1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. tonyBrum

    tonyBrum

    Messages:
    5
    Name:
    Tony
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I currently have a Canon 7d with the EFS 17-55 is use lens. I am thinking of trading them both in for the new Canon 6d mk ii. I was looking for some advice on what would be a good landscape lens to go with this.

    I also have the following lenses: EF 100mm f/2.8 IS and EF 70-200 mm IS II.

    Budget unto £700
     
  2. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,775
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have taken some nice landscapes with my 70-200, so it just depends on what you want in the frame really. you probably won't need a fast lens as landscapes often involve small aperture i.e. f8/11/16 for dof and slow shutter speeds (or high ISO) which invariably calls for a tripod/mirror lockup/delayed or cable release, have you factored in a decent tripod and cable release?
    Traditionally a wide angle lens (24/28mm) is suggested but that depends on your style and as I said what you want in the frame.
    Matt
     
  3. maarten.dhaese

    maarten.dhaese

    Messages:
    432
    Name:
    Maarten
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Canon EF 16-35 f/4 IS seems to get the best reviews for a Canon wide angle zoom.
     
  4. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,775
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Over budget and I'd suggest is a luxury/hindrance, 17-40f4 might be better.
     
  5. Andrew Benbow

    Andrew Benbow

    Messages:
    61
    Name:
    Andrew
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sigma 24-105 Art.
     
  6. srhmoto

    srhmoto

    Messages:
    1,328
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art?
     
  7. john.margetts

    john.margetts

    Messages:
    1,093
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Use your 100mm. The fad for silly wide angle landscapes is finally going away. Concentrate on producing pictures that are worth looking at.
     
  8. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    15,509
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Unfortunately the fad for silly forum posts isn't.

    I'd agree that the idea that Landscape = Wide Angle tends to be overdone but wide angle lenses used well (and I'd say that wide angle lenses are some of the most difficult to use well) can be very effective and give you a look that's impossible to get from a 100mm, and I've taken thousands of "landscape" shots will 100mm lenses.
     
  9. Craig_85

    Craig_85

    Messages:
    1,674
    Name:
    Craig
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Will you just shoot landscape going forward or do you have other genres you are interested in?

    If purely landscapes then I would sell everything you have, (and move to Sony) or if sticking with canon get a 5d4, 16-35 f4 is and a 70-200 f4 non is and a tripod.

    If you want to keep the 70-200 2.8 is ii then seriously consider the original 6d to save money. Rumours are the dynamic range of the new one is not the game changer people were hoping for and does not match canons other new sensors.
     
  10. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,775
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    On a £700 budget :)
     
  11. davholla

    davholla

    Messages:
    677
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have never really taken any landscape photos but why are wide angle landscapes a bad idea?
     
  12. Scirocco_09

    Scirocco_09

    Messages:
    581
    Edit My Images:
    No
    They're not, but it depends where you shoot and personal style. If you regular shoot in hills and mountains then longer telephoto lenses are often a better idea as you can zoom in on far away peaks etc. Beginner magazines have peddled the idea that wide angle = landscape lens for quite some time which is nonsense
     
    davholla likes this.
  13. Craig_85

    Craig_85

    Messages:
    1,674
    Name:
    Craig
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well the budget is not £700. It is the price of a brand new 6dII (£2k) + £700 = £2700.

    The reason I asked if the OP purely wants to do landscapes is because other changes in the lenses could free more money up for a better camera (dynamic range is king for landscapes).

    The 70-200 2.8 is ii is an £1800 lens wheres the 70-200 f4 is a £600. So add £1200 to £2700 and the value of the 100mm 2.8 is which is another £700 and the budget could be £4600. What I have suggested leaves some change for the most important thing in landscape photography - a flight to somewhere interesting!
     
    MatBin likes this.
  14. GTG

    GTG

    Messages:
    589
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    6D MK1 with 17-40L that was £350 on ebay.

    17mm and I did zero distortion correction.

    Some snob pro tried to tell me this lens is barely usable as a landscape lens lol. I don't agree.


    [​IMG]
     
  15. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    1,263
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I guess you'd be looking to replace that 17-55mm on FF?

    I'd suggest canon 24-70mm f4, 24-105mm f4 or sigma 24-105mm f/4.
     
  16. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,549
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Any lens can be used to shoot any subject. The resulting composition(s) and image(s) will be different of course and each has its challenges.
     
  17. GTG

    GTG

    Messages:
    589
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I walked up a hill for 30 minutes to take the shot I posted and had a clear view of all the land.

    17mm on a full frame.

    With 70mm or some other crazy focal length I would get a photo of a field, not worth a half hour hike uphill
     
  18. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,549
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Didn't say the same shot can be taken with any lens.

    Having made the walk up the hill, there would be something to take with other focal lengths. That's where creativity kicks in. Your shot with 17mm works. I'm saying that other shots with longer focal lengths would/might work too from the same position. The result would be different, but could also be interesting.

    FWIW I've used focal lengths from 10mm to 400mm (on crop bodies) for landscapes and made images I'm happy with. I guess it depends on what the definition of a landscape is.
     
    MatBin likes this.
  19. gad-westy

    gad-westy

    Messages:
    4,994
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Inclined to agree. If the 17-55 has been fitting the bill, something 24-xxx is going to be a nice easy replacement and compliment the other lenses you have pretty well.
     
  20. john.margetts

    john.margetts

    Messages:
    1,093
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Mainly because they empty the foreground. Also, they do very strange things to clouds. Tonality of the sky will vary unnaturally. As someone mentioned above, it is possible to produce good landscapes with a wide angle lens. Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen very often.
     
  21. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    2,589
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    17-40 F4L

    Mine's tack sharp and nice and light.

    You don't need a newer lens if you get a good one.
     
  22. TheAndyA

    TheAndyA

    Messages:
    1,205
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'd second the EF 24-105 f4, it's a very useful lens. I bought the 16-35 f4, thinking I'd take better landscapes with it, but often the subject gets lost.
     
  23. ABTog

    ABTog

    Messages:
    632
    Name:
    Alistair
    Edit My Images:
    No
    This.

    I have the 6D and the 24-105 is great. I rarely find I need much wider. 24mm on full frame gives the same field of view as 15mm on crop, which is pretty wide already.
    I did think I would buy the 17-40L but just haven't needed it.

    Even if you look at a landscape photographer like Thomas Heaton, his bread and butter lens is the 24-70 f2.8 II and he doesn't go wider than a 21mm Zeiss. He also uses the 70-200 f4L as it's much lighter than the 2.8.
     
  24. wookie6262

    wookie6262

    Messages:
    910
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The 17-40 is a good lens and can be picked up for £350 or so. I used mine for years and it got the job done. I replaced it with the 16-35mm F4 which blows it away sharpness wise. If you can find a second hand 16-35mm F4 then I would recommend that. I'm moving to Nikon from tomorrow and will be selling my one along with a host of other lenses and cameras. I'll miss the 16-35 and the 70-200mm very much. Both are superb.
     
  25. Archie747

    Archie747

    Messages:
    587
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Why move to Nikon if you have some great Canon lenses, are Nikon cameras that much better to justify the cost of the move? I am asking out of interest rather than saying than questioning your judgement.
     
  26. SsSsSsSsSnake

    SsSsSsSsSnake

    Messages:
    6,062
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I had one with my 6D,very nice, got me a shot in the Bradgate Park calendar and then onto a book cover :)
     
  27. tonyBrum

    tonyBrum

    Messages:
    5
    Name:
    Tony
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thank you everyone for your comments. It has given me something to think about. I have come to realise after being faster lenses that I really need a a good sharp lens in the F/8 , f/11 range for my landscape.
     
  28. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,549
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    FWIW, I think you'll find the majority of decent lenses are sharp in the f/8 - f/11 range.
     
  29. wookie6262

    wookie6262

    Messages:
    910
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I pretty much only take landscape photos these days and was waiting for the next 5D to replace my 5D iii. I am also starting to print images again and some to a decent size. The 5D IV was and is very expensive and for landscapes it still lags a bit behind the D810. A good deal on an 810 came up and I thought it would be the best chance for me to get more dynamic range and pixels. I thought hard about the 5D IV but I would rather buy a UK camera and at over 3 grand I can get lots of Nikon kit. Might be a huge mistake but the D810 looks like an amazing camera. Canon glass will be a miss but I may start to use primes and Nikon has some nice ones along with the sigma art lenses
     
    Archie747 likes this.
  30. Nawty

    Nawty

    Messages:
    5,787
    Name:
    Ned
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It seems common for Canon folk to have separation anxiety about The Red Ring but in truth Nikon lenses are every bit as good and sometimes better.
     
    maarten.dhaese likes this.
  31. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,549
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've never once seen a picture and been able to tell if it was shot on a Canon or a Nikon.
     
    gad-westy, MatBin and maarten.dhaese like this.

Share This Page