Beginner Do I need a 35mm f1.8?
- Thread starter sparker
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes it would help but I’d go wider and I would get a sigma 10-20 cos they are cheap but sharp
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A 35mm on a crop comes up at 50mm which is too narrow for landscapes unless you doing panoramic shots
- Messages
- 5,919
- Name
- Dominic
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Take a look at some landscape photos on Flickr or such like and see what fov (field of view) a 35mm lens will give you on a crop body. Not all landscape photos have to be big vista's. A 35mm may well be the right lens for some landscape photo's but not others. Only you will know what style of landscape you like. A wide aperture is not generally needed (but can be useful for giving a different type of photo).
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,596
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Relatively cheap kit lenses often aren't the absolute best lenses but I assume you're stopping down a bit and when doing so I'd expect the results to be respectable if not competing with the very best for across the frame sharpness at 100%.
So, the questions...
- Are you shooting wide open or stopped down and if stopping down what to?
- When enlarging how much so? How big are you printing and how close are you looking and if just viewing on screen how much are you pixel peeping? 100%?
As to the 35mm f1.8. I suppose 35mm on APS-C equals about 52mm FF equivalent which could be considered to be a "classic" focal length but many people would see this as a bit narrow for landscape use. Personally if starting with a standard range kit lens and wanting to move up a bit in quality I'd look at one of the 17/18-50mm f2.8's.
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Most beginners go and buy a sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 first then specialise after ! A lot then go to 70-200 f4 cod it’s light for intimate landscape or go in between like some do! I use a Tokina 20-35 but most of the time it’s at 20 mm end on full frame
- Messages
- 23,556
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Difficult to critique as I’m only on the phone but there’s nothing that strikes me straight away as any major issue with the lens. Try and always shoot at base ISO as this will give the least noise and also max dynamic range. With regards to your second shot you’re never going to see plenty of detail on the castle as it’s heavily shaded/silhouetted.
Quality of light plays a key part in detail and therefore perceived sharpness. Take a pic in good light, f8-11 at base ISO (and a tripod if necessary) and then see if you’re happy with the sharpness. If not maybe the kit lens is not cutting it for you, although stopped down it should be pretty decent.
Lastly, how much are you zooming in on your laptop? Any image will start to look soft if you zoom in too much.
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Nonsense, I've used 300mm lenses for landscape.
A 35mm 1.8 prime on DX is fine for general use, you'll only really find it a bit tight for indoors, and not always even then.
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Looks ok here on a 17" laptop, can't say much more without seeing the full res file via Flickr maybe. The forum can do funny things to images, some complain it softens them, others find it over sharpens. I agree with Nostromo here though, the only one who will ever pixel peep your images at 100%, is yourself.
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you read on to another post further down ?
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Why would I need to, just throwing my t'uppence in without prejudice. Not a pop at you - just the notion in general that you need wide for landscape.
- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I said what most beginners go for before then getting deeper to specialise! Bet we all did the same ....
OP
- Messages
- 528
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
On my screen it is sharper on Flicker. The rocks in the foreground are soft, but they're not the focus. If you had focused closer to them though, they'd be sharp and so would the castle, at f/11 everything from a few meters away to infinity should be.
- Messages
- 23,556
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Some would argue that a 10-20mm is ‘quite’ specialised though. Shooting ultra wide angle isn’t as straight forward as you think and requires learning new perspectives to get the best out of them.
The point I’m trying to make is there is no right answer as to what to shoot landscapes with. 24mm and 28mm eq are arguably your ‘standard/classic’ wide angle lenses, but you can of course use anything
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Some would argue that a 10-20mm is ‘quite’ specialised though. Shooting ultra wide angle isn’t as straight forward as you think and requires learning new perspectives to get the best out of them.
The point I’m trying to make is there is no right answer as to what to shoot landscapes with. 24mm and 28mm eq are arguably your ‘standard/classic’ wide angle lenses, but you can of course use anything
Agree on that, I find UWA very tricky, anything beyond 24mm FF equiv and I always end up cropping stuff out. Just not my cuppa
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Thank you @Cagey75 . So, I'm OK to save myself some money and stick with the 18-55 then?
If it's mostly landscape you want to shoot, then yes, as you're going to be stopped down mostly anyway. Where the 35 1.8 shines more is for portraits, indoor shooting, any low light situation ... it would also do landscape no bother, and be a tad sharper, but it doesn't seem like a need for you.
- Messages
- 23,556
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
So if I view your images at full size on Flickr (ie 6000 x 4000) then it does look a bit 'mushy' but I think a lot of this is due to the light and the subject being in shadow. If I look at the stone wall/house that looks much better. I assume it's cropped as the res is smaller, but viewing at 1:1 should give comparative results, and it looks perfectly acceptable imo. It's obviously not the sharpest lens (you would expect a kit lens to be) but it's certainly not bad imo. I would try it in a few scenarios, preferably in good light and then make a decision after that. I wouldn't go straight out and buy another lens.
Do you edit your images or are these straight out of camera jpeg? Processing makes a big difference.
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,609
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Total BS on that line. It is a terrible misconception that landscapes must be ultra wide, and in fact when they are it is a pretty hard job to fill the frame successfully and fully. Many of great landscapes were taken with a telephoto lens. I've done some even at 600mm and they look good.
It is an excellent pick but with a limited scope. As a matter of fact it may be both too long or too short for many scenarios * landscapes included 100% *
- Messages
- 23,556
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah, you kind of need to be on top of something in the foreground with UWA otherwise stuff just looks small and far away
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,609
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I heard it is the latest dog whistle for a pile of twigs.
You can shoot a lot more landscapes than "intimate" ones with a tele.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,609
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Basically it is fine. Not perfect but nothing to make me want to smash it to pieces.
Focus is on castle and anything around it is as sharp as that sensor is going to allow at f/11
Fence is not sharp because f/11 is not enough. running it at f/16 and focusing a tiny bit closer will redistribute sharpness a little bit more, but soften it due to diffraction. It's the physics.
The other alternative is focus stacking at more optimal apertures like f/8. But if you move tripod or make any omission it is game over.
The longer the focal length the more obvious the problem will become. At 100mm you need to stack quite a few if you want a close foreground.
OP
- Messages
- 528
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, they are taken in RAW and processed "ever so slightly"
- Messages
- 23,556
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
What software do you use, and when you say slightly what sort of changes do you make? Have you made much exposure change in the castle pic?
- Messages
- 23,556
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I’m not familiar with that software tbh. RAW photos almost always need a little sharpening added, and sometimes a small tweak in clarity can help too. Don’t make the mistake most newbies make though and overdo these adjustments
The problem is when you start looking at other people’s images to see how a lens performs you have no idea what processing people have done, and some folk (especially photoshop wizards) have an uncanny ability to make lenses appear considerably sharper than they really are, yet still look natural without any of the usual over sharpening artefacts.
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I honestly have only ever used it full screen so never even viewed that panel. Interesting! I open up my RAW folder in it, full screen, and cull one by one, I get a good idea from that whether a file is a keeper or not. It makes the LR opening a bit faster, as I have mine set to build larger previews
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,596
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
You move your cursor up or left and you get a tool panel, to the top and you get thumbnails and some basic tools and to the right you get the file / picture details.
I've never use the tools, I only use it for slideshows as the built in Windows on doesn't work on my pc as it shifts everything over to the right..
I've never use the tools, I only use it for slideshows as the built in Windows on doesn't work on my pc as it shifts everything over to the right..
- Messages
- 1,353
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sure prime lenses will generally outperform zooms. Should you have one of those 35mm in your kit bag? Definitely imho, super sharp, a great focal length to work with for all sorts and pretty cheap for a prime. Would I use it for landscape? maybe at a pinch but depends on where you are in relation to the scene of course.
I honestly think your 18-55 should be fine at the wide end at least, and definitely stopped down as others have suggested
I used my kit 18-105mm on my d7000 (which would give same field of view as you have at the wide end) for a long time and was pretty happy with it. Some examples....
Sprague Lake by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
Sprague Lake by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
Week 11 - Artificial by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
On the other hand, here is one I took with the 35mm 1.8g for comparison
Week 42- Reflection by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
I know my post processing won’t be to everyone’s liking, but gives you an idea anyway
PS. Don’t pixel peep too much if you can help it. A good picture is not always the sharpest. Print what you like at the desired size and see what you think.
HTH
I honestly think your 18-55 should be fine at the wide end at least, and definitely stopped down as others have suggested
I used my kit 18-105mm on my d7000 (which would give same field of view as you have at the wide end) for a long time and was pretty happy with it. Some examples....
Sprague Lake by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
Sprague Lake by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
Week 11 - Artificial by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
On the other hand, here is one I took with the 35mm 1.8g for comparison
Week 42- Reflection by Sibling Chris, on Flickr
I know my post processing won’t be to everyone’s liking, but gives you an idea anyway
PS. Don’t pixel peep too much if you can help it. A good picture is not always the sharpest. Print what you like at the desired size and see what you think.
HTH
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,734
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I find it very fast, no slow down, I just keep scrolling to the right and hitting delete on any I want to chuck. It's been the best RAW viewer I've found, tried many others and they were pants tbh