Lenses suited for landscape newbie

Tulipone

Tulipone

Messages
2,854
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
After doing some investigating into landscape photography it seems that graduated filters would be useful and fairly wide lens. Now the stupid questions.

Other than cost, what is the difference between cheap and expensive filters? What is a mid point range?

I have seen folk talkbabout 14-28 or similar. Other than it being wider than say, 20-60, is there another benefit?
 
Well, a graduated filter might be useful. I think opinions are out on that. As a general rule of thumb though, I think some landscapers try and avoid a lot of sky. If you don't blow out the highlights you can always pull the rest back anyway. However, a grown up will be along shortly to probably explain it better. :D
 
Last edited:
What type of filters? ND or polarized for example. circular or flat type filters are you asking about. Then when do you intend to ues it, in bright sunlight or overcast. Just by asking these questions should give some idea of the different type of graduated filters and when needed.

Choosing a particular type of filter is a minefield let alone quality. some cheap ones may lock up on the lens thread . More expensive ones no doubt be better made with better glass in them. So if I were you I would start out with a price bracket in mind first and see what is available on the market as new or used or even on the grey market.
 
Last edited:
I should concentrate on getting the right lens first, and worry about filters later. There will plenty of time to consider what you really want once you've been out using the lens a while and done some editing of the results. Once you've established whether you want a full ND or graduated ND, then you can look at what's available and what you can afford.
 
Not only as Admin says but doing a landscape with a wide angle lens no doubt would produce different light conditions, which a graduated filter may cause more problems than without one. So it is worth trying without first and then deciding if getting a filter is necessary
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
What type of filters? ND or polarized for example. circular or flat type filters are you asking about. Then when do you intend to ues it, in bright sunlight or overcast. Just by asking these questions should give some idea of the different type of graduated filters and when needed.

Choosing a particular type of filter is a minefield let alone quality. some cheap ones may lock up on the lens thread . More expensive ones no doubt be better made with better glass in them. So if I were you I would start out with a price bracket in mind first and see what is available on the market as new or used or even on the grey market.
Click to expand...
I guess I was thinking graduated ND flat to help with not over exposing sky. The trouble with price point is that I am cheap and then disappointed. I was thinking of aiming for the right thing rather than where I’d naturally go.
lindsay said:
I should concentrate on getting the right lens first, and worry about filters later. There will plenty of time to consider what you really want once you've been out using the lens a while and done some editing of the results. Once you've established whether you want a full ND or graduated ND, then you can look at what's available and what you can afford.
Click to expand...
I think this is where I will start with the lens, hence my question. Is a wider lens just wider (and therefore possibly a second choice) or does it have something else that boosts landscape photography?
 
You’re asking for advice on a “fairly wide lens”. We need to know what size sensor your camera has - full frame, apsc, or 4/3. Best just to give us your camera model

Personally, I wouldn’t worry too much about filters just yet. If you ask 2 people about filters, you’ll get 3 opinions!
 
Last edited:
Graduated filters are IMO of very limited use. They "graduate," the amount of greyness goes down the filter and landscape can be up and down and so be subject to different levels of "graduation." So that could be an issue.

As for lens focal length, I think deciding what focal length you like and what suits the scene is the way to go, plus you can also at times do panoramas.
 
there are a couple of "tricks" I use with landscapes

iPnfbI7.jpg

In the above photo I used the bird and bank on the left for foreground - the river to lead into the photo and the trees on the right as a block so the view is not left wondering what is on the right hand side

here again I used he small bush at the bottom of the photo to add depth to the photo. No filters used or wide angle lens think I used a 24-70 mm lens in both photos

ksLnAYz (1)zzz.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tulipone said:
and fairly wide lens.
Click to expand...

You say you are a landscape "newbie" and mention getting a fairly wide lens.....

I hope I'm not overstepping the mark because I'm not sure exactly how much of a newbie you are, but are you sure you need a wide angle lens. I'm no expert but I am aware that people often assume they need a wide angle lens "to get all of the landscape in shot", whereas I feel that some of the best landscape shots are taken with a longer focal length which then picks out the interesting part of the landscape. I've read before to think of wide angle lenses as enabling you to get closer rather than to get it all in. If using quite wide angle lenses you really need something in the foreground other than your feet, which can easily happen with a really wide angle.
 
NPUK said:
You say you are a landscape "newbie" and mention getting a fairly wide lens.....

I hope I'm not overstepping the mark because I'm not sure exactly how much of a newbie you are, but are you sure you need a wide angle lens. I'm no expert but I am aware that people often assume they need a wide angle lens "to get all of the landscape in shot", whereas I feel that some of the best landscape shots are taken with a longer focal length which then picks out the interesting part of the landscape. I've read before to think of wide angle lenses as enabling you to get closer rather than to get it all in. If using quite wide angle lenses you really need something in the foreground other than your feet, which can easily happen with a really wide angle.
Click to expand...
WHS

If you point a wide lens at the landscape you are more than likely going to end up with a shot where all the interesting features all seem very far away. There is a definite knack to using a wide lens. One of my favourite photographers, Michael Shainblum, who takes some fantastic landscape shots, uses a Sigma 100-400mm lens for a lot of his shots. My 16-28mm wide lens gets very little use.
 
Having been through all that, the only two filters I now use are a polariser and a stopper - I have a NiSi variable stopper which I like.

Graduated filters are only really useful with straight horizons, mountains, trees, anything breaking the horizon line will be affected by the grad. filter. If I really need to, which is rare with dynamic range on modern camera sensors I would bracket and exposure blend in post.
 
With filters, again it depends on how much you want to spend. I use the Kase Revolution magnetic filters, which are great, but they are over £300 for a set including a CPL, and 3, 6, and 10 stop NDs.
 
yzfmike said:
You’re asking for advice on a “fairly wide lens”. We need to know what size sensor your camera has - full frame, apsc, or 4/3. Best just to give us your camera model

Personally, I wouldn’t worry too much about filters just yet. If you ask 2 people about filters, you’ll get 3 opinions!
Click to expand...
I am using full frame. I am considering this wider lens also as it also potentially fits and compliments with an intended further new lens.
Mr Perceptive said:
I think you also need to detail whether you shoot in RAW, and what software you use to process your images
Click to expand...
Usually DXO and Affinity, possibly back to Photoshop again after Black Friday. I always shoot in RAW.
NPUK said:
You say you are a landscape "newbie" and mention getting a fairly wide lens.....

I hope I'm not overstepping the mark because I'm not sure exactly how much of a newbie you are, but are you sure you need a wide angle lens. I'm no expert but I am aware that people often assume they need a wide angle lens "to get all of the landscape in shot", whereas I feel that some of the best landscape shots are taken with a longer focal length which then picks out the interesting part of the landscape. I've read before to think of wide angle lenses as enabling you to get closer rather than to get it all in. If using quite wide angle lenses you really need something in the foreground other than your feet, which can easily happen with a really wide angle.
Click to expand...
I said this as it is more or less true - I do take pictures of fields and trees but these are secondary. I am keen to get out more and waiting for wildlife is starting to get too cold. Better to be mostly walking with stops rather than waiting for things to get used to you. I have been taking more street than anything else but moving more away from this since a recent day with a Instagram street photographer. Not a newbie to photography but wanting to restart with landscape.
 
Tulipone said:
After doing some investigating into landscape photography it seems that graduated filters would be useful and fairly wide lens. Now the stupid questions.

Other than cost, what is the difference between cheap and expensive filters? What is a mid point range?

I have seen folk talkbabout 14-28 or similar. Other than it being wider than say, 20-60, is there another benefit?
Click to expand...
The grad probably depends on how much you can be bothered editing and how good your camera's sensor is. I think the trend is to not bother with them these days and use the dynamic range of the sensor or to do an exposure merge to get the effect of the grad. In terms of focal length it is all about style. I'd say a 24-70 focal length is probably the most useful and then a 16-35 after that. Up in the hills a 70-200 would probably be better than both.
 
I do use a graduated filter, and find it a definite help.
Not a very expensive one, but as long as the clear section does not affect the image, not too worried about the grey section, as there is usually not much detail there.

Only once recently have I had the grey part affecting something it shouldn't, a tree, and it took a few seconds with affinity to correct that.

I do however bracket and merge very often, and would agree it is the best way, and offers other advantages too
 
wookie6262 said:
The grad probably depends on how much you can be bothered editing and how good your camera's sensor is. I think the trend is to not bother with them these days and use the dynamic range of the sensor or to do an exposure merge to get the effect of the grad. In terms of focal length it is all about style. I'd say a 24-70 focal length is probably the most useful and then a 16-35 after that. Up in the hills a 70-200 would probably be better than both.
Click to expand...
This is the thing. I have a 20-60 that I am not too keen on and will have either 24-70 or 24-105 (ff) by the weekend. Was thinking that a 14-28 would compliment nicely and open up new options. If the 20-60 is good enough then maybe instead of trading it I'll hang on to it and bin the idea of the 14-28.
 
Tulipone said:
I have seen folk talk about 14-28 or similar. Other than it being wider than say, 20-60, is there another benefit?
Click to expand...
To me, either would be useful on its own - in the end, you use the lens you have with you, adapt to it and make it work.

14mm is pretty damned wide. Many of my images of land were taken with an 85mm prime, but that's a pretty selective focal length. 21 to 28 is a useful range.

Filters are a faff, I'd do without them unless you see some vital need. Just watch the exposure of highlight areas, they are key,and once unrecoverable in processing are gone for ever (in colour, blank white areas devoid of tone are aesthetically disturbing and will make for images of distinctly sub-gallery quality).

Get out, take images and see what happens. It's meant to be about making images, not endless hankering after stuff. Maybe think more about developing your own way of seeing ..
 
Last edited:
Tulipone said:
This is the thing. I have a 20-60 that I am not too keen on and will have either 24-70 or 24-105 (ff) by the weekend. Was thinking that a 14-28 would compliment nicely and open up new options. If the 20-60 is good enough then maybe instead of trading it I'll hang on to it and bin the idea of the 14-28.
Click to expand...
I should say I was talking in terms of full frame lenses.. If 20-60 is MFT then that is probably a bit narrow for landscapes
 
Anything wider than about 24mm on full frame is getting into “ultra-wide” territory, so you’ve already got a lens that offers what you need for forced perspective etc. Using lenses wider than, say, 24 mm needs careful/ specialist technique to maximise the compositional effects that they offer. I suggest you look at youtube videos by someone like Nigel Danson - I think he covers use of ultra wides.

as far as grads are concerned I’d give them a miss. Expose to ensure you don’t blow the sky, then process to pul back the highlights in the sky , and lift the shadows in the foreground of the scape. Shooting raw with a modern sensor should offer enough dynamic range to give excellent results
 
I used to shoot Canon full frame, and found anything wider than 24mm too wide. Polarising filters can also have strange effects with such wide lenses. The 24-105 was my main landscape lens.

These days I only use a polarising filter to cut down on reflections, and ND filters to give longer exposures. I would rather bracket 3 shots and merge in Lightroom, that use a graduated ND.
 
If you do go for a wiiiiiide lens... I think wide lenses can be some of the most difficult to use well but they can also give a very dramatic look. One thing to be aware of is that that impressive building/mountain/tree you could be pointing your wide lens at could end up a minor feature in the final image, and you need to watch for perspective distortion to, for good or bad. As always I think it's important to look and see the picture you are about to take and understand what the final picture is going to look like and why.

At one time a Sigma 12-24mm was my most used lens, I thought it was fantastic and still to this day does imo have some impressive qualities.

Good luck choosing Chris. Don't forget to post your thoughts and sample pictures when you get to use your new kit.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your thoughts. Interesting.

I used to have a crop 10-20 and got on fine with that but never used it for landscape. If you google best lens for landscape they seem to err towards those wider lenses.

Either way I am still considering renting something very wide for a weekend and getting out and using it and seeing what happens.
 
You haven't said what camera you have so what focal lengths you need will depend on that (sorry after reading the entire thread I see you have).

I'm a landscape photographer and shoot full frame. My most used lens is a 24-105, then a 70-200. My least used lens is the 14-35.
An Ultra Wide angle lens is probably the most difficult lens to shoot with as it can make the background appear very small in the image and you really do need interesting foreground. IMHO this should be the last lens you invest in.

As for grads, that also depends on your camera and how much editing you like to do. I used to use Grads until I got my R5 where the dynamic range means I just don't really need them anymore. The only filter you must have as a landscape photographer is a polariser and I would recommend some ND's
 
Last edited:
I agree with pretty much Elliott posted above

I'm a Nikon user so my go-to landscape lens is 24-120 f/4. You don't need wide apertures for landscape, BTW, as you are looking for DOF

I believe you said you had FF with a 20-60. As I said earlier, you're already in ultra-wide territory if you are wider than about 24mm, so I'd experiment with what you already have. Ultrawides CAN give creative options BUT you have to think very carefully about composition or your results will look as if your chosen subject is very small in the frame. As a general rule, ultrawides are all about bringing an interesting foreground into the composition, NOT about getting a lot of disconnected features into one shot - that just looks messy.

The only filter I use is a polariser. If necessary, I'll exposure bracket and blend in post, But modern sensors have so much DR that you can usually manage to pull back highlights in the sky and boost the foreground shadows. If I've driven an hour, or more, to a location I'll usually bracket as it only takes a moment, and I hate getting home to find I've got something I'm not satisfied with
 
Last edited:
Thread very helpful thread for me as well as I’ve started to think about a wider lens
Since changing to Canon full frame I haven’t got anything wider than my 70 -200
Glad I looked at this as I was looking at something around 13mm wide but now can see that it would be too wide
I have looked but not made a decision yet as I also do gig photography, mostly my 70-200 is fine for that but sometimes want to go wider
 
LCPete said:
Thread very helpful thread for me as well as I’ve started to think about a wider lens
Since changing to Canon full frame I haven’t got anything wider than my 70 -200
Glad I looked at this as I was looking at something around 13mm wide but now can see that it would be too wide
I have looked but not made a decision yet as I also do gig photography, mostly my 70-200 is fine for that but sometimes want to go wider
Click to expand...

13mm is extremely wide. On EF the standard UWA lens is 16-35 and on RF it's 14-35. I don't think I've ever shot anything at 14mm.

UWA can be a useful lens and they do open up some opportunities for unique images so I would never say you don't need one. I would just say that you will probably be better off with a standard lens first.
 
ecoleman said:
13mm is extremely wide. On EF the standard UWA lens is 16-35 and on RF it's 14-35. I don't think I've ever shot anything at 14mm.

UWA can be a useful lens and they do open up some opportunities for unique images so I would never say you don't need one. I would just say that you will probably be better off with a standard lens first.
Click to expand...

Thanks see what you mean so something like 17-50 would be a good starting point on full frame
I was using an 11 -16 tokina and a 17-50 Tamron on Canon crop but to be honest didn’t use the 11-16 very much even on crop
 
LCPete said:
Thanks see what you mean so something like 17-50 would be a good starting point on full frame
I was using an 11 -16 tokina and a 17-50 Tamron on Canon crop but to be honest didn’t use the 11-16 very much even on crop
Click to expand...

17mm on full frame is Ultra Wide. Your 17-50 on crop is equivalent it 27-80mm. So you will probably looking for the 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 on Canon FF.

Remembering that the 24-70 is f2.8 so heavier and more expensive than the 24-105 f4. Unless you need f2.8 for something else, you will rarely need that for landscapes.
 
ecoleman said:
17mm on full frame is Ultra Wide. Your 17-50 on crop is equivalent it 27-80mm. So you will probably looking for the 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 on Canon FF.

Remembering that the 24-70 is f2.8 so heavier and more expensive than the 24-105 f4. Unless you need f2.8 for something else, you will rarely need that for landscapes.
Click to expand...
Thanks :)
 
LCPete said:
Thread very helpful thread for me as well as I’ve started to think about a wider lens
Since changing to Canon full frame I haven’t got anything wider than my 70 -200
Glad I looked at this as I was looking at something around 13mm wide but now can see that it would be too wide
I have looked but not made a decision yet as I also do gig photography, mostly my 70-200 is fine for that but sometimes want to go wider
Click to expand...
Good to know that this useful for you also - I’m always grateful for the amount of guidance offered especially with the full replies given.

I think I remain tempted with the idea of 14-28 and spent some time looking on Flickr at images from it and like the idea of using it but going to rent similar first as accept it may be a use once thing.
 
Dont get caught up in the "must go wide" for landscapes. While wider lens are often a choice, you can use most lens depending on the supject type, wide vista, a tree in a field, a distant mountain range, theres a lot different styles of landscape, just look up some of the more well known landscape photographers on youtube and see the kit they use..
Many photographers use telephoto to close in on features in the landscape, and a "standard" zoom (24-105 ish full frame) will be often used for general landscape type shots.
Nothing is set in stone, use whatever you want for the shot,
My ultra wide 10-20 crop and 16-35 full frame are probably my least used lens if I'm honest. 90% of my shots are in the range of a 24-105ish. That includes the few landscape I do.
 
woof woof said:
This comparator thingy might help... Just select two focal lengths, set the crop, and see the difference.

Focal Length Comparison Tool

A simple and easy to use tool for a visual comparison of the focal length and the angle of view of two camera lenses.
morn91.github.io
Click to expand...
That's really useful. I've got an APSC and a 12mm Rokinon - and I've been trying to work out what the difference is between that and an 18mm on FF. Now I know - exactly nothing!
 
Very much try things out as far as FLs go

I tend to use 24 right up to a few 100mm or even longer.

The 14-30 I have is useful at the narrower end for wide shots but 14-20 is what tends to get used mainly for taking large buildings in narrow streets and then sorting perspective out in post.

The standard 24-70 or 24-120 kit lens is probably a good place to start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top