivoting about your feet.
Click to expand...

Also remember that once you have focused set it to manual focus, I made that mistake a couple of weeks ago and had definite lines on my panos where some frames were sharp at a particular distance and others not (due to focusing on the foreground...

kman said:
Thanks those are tips I've come across reading up on creating panoramas. Its certainly the way I'm going to go. Shooting portrait should also mitigate distortion across the horizontal too I think.

One other thing I did come across was a tip NOT to use a polariser otherwise there would be banding in the sky shot to shot. Is this correct? Or should I just try to readjust the filter for each shot? :thinking:
Click to expand...

They *can* be used quite well when taking panos, but you have to be careful, it all depends on how large your pano is and where the sun is, however if in doubt don't use one.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top