24-70 for landscapes?

wippers

wippers

Messages
2,534
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all - I plan to do some seascapes with the B&W ND110 filter sometime soon, but having moved to FF now, I have no longer got my 10-20mm UWA. The closest lens I now have is a Canon 24-70L F2.8. Is this likely to be wide enough for what I want. I've played around with this lens but can't decide if it's wide enough or not.:bonk:
Anyone had any experience? :shrug:

Thanks for looking
Gareth
 
Everyone is different, and everyone will have their prefered focal lengths. Best thing to do is look through your better landsape shots and see what focal length's they use. This should answer your question. :)
 
That's a very genericc question, it really depends on your type of photography...

Can you look at the meta data on the images you've taken and using the 1.6x multiplier find out it they are usually more than 24mm?
 
Eth said:
you just know you'll want a 17-40L :P
Click to expand...

I bloody know - where does all this lens craving come from?!? :bonk:

I never thought of looking at the exif data from my older landscape shots. I also forgot about the crop factor I no longer have to deal with, so the 24mm may well be wide enough. :)
 
It should be more than wide enough. Even on an APS-H I get distortion creep @ 24mm which is something that you aren't going to want for landscapes.

As you've just realised 24mm is going to have roughly the same FOV as 15mm on your previous camera, and that really is wide!
 
personally, 24mm on FF is wide enough for 90-ish % of the photos I take. If I need wider I'd consider a 20mm prime, but otherwise 24mm is wide enough. I often find myself using more like 28-35mm, so the 24-70 is perfect.
 
for a landscape you have to set out what you like in it...wide angle or eye wide

in 35mm terms the 28 is the most suitable and non distorting providing its kept fairly level
i favour the 35mm
so for my 4/3 body the 17.5-45 zoom suits me at the low end...if i need more i do two shots and join them keeping perspectives relatively close to what the eye sees..
 
I've been using the 24/70 with my 5D II for the last year, having come from a crop with the 10-20. I'd say that 24 has been fine, so far. That hasn't stopped me wanting wider though, so I've just bought a 17/40.

In general, yes it is wide enough for the majority of shots but I have missed not having an UWA.
 
Stop it stop it stop it!!!

Stop talking about the 17-40. I'm bloody skint. :D

Seriously though, thanks for the comments. It looks like the 24mm will be plenty wide enough for the landscapes/seascapes. I think I'd better just get out and have a play. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top