- Messages
- 96
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
hi can anyone recommend a canon body for landscapes please , thanks
its all about the lens choice.... most if not all bodies will pretty much do the same
its all about the lens choice.... most if not all bodies will pretty much do the same
Back to my 80D - it has very good dynamic range and the pixel count is more than large enough - I have yet to have a dynamic range problem with a landscape (architecture is another thing altogether but I use different techniques rather than different kit). Might change my mind if I was producing massive (side of barn sized) photographs but for A3 sized prints (or even the occasional A2) the 80D is well more than adequate. There is no point in paying for theoretical technological advantages if they do not show up in the final print.
Except pixel count and dynamic range means nothing if you have no idea what to do with the gear. The most important part of your camera is the soft matter behind the viewfinder. Asking for camera advise spells to me "not very experienced" so maybe something more accessible than the highest-ranking canon bodies would be sensible.Except they don't. Frame rates for landscapes aren't important, dynamic range and pixel count are more important. A range of lenses with good edge to edge sharpness is more important than the ultimate wide aperture as well.
5DsR 5dS or 5d4, at a pinch at 5d3 or 6d would be usable. Anything else I would not want.
actually, its the op's choice - I already have my camera. If someone is asking a basic question as is actually asked in the opening post it is safe to assume that they are not a top-end professional selling a couple of dozen A0 prints each week. My contribution here has been designed to help the op.When you get into A1, A0 or crop more heavily it starts to really show. But you may not want to or need to. It is your needs and your choice.
Yes and no.
17-40 would do as bad job on the original 5D just as 5DsR. The corner sharpness just isn't there and the distortion is massive.
Snip:
The edge sharpness is there if you stop down, by f/11 and above and it's not too bad at all (on a full frame camera), especially for the price this lens sells for these days second hand. If you want something that's sharper wide open then it's quite a lot more money for the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Also, ask your self how often a landscape photographer will be shooting a 16mm or 17mm lens wide open? So for a landscape photographer who's on a tight budget, it's still worth thinking about a used, mint-ish 17-40 L. It's an old lens design now, but if you can't afford a 16-35 L then it's better than doing without.
Unless you've got the 5DsR; in which case, Canon has issued a list of lenses they suggest are used with this camera to get the best out of it, so refer to that (and bear the cost of investing in those lenses in mind if thinking about buying a 5DsR!).
So there are no good landscape photos taken with the 17-40 L lens then?I have a number of shots from my 1DsII and 17-40 lens shot at f/11 and even f/14 that still lack critical sharpness in the corners (the rest being tack sharp) and I really wish they were taken with another lens. I have tried four copies of the said lens, and spoken to a number of landscape photographers back in the day and there was always a consensus it is a trash lens.
I can shoot 16-35 at f/4 and get far sharper shots every single time. So please do not tell us 17-40 is suitable for landscapes on high mp camera* (12MP or above). It is fine I'm sure for journalists and portrait photographers who couldn't care less about pixel perfect corners.
Plenty of good landscapes taken with all sorts of lenses. And many of them not tack sharp in the corners - or even tack sharp at all. I am firmly with Henri Cartier Bresson - sharpness is a bourgeois concept.So there are no good landscape photos taken with the 17-40 L lens then?
So there are no good landscape photos taken with the 17-40 L lens then?
Why, in Odin's name? There is something to be said for the main elements being sharp (I will not confuse you with the idea of using haze or fog) but if someone spent their time peering at the corners of one of my pictures rather than the subject I would be rather insulted.Edge to edge sharpness is just as important as front to back sharpness.
Why, in Odin's name? There is something to be said for the main elements being sharp (I will not confuse you with the idea of using haze or fog) but if someone spent their time peering at the corners of one of my pictures rather than the subject I would be rather insulted.
So you are saying that the 17-40L lens is completely incapable of focusing the edges of the image and leaves them blurred and hard to see? My cheap and cheerful 18-55 (non L) lens performs better than that.You're right. Pictures look better when the sides are blurry and hard to see.
So you are saying that the 17-40L lens is completely incapable of focusing the edges of the image and leaves them blurred and hard to see? My cheap and cheerful 18-55 (non L) lens performs better than that.
Any lens I bought that left the edges blurry and hard to see would go straight back to the shop for a full refund.
It is rather hard to argue about lens sharpness in the 18-55mm appreciation society
I would have thought it was also hard for someone to argue about the sharpness of a Canon lens when they seem to use Nikon kit all the time?Lol post of the day
Rather strange that my posts here get met by sarcasm. Do you not have anything else to offer - such as actual reasoning?It is rather hard to argue about lens sharpness in the 18-55mm appreciation society
I would have thought it was also hard for someone to argue about the sharpness of a Canon lens when they seem to use Nikon kit all the time?
Rather strange that my posts here get met by sarcasm. Do you not have anything else to offer - such as actual reasoning?
Maybe because you met my post with sarcasm, or at least condescension.(I will not confuse you with the idea of using haze or fog) .
I didn't actually say I was happy with my 18-55, I stated that it performs better than you claim Canon's 17-40L does - which is actually a comment on your very strange claim.Maybe because you met my post with sarcasm, or at least condescension.
This might not be the thread for you if you are happy with your 18-55.
I didn't actually say I was happy with my 18-55, I stated that it performs better than you claim Canon's 17-40L does - which is actually a comment on your very strange claim.
As I said first of all, yes the 16-35 f/4 L IS is a better lens than the 17-40 f/4 L, which is now a fairly old design and shows its age if it's not stopped down. However, stick it on f/16 or above and I bet most people would be hard put to tell the difference between that and the 16-35 f4 L IS in a lot of cases with landscape photographs taken using a fairly decent full frame camera. As I said, it wouldn't be my choice for a 5DsR, or even the 5D Mk iv. But I'd hope that people who'd budgeted for that sort of top-end camera had also budgeted for top-end lenses to go with it.
However, for a lot of people, spending the best part of a grand (or more) on a lens is hard to justify, if not afford, particularly if they might not use that particular focal length most of the time. In which case, cheaper options are available, including the 17-40 L. So let's not get too sniffy about it, if it was that bad a lens do you think Canon would have sold so many... and for so long? It fills a gap and, like it or not, it's produced a lot of very nice-looking landscape shots over the years, and probably also enabled a lot of people learn their craft with a wide angle lens.
5Ds R > 5Ds > 5D IV > 1DX 2 > 5D III > 1Dx > 1Ds3 > 6D > 5D II
Unless you really need prints the size of a house I'd put the 5D mkIV first for the better dynamic range
Sometimes I get asked for it so that is specifically for that reason.