Thinking about 70-200 for landscapes

E

eternal422

Messages
24
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
No
I am mainly interested in landscape photography and love using my Canon ef-s 17-55 f2.8 on my 550D. However with a trip coming up to the American West I'm wondering whether to go for a 70-200 as well. The thinking is that I could get some different types of landscape shots, compressing perspective, isolating subjects, etc.

But on the crop camera I would be getting 112 - 320 mm which may be too long for useful landscape photography ?

I know it all depends on personal preferences, etc. but would be interested to hear your opinions and thoughts on this subject.
 
Nothing at all wrong with experimenting, I've seen some cracking landscape shots taken with a long lens.
 
love my 70 200 2.8 with d800 not had it long but i like for landscapes
 
Can get some nice closer in landscape shots with a 70-200, but think I would want something wider for the western US than a 17-55

If it's for the national parks e.g. Monument Valley and Grand Canyon etc you will surely need a wide angle to get everything in, so might be better off buying the 10-22mm or similar.
 
Ask yourself if you need/have ever wanted an uwa before you get one. If you're happy with 17mm being the widest you're going to have,don't bother buying one. As for a 70-200, would it be a f2.8 or f4? I have the 70-200 f4 and on my 500D it gets rather good shots at close up landscapes when I want to isolate a subject (tree or castle etc)
 
Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I was thinking of adding the 10-22 at some stage, but as I would only be getting the 10-17 over what I have I wasn't sure it would be worthwhile? Is 10mm significantly wider than 17mm in real terms?

Although given the deserts and Grand Canyon being able to go a bit wider might be good.

Then the thought of being able to pick out something like a tree / waterfall etc. or bring mountains closer is appealing. Previously I had a 28-80 and found that quite a lot of my landscapes were taken towards the end of that range. So I think I would get the use from the 70-200.

Hard decision!
 
John Mc - it's the f4 IS I am thinking about - don't need the f2.8 for landscapes but think I would find the IS handy as I more often than not shoot handheld.
 
Is 10mm significantly wider than 17mm in real terms?
Click to expand...

Very much so, reckon the Grand Canyon and the other goosenecks along with the badlands are just what an UWA lens was made for

These books are worth buying to get an idea of what you might want http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Natural-Landmarks-Southern-Utah/dp/0916189120/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369771265&sr=1-1&keywords=photographing+the+southwest and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Natural-Landmarks-Arizona-Photographing/dp/0916189139/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y
 
Last edited:
@tijuana taxi - thanks for the book recommendations : I must get them before I go, they look great guides.
 
@Bluesmachine - like the pictures! The more I see around the net, the more I realise that I prefer the longer focal lengths.

As a matter of interest I went through some of my pictures taken when I had a longer standard zoom - a fair number of my favourite shots were taken at or near the 80mm end of the lens. So I'm thinking that with my 17-55 f2.8 if I add the 70-200 f4 then I'll be covering all the range that I prefer. I can also stitch a couple of shots together if I find the 17 isn't wide enough.
 
I like telephoto for landscape and actually use it much more often than UWA. I see it like this:

If you can stand on part of the subject, use UWA.
If you can't, use telephoto.

Now, ask yourself, when you're out in all of these wonderful places how often do you say "look at this beautiful view we're standing on" as opposed to "look at that beautiful view over there". Sure, there are occasions for both and the former gives some pretty dramatic shots but I find myself thinking the latter much more often.

Have a look at my New Zealand shots - a landscape-ists paradise - the majority of them were taken with a 70-300 VR on my D700.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72341657@N02/sets/72157631593770309/
 
Last edited:
@Nawty - that's a great argument - like it ! Having looked through my old pictures, taken in what people have said here, and looked at lots of landscape pictures, I decided to get the 70-200 f4 is. I think it fits with my style better than UWA. Received the lens on Saturday - now just need to get out and try it out :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top