Advice on a good landscape lens for a canon full frame camera

T

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
 
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
 
maarten.dhaese said:
Canon EF 16-35 f/4 IS seems to get the best reviews for a Canon wide angle zoom.
Click to expand...
Over budget and I'd suggest is a luxury/hindrance, 17-40f4 might be better.
 
Use your 100mm. The fad for silly wide angle landscapes is finally going away. Concentrate on producing pictures that are worth looking at.
 
john.margetts said:
Use your 100mm. The fad for silly wide angle landscapes is finally going away. Concentrate on producing pictures that are worth looking at.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Craig_85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
On a £700 budget :)
 
john.margetts said:
Use your 100mm. The fad for silly wide angle landscapes is finally going away. Concentrate on producing pictures that are worth looking at.
Click to expand...
I have never really taken any landscape photos but why are wide angle landscapes a bad idea?
 
davholla said:
I have never really taken any landscape photos but why are wide angle landscapes a bad idea?
Click to expand...

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
 
MatBin said:
On a £700 budget :)
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.


stargazer-19_zpsk0xkcnaq.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
GeeJay57 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
GTG said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
nandbytes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
davholla said:
I have never really taken any landscape photos but why are wide angle landscapes a bad idea?
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheAndyA said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
wookie6262 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
tonyBrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I think you'll find the majority of decent lenses are sharp in the f/8 - f/11 range.
 
Archie747 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
wookie6262 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top