What lens for landscapes

P

photographerian

Messages
82
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
My usual work is sport and portraits. I use two bodies (1DMk2Ns) with 70-200 L and a 24-70 2.8.

Just for my own enjoyment I'd like to get into doing some landscapes. What would be the best lens to use.

Obv not the 70-200s, but is my 24-70 lens good enough to get some really good landscapes. I've had a few goes, but never get what i really want to achieve.

Ian
 
If 24mm isn't wide enough, try a 12-24 Sigma. The closest Canon equivalent seems to be the 10-22 but that's an EF-S lens so not FF.
 
A Canon 10-22mm or a Sigma 10-20mm would be the best choice for landscapes. I own the cheaper of the 2, the Sigma and use it for all my landscape work. But I'm using a 30D so not a full frame sensor so the least i'm getting is 16mm. On your 1D a 10mm would be cool :)
 
definately take the 70-200mm landscapes is not all about wide angle, 24mm is fine for a full frame camera, whats yours?
 
Puz said:
A Canon 10-22mm or a Sigma 10-20mm would be the best choice for landscapes. I own the cheaper of the 2, the Sigma and use it for all my landscape work. But I'm using a 30D so not a full frame sensor so the least i'm getting is 16mm. On your 1D a 10mm would be cool :)
Click to expand...

The Sigma 10-20mm 1:4-5.6 EX DC HSM has a couple of letters to take note of, which mean Digital Crop, meaning it is intended for use on crop sensors. Otherwise you would have pronounced vignetting on a FF sensor :bonk:


Just noticed the 1D Mk2 is a crop of 1.3, not FF like I thought, so it may well be OK. But worth checking first
 
I use the Canon EF 17-40 f4L on my 1DmkII. Very happy with it for landscape...
 
Another vote for the 17-40mm f4 Canon.

Lovely lens :)
 
Another vote for 70-200mm lens. It is favoured by many National Geographic landscape photographers.
24-70mm is a general purpose lens and is great for walkabout. 24mm on 1D should be very wide. (Get 5D or 17-40mm if you want it even wider). Wideangles are not about cramming it all in, but including foreground, distorting perspective and leading lines, etc.
 
Sorry, but wide angle is good when there's a strong foreground, otherwise, IMO, it's panoramic territory.

On a FF camera, 24mm is PLENTY wide enough. if you want a wider view, do a panoramic.
 
I was using a 14-24 on a D700 and it was too wide for most landscape shots, it acutally works best for architecture. 24-70mm is spot on IMO for a full frame camera.
 
For what I've seen, 70-200 is a good lanscape lens as well (y)
I'm looking for one to complement my 24-105. Just thinking which version (f2.8/f4/IS/Non-IS) to go for :cautious:
 
Ant said:
Sorry, but wide angle is good when there's a strong foreground, otherwise, IMO, it's panoramic territory.
Click to expand...

I have a Siggy 10-20 and love it to bits for architectural work, but: -

IMHO, and I repeat humble, UWA lenses are not really for landscapes, they show just too much, with no real focal point.

Thats just my £0.02's worth. Please shoot me down in flames if you disagree.

Pete
 
Strange how many people think you need super wide angle lenses for landscape. very occasionally there is a scene that would need a very wide angle but in focal length terms the range of a kit lens is fine for most landscapes.
 
I am more than happy with my Sigma 17-70 for landscapes on my 1.6 so I would think your 24-70 on a 1.3 crop would be fine.
 
I use a sigma 24-60mm for most landscapes but I have been known to use 55-200mm as well.

Andy
 
Pete Gl said:
I have a Siggy 10-20 and love it to bits for architectural work, but: -

IMHO, and I repeat humble, UWA lenses are not really for landscapes, they show just too much, with no real focal point.

Thats just my £0.02's worth. Please shoot me down in flames if you disagree.

Pete
Click to expand...

I would agree I have struggled with my 10-20 when trying to use it for landscapes, I normally have to crop them to get something useable, that said for architecture and when I'm in town it is excellent but I may consider getting rid of it i favour of something like a 17-50 or an all in one zoom like the 18-270.
 
90mm super angulon :D

seriously, 24mm is plenty wide enough, I often used something in the 70mm range, with the 70-200mm getting dragged along as well.

Of course it depends what landscapes you want to do, you can use a 400mm if the scene fits.

In general you want a well corrected lens so you don't end up with bendy horizons, and you want to avoid using small apertures as you lose out to diffraction very quickly
 
Most of my landscapes are shot using something in the range of 24 to 200 mm. It depends on the situation and the subject matter. With crop format I would use the 70-200 zoom at max on occasion =320 mm!

In very tight corners my 17-40 comes out of the bag, and due to the barrel distortion shown by the 24-105 f4 at the wide end, I'm now using the 17-40 in the 24-28 range as well, if I have it with me.

Interesting to see people recommending long(ish) lenses for landscapes here.
For some reason, "landscape lens = ultra-wide angle" has become the mantra.

In fact, from the content of some other posts "a landscape" seems to have become defined as "an image taken outdoors with an UWA..."

It's not just about the gear you have; in fact your kit looks like a good set up for most situations. It's also about understanding the landscape and how light affects it.
 
24-70 surely... as has been said..it's not all about wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide
not sure what lenses are right for that camera as it's a cropped sensor isn't it...EF of course but..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top