Photography in the lake district

S

sjh2008

Messages
1,194
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am planning a Photography holiday to Keswick, and surrounding area in the lake district.

I have a 5d2 + 24-105mm lens.

Will this be wide enough for landscape shots around the area.

Or do i need to splash out on a Canon 17-40mm lens ?

Also
I do not have a polariser, but do have the Lee filter holder + ND grads.

So do i need to add a polariser to the shopping list too ?

If so the Heliopan Circ-polariser which fits to the front of the Lee filter holder is stupidly expensive.
Can i get away with buying a 77mm polariser and fitting it to the front of the lens instead
 
There will always be times when you'll want a lens a little bit wider than you have. However, that is a full frame Canon you have and the 24 - 105 on it is bound to be a very versatile set up for landscape. I'd stick with that for now.

Go for the circular polariser, I'd say (and hope you'll get nice sunny conditions where it could be usefull).
 
Thats 2 :thumbs: then for the polariser.

I thought if you had the lee filter holder fitted you needed to have an 105mm adaptor ring to fit it to the lee holder.as the polariser is then farthest away from the camera.

I was thinking of having the 77mm circ - polariser mounted on the lens, then adjusting the nd grads to suit the scene requirements

Would that work ok ?


Anyone else any thoughts on if the 24-105 is going to be wide enough for lake scenic pics ?
 
sjh2008 said:
Anyone else any thoughts on if the 24-105 is going to be wide enough for lake scenic pics ?
Click to expand...

I think this depends on your style. 24mm on your 5D is equivalent to 15mm on my 40D, and I find that's usually plenty wide enough for me. But then I'm not a member of the put-a-rock-in-the-foreground-and-it-will-be-OK school of landscape photography. If you are (or to put it aniother way, if you work harder at your composition than I do!) then you might find a wider angle such as a 17-40 useful.

I usually grab a 10-22 from the cupboard whenever I'm going to the Lakes, if we have one in stock. I might not use it much, but it's nice to have "just in case".
 
Thanks for that Stewart, i had a Tokina 12-24 when i had my 40D, but only used it a couple of times.
But saying that i have never been the Lake District to really make use of it.
 
Another vote for 17-40L being not essential but nice to have. Polarising filter however, if you get some sunshine up there would be one of the first things in my kit-bag after the camera itself.
 
Personally, I really like the distortion you can get off of the 10-22mm, I know it won't fit your camera, but something similar would be nice.

I think I would definitely go for a polariser.
There are two benefits, as well as the polarising effect, they also generally work as at least a 2stop filter, which might be useful if you are trying to get any waterfalls or the like.
Have fun
 
Thanks to all for the advice.
Had a long hard think about it, and decided against the 17-40 for now, will use the spare cash towards a polariser + New ball head for tripod

As current lens lineup is pretty reasonable
24-105 / 70-300 / 100 2.8 Macro + Lee Filter Holder + Nd Grads
 
I've shot a lot in the Lake district and I would say that the 24-105 will cover most circumstance. If you find that you need that bit extra, provided you have a tripod or are stable enough, you could always do a small Pano
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top