Your most used Landscape lens

FromTarn said:
I might even try my 400mm DO mk2 at landscapes
Click to expand...
Go on then - but hopefully the experiment won't last long. Because in the case of landscape, such a focal length is too extractive and doesn't accord psychologically with natural human vision.

Roughly, I'd say that 100mm is the top limit and that below that, the world's your oyster.
 
Sony 24-70mm on a Sony a7ii ( Full frame) seems to do the trick for me

Les :)
 
droj said:
Go on then - but hopefully the experiment won't last long. Because in the case of landscape, such a focal length is too extractive and doesn't accord psychologically with natural human vision.

Roughly, I'd say that 100mm is the top limit and that below that, the world's your oyster.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a perfect starting focal length for distant panoramas to me, I got some unique shots from the top of our tallest hill with 600mm on a crop sensor.
 
Mostly my Nikkor 16-85 f3.5-f4.5 but I've just bought the Nikkor 16-80 f2.8 so i will compare them both soon. My 18-70mm i use for 10 stopper long exposures.
 
droj said:
Go on then - but hopefully the experiment won't last long. Because in the case of landscape, such a focal length is too extractive and doesn't accord psychologically with natural human vision.

Roughly, I'd say that 100mm is the top limit and that below that, the world's your oyster.
Click to expand...
Well for me at least the beauty of photography is that it doesn’t accord to human vision otherwise we’d all just be shooting ‘record’ shots.

The real beauty of photography is when one can escape the confines of what we know as human vision;)
 
I mainly use the Fuji 10-24 now, but previously is was the 18-55. When I had canon it was the 16-35, that being said, I'd agree with many from above that it very much depends on what you want to achieve and what is in front of you.
 
I've recently sold the 16-35 so now it's a mix of my 20mm f/1.8 and the absolutely fantastic 24-70 S f/4.
 
For quite a few years (before the onset of digital) my most-used landscape lens was an 85mm, on what would now be called 'full frame'. Obviously my channel wasn't the 'broad sweep' scenery approach, but more extractive.

Associated with that era, I remember the exposure constraints of film, and 35mm reversal colour film in particular!

Currently, my favourite all-purpose walkabout lens is a 28mm f/2, which I rarely stop down beyond f/5.6, preferring to limit dof as a way of concentrating the attention within the frame.

I still have an 85mm for when the mood takes me, and a 20mm for when a different inspiration strikes.

A constant concern is flare performance because you'll often want to shoot into the light.
 
droj said:
A constant concern is flare performance because you'll often want to shoot into the light.
Click to expand...

You and I couldn’t be more different - I almost exclusively avoid shooting into the light and plan everything around having the light come from behind or to my side (but still slightly behind)

Flare performance is important I find for urban shots where there are many street lights etc but for “landscape” the sun is never forward of my lens - always always behind
 
On my D810, it's very close between the 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D and the 55mm f2.8 AF-mirco nikkor.
On my Mamiya RZ67 it's the 65mm f4 (32mm equivalent)
On my Mamiya 645 it's the 55mm f2.8 (35mm equivalent)
 
OK, I know a wide angle lens is a nice handy lens to have but is it really necessary for landscapes? What would be the advantage over a 2x2 panorama shot and then cropped. That would give (on an EOS600D for instance 5184x3456px) an image of 8640x5760px (assuming an overlap of 1/3) the equivalent of almost 50 megapixel and without the distortion that wide angle lenses can impart on an image?
 
ok, I mainly use the canon 24 - 105 L is ultrasonic, I have used it a lot for landscape photography incl long exposure and time-lapse, for its size it is heavy but the results make it worth it
 
rich007 said:
ok, I mainly use the canon 24 - 105 L is ultrasonic, I have used it a lot for landscape photography incl long exposure and time-lapse, for its size it is heavy but the results make it worth it
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum! (y)Your approach is "no pain - no gain" as A. Schwarzenegger said. :LOL: I generally prefer lighter equipment ... ---

Only when going on short walks, I take a light zoom outfit (SONY A7 - SONY FE 4/70 - 200).
 
up until a couple of months ago it was my nikon 24-70 because i only had a tokina 11-16 that was any wider and the vignetting etc on my FX body drove me mad, i bought a tamron 17-35 before we went to new york though so i suspect that will probably become my main one over time unless i get into using the 70-200 i have my eye on next year for landscapes as so many seem to do now
 
Hi, for city-scapes I go even wider, with primes down to 15mm or even 12mm (either Leica M9 or SONY A7R2 with lens correction app) .
 
On my current Fuji kit it is the 18-55mm.

When I should Canon FF it was the 24-105mm, previously I had the 17-40mm, but found it to be too wide.
 
At the moment it is the Fuji 10-24, but I will also be trying the 16 1.4.
 
Fuji 10-24 by a mile. Love a wide angle landscape.

Next up would be a 55-200.
 
Dangerous said:
OK, I know a wide angle lens is a nice handy lens to have but is it really necessary for landscapes? What would be the advantage over a 2x2 panorama shot and then cropped. That would give (on an EOS600D for instance 5184x3456px) an image of 8640x5760px (assuming an overlap of 1/3) the equivalent of almost 50 megapixel and without the distortion that wide angle lenses can impart on an image?
Click to expand...

No. Not always necessary. I shoot 40mm panoramic more often than I shoot single 21mm images. That's not just for resolution either, often for the look.
 
I've shot panorama up to 150mm on odd occasions. As you say it's done for the look.

18mm is my widest. To shoot even wider I do panorama at whatever focal length that suits. Other than wanting the fisheye effect that you can get, image wise what is the advantage of going wider? (ignoring weight lens size etc.)
 
Dangerous said:
Other than wanting the fisheye effect that you can get, image wise what is the advantage of going wider? (ignoring weight lens size etc.)
Click to expand...
I like panoramas but I also like wide angle. I'm not a fan of the fish-eye effect, but the wide angle is more subtle and emphasises the foreground element/subject.
If you do a panorama at 70mm or more, you start getting telephoto compression which has the effect of shortening the space between foreground and background.
For example take a look at one of many "lone tree" images (Snowdonia or Lake District both have them). Shoot it as a panorama at 70mm+, you'll effectively pull the hills/background closer to your subject the tree. Shoot it with a wider angle, then the shot becomes more about the tree as it's separated from the background more and is larger in the frame than the background.
Obviously you can shoot a panorama with a wider lens than 70mm, but if you go too wide (even 24mm) then the angle distorts the image and makes alignment tricky.
The advantage of shooting wide is being able to get the image in one shot of the right shape. I like panoramas but sometimes you need more height in the image. To get that with a panorama you'd need to do another row (or 2) of shots, which takes longer to shoot and longer to process.
Less processing needed for a single wide shot than for a panorama. And although a panorama gives you more pixels to play with, that means more processing power is needed.
That's also assuming that you've shot the panorama correctly, tripod level, pivoting at the right point, overlapping images, etc. And that the software can stitch it.
I've had a few times when I've shot a panorama and then it's failed to stitch properly, so I've either had to fix it manually or abandon it and go to the single shot.

Panoramas are a tool for the photographer. When to use them or not use them is down to the individual and also dependent on the day, conditions and subject.
 
ABTog said:
I like panoramas but I also like wide angle. I'm not a fan of the fish-eye effect, but the wide angle is more subtle and emphasises the foreground element/subject.
If you do a panorama at 70mm or more, you start getting telephoto compression which has the effect of shortening the space between foreground and background.
For example take a look at one of many "lone tree" images (Snowdonia or Lake District both have them). Shoot it as a panorama at 70mm+, you'll effectively pull the hills/background closer to your subject the tree. Shoot it with a wider angle, then the shot becomes more about the tree as it's separated from the background more and is larger in the frame than the background.
Obviously you can shoot a panorama with a wider lens than 70mm, but if you go too wide (even 24mm) then the angle distorts the image and makes alignment tricky.
The advantage of shooting wide is being able to get the image in one shot of the right shape. I like panoramas but sometimes you need more height in the image. To get that with a panorama you'd need to do another row (or 2) of shots, which takes longer to shoot and longer to process.
Less processing needed for a single wide shot than for a panorama. And although a panorama gives you more pixels to play with, that means more processing power is needed.
That's also assuming that you've shot the panorama correctly, tripod level, pivoting at the right point, overlapping images, etc. And that the software can stitch it.
I've had a few times when I've shot a panorama and then it's failed to stitch properly, so I've either had to fix it manually or abandon it and go to the single shot.

Panoramas are a tool for the photographer. When to use them or not use them is down to the individual and also dependent on the day, conditions and subject.
Click to expand...
Some points in there I hadn't considered. Thanks
 
If you shoot a panorama of two or more rows, you'll end up with the same composition as if you had used a wider lens. You can easily confirm this for yourself. What determines perspective is where you stand, focal length simply crops it (or doesn't). Ease of stitching mostly depends on whether there is stuff in frame near the lens - if everything is far away, it will always be easy. If these conditions hold true, the only advantage of shooting your pano with a longer lens is resolution, which of course is not to be sniffed at, up to a point anyway.
 
Tamron 17-35mm OSD, the best lens I've ever had in terms of usefulness, results and portability. I'm struggling to find a sensible telephoto option to complement it; I am fussy, but also very miserly!! I use a Tamron 70-300mm VC but the border IQ makes me grind my teeth.

Re wide angle panoramas, I do prefer to frame the shot in real time, it has to be easier to compose the foreground in the scene than if you stitch multiple images.
 
Last edited:
Iain Macleod said:
My most used lens is currently a tamron 10-24mm HLD on my 80D. It's rarely off my camera.
I'm in the process of changing to Canon FF, so I assume the EF 16-35mm f4 L will become my go to lens.
Click to expand...

Hi Iain, I was just wondering what FF Canon you went for? I am in looking to upgrade to FF as sometimes I feel my 80D leaves me wanting. I have the Sigma 10-20 and have been really pleased with that lens so again would be interested in what L lens you replaced your Tamron 10-24 with.
 
Gritty said:
Hi Iain, I was just wondering what FF Canon you went for? I am in looking to upgrade to FF as sometimes I feel my 80D leaves me wanting. I have the Sigma 10-20 and have been really pleased with that lens so again would be interested in what L lens you replaced your Tamron 10-24 with.
Click to expand...

I went for the EOS R which I have found to be a good step up from the 80D. It took a bit of getting used to the EVF, but I much prefer it now.

The 10-24mm was replaced with an EF 16-35mm f4. Excellent lens, but I have found that I'm mostly using the RF 24-105mm that I got with the camera.
 
Iain Macleod said:
I went for the EOS R which I have found to be a good step up from the 80D. It took a bit of getting used to the EVF, but I much prefer it now.

The 10-24mm was replaced with an EF 16-35mm f4. Excellent lens, but I have found that I'm mostly using the RF 24-105mm that I got with the camera.
Click to expand...

Thank you Iain,
I am in 2 minds about going mirrorless... I like the portability but I also love the feel of a DSLR. I was thinking of upgrading to the 5D mark 4 and then still being able to use my 150-600 for my wildlife but having the extra dynamic range for my seascape & landscape photos.... dilemma....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top