What's your favourite lens for Landscapes and why?

Tazzie

Tazzie

Messages
144
Name
Helen
Edit My Images
Yes
I use my 10 - 22mm for landscapes predominantly, mainly because I have the lens as a result of my underwater photography. I get the impression this isn't a very common lens for landscape photography so wondered what's most people are using and why? :shrug:
 
I like my 70-200 f2.8 because it gives different results to the normal wideangle lenses used for landscape shots...
 
The "problem" (and I put problem in quotes) is that unless you have a really strong foreground subject, or a cracking nice sky, generally ultra wide lens will put too much uninteresting sky / foreground into a shot, while making your subject quite small. So often folks will not use these for landscapes as a main lens - although 20mm+ is getting nice for that sort of thing.

Personally I prefer something around 17-55 ish, or even a longer lens to really bring an interesting feature in and crop out the extraneous stuff.
 
I used to have two faves... my Sigma 10-20, but more commonly my Sigma 24-70 for the reasons Puddleduck states above. Now that I'm full-frame I am hoping my 17-40 will become my staple - my aim being that I will think more about composition to not only capture the overall feeling of the landscape, but some of the finer details that you only really notice when you're out *amongst* the landscape.
 
That's a really good point Puddleduck - I defo have lots of shots that have lacked impact because of the teeny subject that I can't zoom in on

I have the standard 18 - 55mm canon kit lens and have never ever used it since buying other lenses, perhaps I should give that a go...
 
Don't do a lot of landscapes but used the 17-40 pretty much exclusively. Got an 11-16mm last week though and have to say it is great but does pull a lot of extraneous stuff into the frame.

Here is a shot from the 11-16 but has been cropped a little.

Beach3.jpg
 
It has to be the 17-40L for me. It was great on my old 10D but outstanding on the 5D. Ken Rockwell makes a very good point about ultra wide angle use. As he points out most people use them to 'Get it all in' whereas his preferred use is getting up close to the interesting stuff whilst retaining the environment in which they're placed. The key being getting closer rather than further away.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

Andy.
 
i use my 17-55 for mine

partly because i dont have anything wider but i prefer using it as i feel its wide enough
 
My 24L is the normal choice with the 14L in the bag just in case (on a FF body). I'm not really an ultra-wide fan and the 14L can't be filtered so it's not ideal on brighter days.

Bob
 
I have started using the 17-40L for landscape. However not rally shot landscape before so entirely new to me. I would have probably not used the Nikkor 24-70 as I would have 'felt' this was not wide enough in my head without using it. Really liking the 17-40 as a street lens though.

3160313043_37a7d5a753.jpg


3160217729_f810b56587.jpg


3160993270_40e7af85ab.jpg


3165067734_21a2b4c075.jpg
 
As I'm thinking of upgrading to full frame I was wondering about the 16-35L lens for wide-angle landscapes. Do any of you use this? I've heard mixed reports about the 17-40L lens - not being as sharp as it could be.
 
absolutely love my 17-40L. Spends more time on than any other lens!
 
It really depends. Often the 12-24 TokinaTank I have is just fine but I do find myself needing beyond - I'm getting very tempted by the 24-105 for this reason.

Don't rule out the long glass - can't remember the exact focal length but I quite like this one taken a few years ago with the 100-400 IS

IMG_8188.jpg
 
Fav is the Tokina 12-24, cracking lens and as stated above, built like a tank.
2nd fav is the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 at around the 20mm mark, very sharp images and great for low light photography.

Gary
 
I'm not sure now, I guess all of them.

When I started, the 10-22 got most use, but as said, it's not suited to a lot of situations. You need either great foreground, or a landscape thats expansive and probably with little distant detail that would be lost anyway.

I then got into using the 70-200, as you can pick out the bits you want the viewer to look at, and get rid of the extraneous rubbish. It's also good for pseudo compression of perspective.

Since I got the 5D the 24-70 has barely come off it, because it's just such a nice bloody lens. :D
 
Tazzie said:
I use my 10 - 22mm for landscapes predominantly, mainly because I have the lens as a result of my underwater photography. I get the impression this isn't a very common lens for landscape photography so wondered what's most people are using and why? :shrug:
Click to expand...

:shrug: On the 40D, I used the 10-22mm for landscapes more than any other lens and loved the results it gave.
 
I'm very pleased with my Nikkor 17-55, but will use my 80-400 VR on occasion, as well as my 10.5 fisheye. (Distortion can be controlled by careful orientation of the lens; and it can be reduced with software after the fact. Still not for everone.) But if I had to take along only one lens, it would be the 17-55.
 
The 16-35 for me on a full frame.
 
I've been using my 17-55mm and have got great results and after reading this thread it looks like i'll be sticking with it and not getting a wider lens.
 
Snapper73 said:
I've been using my 17-55mm and have got great results and after reading this thread it looks like i'll be sticking with it and not getting a wider lens.
Click to expand...

You'd really base that decision on this thread? Why not try it for yourself and then decide? You could be missing out...
 
DigitalRelish said:
You'd really base that decision on this thread? Why not try it for yourself and then decide? You could be missing out...
Click to expand...

No sorry I needed to me more clear I have another thread going and asked a similar questions. I guess i came to my conclusion from reading a few different threads etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top