Lens For Landscape???

InaGlo

InaGlo

TPer Emerita
Messages
8,683
Name
Glo
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so for the most part Im going to be using my camera to take pics of hands/nails and head/hands.
I have the 50mm F1.4 & the 100mm F2.8 Macro to cover this.

Recently Ive surprised myself as Im getting into the idea of landscapes but all I have is my 50mm. What Id like to know is... are my pics crap because Im a noob (obviously there is an art to this) and/or do I need a wide angle.
Which lens would you recommend baring in mind Im full frame.
Ta!
 
Glo, if you're just looking for a cheap lens to try it with then you have the vast selection of old 35mm format lens to chose from.

Something starting around the 24-28mm mark will be reasonably wide on your full frame (5D?) camera.

:)
 
glo, a wideangle lens will help to add impact to your landscape shots but it's not really necessary. I used to do all my landscape stuff on 35mm with a 50mm lens and never really wanted for a wideangle. if you feel that you're being limited in what you can achieve, i.e you regularly stand there and think 'I can't get the shot cos I can't get it all in' then go down the wideangle route, if you think that it's gonna be an easy route to getting good landscape shots then spend the money going to some beautiful places that inspire you to want to capture them instead! (that's more fun too ;) )

If you do decide to get one, the 17-40L is supposed to be briliant, and 17mm is plenty wide enough on full frame, like sammy says though, there are plenty of cheap second hand wide angle primes kicking about shops like london camera exchange, you may not get autofocus but it's not that critical the wider you go!

hth?
 
p.s. this was taken @300mm (450mm on my camera) and cropped slightly. Probably not the best example but I didn't have time to drive the extra 5 miles closer I wanted before the sun set lol.


26072006-17.jpg
 
28mm prime might be an idea, sharp and wide on a full frame.
 
Might aswell have my 17-40 L :(
I'm not getting the best out of it at the moment :(

it's a stonking lens when the person behind the shutter is on the ball.
 
digitalfailure said:
Might aswell have my 17-40 L :(
I'm not getting the best out of it at the moment :(

it's a stonking lens when the person behind the shutter is on the ball.
Click to expand...

Dont tease DF!!!
Now theres a mission for you, go out & show me what you can do with the lens, see if I can be convinced to go raid the piggy yet again this month!
 
Would I tease you Glo...................:naughty:

The 17-40 L is an excellent bit of kit, I also hear that the Tamron 17-35 and the 17-50 are both decent too.
 
digitalfailure said:
The 17-40 L is an excellent bit of kit, I also hear that the Tamron 17-35 and the 17-50 are both decent too.
Click to expand...

Sorry to drag this up again guys but, my finger has been hovering above the 'buy' button on the 17-40 all day. Before I go ahead, I was just wondering about the comment that the person made above her fab pics using this lens, in the link that Evilowl gave me "Yes, you do get some vignetting but nothing that cannot be fixed in Photoshop."So, (particularly aimed at full frame peeps) how severe is this vignetting and just how easy is it to fix'

Ta muchly!
 
have you got photoshop CS2? If you have, the vignetting should be very easy to fix. Still not hard if you don't, just takes a smidge longer.

Truth be told though, you probably won't notice it anyway!
 
CS2 has a VERY good lens 'issue' correction tool. Helpfully hidden under 'Distort' menu I think which is kinda correct but mentally I'd say it was correction rather than distortion.
 
There isn't any vignetting on a full frame and a 17-40 but there is some extreme edge of frame distortion if the lens is at 17mm. Setting to 20mm or so tends to cure it. You have to be careful using a polariser as at 17mm there can be some uneven polarisation across the frame. It's a great lens - tough as old boots and very useful. I guess I use it 95% of the time with occasional zoom for landscape a la Ghandi's example above.

I wish Canon would do a good 20mm prime.
 
Not according to my usage. Using a "normal" UV filter rather than a slim version is a bit silly though. I wonder what aperture the test was using. Edit: seems to be f/4 to f/8 only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top