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.I might even try my 400mm DO mk2 at landscapes
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.
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.
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.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.
A constant concern is flare performance because you'll often want to shoot into the light.
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
Depth of field?What would be the advantage over a 2x2 panorama shot and then cropped.
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?
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.Other than wanting the fisheye effect that you can get, image wise what is the advantage of going wider? (ignoring weight lens size etc.)
Some points in there I hadn't considered. ThanksI 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.
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.
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.
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.
Any focal length (or range) you used the most on this lens?It turns out it was 70-200mm f4 is for the last year