Whats the point of owning good gear is that for some of us its the image quality when we pixel peep that brings us the most satisfaction in photography. Not everyone is an artist or even wants to be one. Being a gear head is not a moral lapse.
I like shooting wide. If i'm using my Lee Filter System the 17-40 works great. The 16-35 would be nice but mainly for the 1mm of width more than the f/2.8 as I usually take my landscapes at f/8.
If I want a super wide look and am doing exposure blending/HDR I go for my Rokinon 14mm f.2.8, funny nobody has mentioned this gem that you can get for a steal of a price. Who cares about auto-focus for super-wide landscapes!
I'm intrigued by tilt-shift lenses, I'd love to try out the 17mm!
I say whatever it takes to fill the frame... If that means walking a hundred paces closer to your subject or a telephoto zoomed in. Do what you have to do. As many have pointed out there is no perfect solution. I have found alot of joy using my 70-210 f4 recently.. getting up close and personal to those landscapes giving it a very intimate feel.
Edit:@ GDanMitchell; Just read your article. So many valid points made, thanks for sharing. Hope everyone takes the time to read it, definitely worth the time.
Charlie
CheechzeppLn wrote:
I say whatever it takes to fill the frame... If that means walking a hundred paces closer to your subject or a telephoto zoomed in. Do what you have to do. As many have pointed out there is no perfect solution. I have found alot of joy using my 70-210 f4 recently.. getting up close and personal to those landscapes giving it a very intimate feel.
Edit:@ GDanMitchell; Just read your article. So many valid points made, thanks for sharing. Hope everyone takes the time to read it, definitely worth the time.
Charlie
mjoshi wrote:
I see lot of great work on this forum and was just wondering what is your favoraite landscape lens ? At present I use Canon 17-40 with Canon 5Dmkii and was planning to upgrade to 16-35 F2.8 but on other hand I doubt having faster lens will make any bigger difference in landscape work as most of time I'm seeing images at anything smaller than F5.6. Any recommendations here ?
currently: Canon 24-70 II (24 1.4 II prior) and 70-300L
(Tamron 17-50 2.8 when I was using APS-C for landscapes + plus 100-300L/70-300 IS non-L/70-200 f/4 IS depending upon the time frame)
(if I had a 24 TS-E II, I'm sure that would be on the list. I think Bower is coming out with one soon.)
You may want to checkout the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. Its comparable to any landscape lens out there right now and comes in at almost half the cost of Canon 16-35mm.
Galen Rowell said that most of his landscapes could have been taken by "a 24mm and a good 80-200", so that's what worked for me on film. I would probably use a Zeiss 25 and the new Nikon 70-200 f4 if I were in FX, but I'm still searching for a lightweight, quality DX equivalent kit.
The Tokina 50-135 is uber-sharp, but lacks VR which is becoming more essential for me as I age, and I have yet to find a DX 24mm "quality" equivalent. The several 12-24s out there are good, but not as light and small as a WA prime. So, I'm not helping the OP here, but wish him well. Back to reading Dan M's article again....
Ron
My favourite lenses for landscapes and scenics in general are, in order of focal length;
Zeiss 18/3.5 ZE
Canon TS-E 24/3.5L II
Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8
Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4
Mamiya C 80/2.8N
Canon EF 135/2,
Mamiya A 150/2.8
Mamiya A 200/2.8 APO
OTOH, I don't hesitate to use my EF 24-70/2.8L II and 70-200/2.8L IS II if I don't happen to have the other lenses with me.
We are talking about landscape photography using the 35mm format. Which means we begin in a state of sin, because we all know that landscape images benefit from high resolution, and that larger formats provide higher resolution. To me, that means optimizing the presented resolution in our 35mm-format landscape images—and that, in turn means staying clear of wide angle. Wide angle images reduce the number of pixels per pebble. Pretty much any wide angle landscape image taken with a 35mm camera would have been a notably better image if taken with a larger-format camera. You could say the same thing for any field of view, of course, but there is a threshold beyond which it makes less or no difference. Once you satisfy the mind's eye's expectation for detail, you are over the threshold. So I favor 35mm-format lenses between 50mm and 100mm for landscape, and mostly between 50mm and 70mm. Much beyond 100mm it becomes hard to get good depth of field, especially in low light or with subjects where something is moving, like seascapes with waves.
Note too, that for optimizing detail, more than sharpness is required of a lens. You also need great contrast and color.
Favorite lenses that do the job I'm looking for: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 MP; Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II; Sigma 70mm macro; Canon 90mm TS-E. Even the Canon 85mm f/1.8, if you stop it down enough.
That said, the Zeiss 21mm, with great sharpness, contrast, and color, does seem to exceed the detail presented by other wide angles. It's probably the right wide angle lens for 35mm shooters with an urge to sin. Use it where you can show small details looking big, in the extreme foreground.
