Preferred Focal Length (Full Frame) ?

monkeyleader

monkeyleader

Messages
500
Name
Nigel
Edit My Images
No
Morning all,

When I first got into photography I picked myself up a 10-20mm lens .. was on a 1.6x crop factor camera so in effect giving me the 16-32 range .... as I upgraded my kit the crop factor started to drop until now on a full frame camera (apart from not actually working without a heavy vignette) anything below 15mm just seems TOO wide for landscape stuff ...

The main lens I'd use today for landscape work is my trusty workhorse - the 24-105mm f/4 ... I sometimes forget how much I love using this lens ... Over a beer the other week myself and a buddy were talking focal lengths and landscape .. last year he picked up the 24mm TSE (Canon) and has fallen head over heels in love with it ... I asked him did he think 24mm was wide enough ... he didn't seem to mind ..

I've been looking at two specific focal lengths (again on Full Frame cameras) ... 21mm and 17mm ... with what seems like I'm increasing consideration on the 21mm range ... (I wonder has a certain Mr Zeiss got something to do with that)

So for those who are heavily into their landscape photography ... what would be your go-to focal range (not this is not a thread about lens comparison ... rather focal length choices) ... And I know great landscape photography can be achieved even on a 70-200mm .. again this is not a thread to suggest that 1 lens will be the landscape choice for every situation .. rather when considering yourself in a certain location (Say the highlands of Scotland or the lakes) ... what would be your go-to focal length ..

cheers,

Nigel
 
I always carry my 24-70 and 70-200 for landscapes.... Almost exclusively use the 24-70 at 24.... Will tend to use the 70-200 if I've got a nice expanse in from of me with interesting layers in the distance that I want to compress...
 
With the ts-e you can shift left, right, up, down around the centre and stitch to make a bigger image with no change in perspective. So in effect giving the image of a wider lens. Metering is a bit of a pain though. It also has the ability to tilt to give total depth of field.

I've got a 17mm and it is wide. Most of my landscapes are probably at the 24 end of a 24 - 105.

The 21 apparently vignettes heavily unless stopped down. Most reviews will say optically it's better than all Canon lenses apart from possibly the TS-E's.

So in answer to your question I think the 24 end is more of a go to if you were only going to carry 1 lens.
 
The widest I've got is 24mm so that has to be my go for, or longer. It would be nice to have something a little wider for the odd shot but it's not a big issue and I can't see me spending more hard earned on another lens any time soon.
 
I've always preferred shooting wide, so the wider the better. 24mm is a cracking focal length for landscape for wide but not too wide, 20mm is great for even wider and on occasion I'll use 16mm. The 28mm and 35mm end of my 16-35 don't get used particularly much as I find them a bit meh lengths.
 
I use a 17-40 for my landscapes and tend to favour about 20mm for sharpness on this lens.
 
16-28 Tokina is fast becoming my fav. Super sharp if a little wide. Also get a fair bit of use with a 50mm prime....maybe not the most conventional landscape lenses but work for me!
 
18-35 and 28-70 here
 
I love 28mm, just about all of my landscape photos are taken with a 28mm 1.8 lens. I used to love the 20mm focal length but now find it a bit too wide. The Zeiss 21mm is seriously good though a bit too wide for me to be a 'main' lens.
 
The 24-105 f/4 is a great lens and gives you a good range for Landscape i wouldn't be without mine ,I also carry the Canon 17-40 which i do like for a wider option and tend to use it on Seascapes quite a lot .
 
Pretty much anything between 24-70 & 70-300.

I do like to shoot at ~135mm a lot though, have a 135mm lens I love, although I tend to leave that on the film body rather than use it in the digital.
 
really depends on the scene, landscapes, where you are in relation to your subject are massively variable subjects. In saying that, I've rarely wanted wider than 21mm on FF but use everything in my 24-70 range and sometimes want longer. Depends where I am, what I want to shoot, and the conditions at the time. I'd hate to me restricted to 35mm, 50mm, etc, you need the freedom to compose that either lots of primes or zooms can give
 
If you can stretch to it and are OK with MF then get the 24mm TS-E ( Mk2 if poss but the Mk1 is OK and a lot cheaper).
Its so flexible and with a good stitching program you can work wonders with it
 
I guess its a matter of carrying something for all eventualities if you have the option. Flicking through the consensus above 24 to XX comes up a lot.
If i'm going somewhere where weight counts and there is a limit on camera equipment versus for example safety equipment, like up a mountain i take my 24-70mm. Personally i would stick to something like this, ie your 24-105 (sorry i dont know much about Canon lenses) .

Now if i had to take a prime it would be 20 (something). (24mm)

I had a similar discussion with a friend in the pub, the idea came up to look at the Landscapes he had taken and check the average focal length it came up at 23 mm.
Looks like your considering a high quality prime?
Zeiss Distagon T 2,8/21?
Cheers
Steve
 
Ziess distagon T 2.8 21mm is a lovely lens, and takes 100mm filters which is a big plus. But really, unless you want a lot of sky and water, you need to compose carefully with it. I love it, but its not as useful as a 24-70. Its great for big mountains, and surprisingly handy at archicture too if you keep it straight.

_DSC0787 by SFTPhotography, on Flickr
 
I've only just gone up to full frame and made the jump getting a Zeiss Distagon 25mm at the same time. What a superb lens. I have to say the focal length for me seems spot on for landscapes. The 21mm also seems very popular though.
 
Delta Skies said:
I've only just gone up to full frame and made the jump getting a Zeiss Distagon 25mm at the same time. What a superb lens. I have to say the focal length for me seems spot on for landscapes. The 21mm also seems very popular though.
Click to expand...

Nice. If I didn't have the 21mm or 24/70 I for sure would make use of a 25mm more than if the 21mm was my only lens.
 
My go to landscape lens WAS my 70-300VR, I used it for pretty much everything. I've just changed it for the 28-300VR for the odd occasion (not normally landscape) where being able to go wide is necessary.

I have a 16-35 and I've had some amazing shots from it but I feel UWA has a very specific purpose - you need to be able to stand on the subject in order to use it.
 
I have been using a Nikon 20-35 on full frame and find that I am using it less at 20mm than I expected. So in reality I suppose that a decent 24mm or 28mm would suffice for most of my landscape needs as they did in the good old film days !!
 
about 35mm

I find myself attaching a 1.4x extender to my 24mm most shots.

Waiting for canon to release the 45mm tse ii
 
jerry12953 said:
Arrrghh....does that work?
Click to expand...
with the sacrifice of softening the lens a little, yer.

After seeing the softness creep in I would be reluctant to go for a 2x extender mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top