Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

3 4 end

PrecisionPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Edited on Mar 17, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Mar 17, 2008 at 11:58 PM

nburwell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

I love my 17-40, but recently I have been playing around with the idea of upgrading to the 16-35 II. Although I won't really utilize the 2.8 aperture, the corner sharpness certainly would help me out when shooting landscapes with the aperture stopped down.

-Nick

Mar 18, 2008 at 12:02 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #3 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Ben Horne wrote:
I shot this lens on a D3 over the weekend....
Edited by Ben Horne on Mar 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM GMT

Ben,
You should have tried this lens on a Canon 1Ds MarkIII instead of the Nikon D3

Mar 18, 2008 at 01:04 AM

danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Mar 18, 2008 at 03:01 AM

camerapapi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

David: I am a little confused about your thread. First you ask about the "best" wide angle there is and then you stated that you shoot birds. Maybe you want the wide angle for your trip to Yellowstone only?
I shoot landscapes but I use Nikon. I am very pleased with my 24mm Nikkor AIS f2.8 and this considering that I use APS format that Nikon calls DX.
The late photographer Ernst Hass was asked once which in his opinion was the best wide angle. I make often reference to this because I liked his answer. The best wide angle, he used to say, is "the one you have right now" and when necessary step forward or backward till you here a ha!
That 14mm II by Canon looks like a hell of a lens to me if that wide is what you need.
Good luck with your selection.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Mar 18, 2008 at 03:23 AM

dmward
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #6 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Not sure why F2.8 is so important.
A depth of field calculation indicates:
F2.8 at 10Ft focus the DoF range is 3.59 to infinity and at hyper-focus (5.61) everything from 2.8 to infinity appears in focus.

F3.6 at 10ft the DoF range is 3.07 to infinity and at hyper-focus (4.46) everything from 2.23 to infinity appears in focus.

The only possible advantage for the 2/3 more F stop is exposure and even that would have minimal benefit in a landscape shot since with failing light the scene is probably causing out of range concerns already. And a tripod, everyone uses a tripod for landscape shots in bad light right, means lowering the shutter speed a bit will have fix the exposure.

David

Mar 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM

jamesf99
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

bobbytan wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review

The Nikon lens has two MAJOR problems that are deal killers in my mind.

1) There are no screw on filter options - NONE. No filter will fit that bulbous fish-eye like front glass.

2) You can't use ND grads or hand hold anything due to the design (see above) and permanently attached lens hood.

I was trying it yesterday on a D300 and it's disappointing that Nikon had no forethought for filters/landscape shooters. While it appears to be a great lens, I'd suggest anyone serious about landscapes to forget it if you want to use filters.

Mar 18, 2008 at 01:06 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Jim,
I used a Lee graduate ND filter on this alternative lens in Death Valley several days back. I simply held the filter outside of the lens shade and used the LiveView option to make the adjustment. Not the most elegant solution but it did and does work. But, no, I didn't try any polarizer on it yet. BTW, this lens may not be suitable for everybody and you have to use an adapter on a Canon body. I am not a Nikon fan but at the same token, I am not married to Canon either. I don't have any problems using whatever works for what I am trying to achieve.

Edited by AGeoJO on Mar 18, 2008 at 06:04 AM GMT

Edited on Mar 18, 2008 at 02:04 PM

Mar 18, 2008 at 01:47 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #9 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

dmward wrote:
Not sure why F2.8 is so important.
A depth of field calculation indicates:
F2.8 at 10Ft focus the DoF range is 3.59 to infinity and at hyper-focus (5.61) everything from 2.8 to infinity appears in focus.

F3.6 at 10ft the DoF range is 3.07 to infinity and at hyper-focus (4.46) everything from 2.23 to infinity appears in focus.

The only possible advantage for the 2/3 more F stop is exposure and even that would have minimal benefit in a landscape shot since with failing light the scene is probably causing out of range concerns already. And a tripod, everyone uses a tripod for landscape shots in bad light right, means lowering the shutter speed a bit will have fix the exposure.

David

The 2.8 part is not important since no on who knows anything about landscape photography is going to shoot a tripod mounted landscape shot at f/2.8. However, lenses that are f/2.8 often have some optical properties that make them better even at stopped down apertures. In the case of the 16-35mm 2.8 II, extra work was done to ensure sharp corners. It is quite a bit better than the original 16-35mm, and should also be better than the 17-40mm. When I tested the original 16-35mm I vs the 17-40mm, I found that the two lenses were similar in the corners.

Mar 18, 2008 at 02:03 PM

george malamis
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #10 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

I think the 17-40 and 16-35II are the best options although they are different as well. The 17-40 wins on price vs performance, and the 16-35II wins on performance. The 16-35 aside from being a stop brighter, has improved lens coatings, is more resistant to flare, and has better colors, contrast, and edge sharpness. So with the 16-35, although more expensive, you can use it for landscape as well as interior/architectural photography with one lens able to cover a large spectrum of wide angle photography needs.

Mar 18, 2008 at 02:53 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

That is all highly theoretical, as in "the 16-35 should be best..."

Tests and reviews certainly do not generally support most of your conclusions. They do support the observation that the NEW 16-35mm f/2.8 II is better in several ways than the old version of this lens at f/2.8 but pretty similar at other apertures. They also support the observation that the 16-35 is not better than the 17-40 when used the way that these lenses are typically used by landscape photographers, in particular those using FF bodies.

The 17-40 is generally regarded as a pretty flare-resistant wide angle zoom. I challenge you to demonstrate the "better colors, contrast" of the 16-35 in side by side comparisons. The 16-35 does have better corner performance, but at the wider apertures that are very atypical for landscape. (If you are an atypical landscape photographer who shoots landscapes at f/2.8, I'll concede that the 16-35 is your lens.)

I'll also agree that if your shooting is diverse enough to include the specific areas in which the 16-35mm f/2.8 is strong there is little liability in also using it for landscape.

However, it if you are mainly getting a landscape lens and you get a 16-35mm f/2.8 with this purpose in mind you are paying a lot more for features that will likely be of no value in your landscape work.

Some dangerous assumptions about lenses include: If it costs more it must be better; if it has a larger maximum aperture it must be better; if it is bigger it must be better.

Dan

george malamis wrote:
I think the 17-40 and 16-35II are the best options although they are different as well. The 17-40 wins on price vs performance, and the 16-35II wins on performance. The 16-35 aside from being a stop brighter, has improved lens coatings, is more resistant to flare, and has better colors, contrast, and edge sharpness. So with the 16-35, although more expensive, you can use it for landscape as well as interior/architectural photography with one lens able to cover a large spectrum of wide angle photography needs.

Mar 18, 2008 at 07:07 PM

cogitech
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

danmitchell wrote:

Some dangerous assumptions about lenses include: If it costs more it must be better; if it has a larger maximum aperture it must be better; if it is bigger it must be better.

Indeed. This slow little gem proves that:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Mar 18, 2008 at 07:29 PM

Mar 18, 2008 at 07:29 PM

MSC
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #13 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Some recent...

14 II

This image is copyrighted by the owner

16-35 II

16-35 II, HDR

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Mar 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM

dbr403
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

As the great Ernst Haas once said:
"Best wide-angle lens? 'Two steps backward' and 'look for the ah-ha'."

Mar 19, 2008 at 12:35 AM

george malamis
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #15 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Dan, I don't want to get into a flame war. But if you read my post, I said that the 17-40 and the 16-35 are both the best. I think that the 17-40 is a fantastic lens which I've owned myself. To me, the 16-35 gives me more shooting options and is the reason its a part of my kit.

Mar 19, 2008 at 12:37 AM

James Grimm
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #16 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

I am waiting on my Nikon G->EOS converter so I can get the Nikon 14-24. This lens sounds amazing and fills a critical need of mine on the wide side.

For the record, I have Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I love it for wide angle shots in low(ish) light. But the results are somewhat unsatisfying for landscape and similar uses.

BTW, a 21mm Distagon is on sale on 16-9:

http://www.16-9.net/sale/

for those of you with "unlimited budgets". ;-)

Cheers,
James

Mar 19, 2008 at 01:16 AM

Brian Kersey
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #17 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

I asked this question a while ago, but now my post is in the archives. The difference is that I framed my question within a $500 limit Here it is:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/592921

It helped me a lot. But as I haven't owned any of the lenses that's all I can help. Good Luck!

BK

Edited on Mar 19, 2008 at 01:26 AM

Mar 19, 2008 at 01:25 AM

danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #18 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

george malamis wrote:
Dan, I don't want to get into a flame war. But if you read my post, I said that the 17-40 and the 16-35 are both the best. I think that the 17-40 is a fantastic lens which I've owned myself. To me, the 16-35 gives me more shooting options and is the reason its a part of my kit.

George, I don't want to get into a flame war either, and I don't think we're going that direction.

You probably noticed that I offered that the 16-35 is an excellent lens and offers particular areas of performance strength. However, thinking back to the OP's context ("I'm taking a trip to Yellowstone and would like the "best" wide angle for landscape") I was responding to the part of your message where you suggested that the excellent 16-35 "wins on performance."

In my view, either lens could "win on performance" depending upon your intended use. In the case of landscape photography I would not choose the 16-35 over the 17-40. The things that the 16-35 adds are of little or no value for the landscape photographer use that the OP asked about - these advantages are directed at other types of photography.

In this context the 17-40 could be said to have some specific advantages over the 16-35, though I'll stipulate ahead of time that the actual value of some of them might be limited. Some landscape photography advantages of the 17-40:

1. Smaller and lighter (not insignificant to some of us who do this work on foot, and sometimes on long backcountry trips.)
2. Less expensive.
3. Slightly (though certainly marginally) sharper at least in the center.
4. Wider focal length range.
5. Works as well into the corners when stopped down for typical landscape use.

Again, this is aimed back at the OP who asked specifically about landscape use.

Now, as I wrote earlier, if I (or the OP) planned to do a lot of shooting at f/2.8 (or even f/4 for that matter) I would sure consider the 16-35 on the basis of its advantages there. In fact, I have recommended the 16-35 to certain users in the past.

Take care,

Dan

Edited by danmitchell on Mar 19, 2008 at 08:12 AM GMT

Edited on Mar 19, 2008 at 04:12 PM

Mar 19, 2008 at 02:22 AM

wilsonprince
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #19 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Shane, nice shots. The 14mm doesn't have a lot of reviews out there so its nice to see some examples. The Distagon and Nikon are out of consideration for me, and I am not convinced that the Nikon is really superior to the Canon 14mm in real world applications anyway.

Mar 19, 2008 at 02:50 AM

MSC
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #20 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

Thanks Wilson. Getting a lens that does not AF and has other mechanical limits is just not appealing to me in any way. And for anything other than pixel peeping, I can't see any difference. And even then, I'm not certainly convinced by listening to what "others" say more than what I see with my own two eyes...and photography is about taking photos after all. I enlarged the whole series, of which these were a small part and printed them... I can say that I'm 100% satisfied with both of these lenses and worth every pretty penny. And I use my lenses for a lot more than landscape so things have a fully functioning lens is critical. To each his own...

One more 14 shot from that series...in tighter for a little more drama assigned to the silos and less weight to the sky.

Edited on Mar 19, 2008 at 03:24 AM

Mar 19, 2008 at 03:22 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #21 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

nburwell wrote:
I love my 17-40, but recently I have been playing around with the idea of upgrading to the 16-35 II. Although I won't really utilize the 2.8 aperture, the corner sharpness certainly would help me out when shooting landscapes with the aperture stopped down.

-Nick

I've seen no evidence stopped down, that the 16-35 II is any better for landscape work. Wide open and to about f/5.6 the 16-35 wins and has prime like centre sharpness. If you aren't interested in f/2.8 and want a a landscape lens you may not gain much at all. Also the 16-35 seems to do it's best in the 16-24 range.

Still trying to decide whether it's worth the cost. I would make use of the extra stop, but I have other lenses that can cover me for speed when I need it and if it's not going to make a noticeable difference stopped down over the 17-40 well ....

Still a little voice keeps nagging me

Mar 19, 2008 at 03:42 AM

David Vaughn
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #22 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

I'm the poster on this thread; I shoot full frame Canon and Nikon mounts, so I don't have a vested interest in which platform is better, just which one suits me better. I've ordered both the 16-35 and the 14-24, and will try them both this weekend and pick one. In the reviews I read, the Nikon is the sharper of the two, and frankly I'd rather shoot landscapes with the D3; nevertheless, the big bulb, fixed lens hood, and inability to use filters on the 14-24 are negative considerations for me personally. I'll have to see if the extra width and sharper pics, if actually true, outweigh those considerations. Keep you posted.

Mar 19, 2008 at 04:14 AM

MSC
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #23 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

16-35 at 35mm

This image is copyrighted by the owner

16-35 at 16mm

This image is copyrighted by the owner

16-35 at 18mm f4

This image is copyrighted by the owner

16-35 at 35mm

This image is copyrighted by the owner

one more...at 35mm

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Not so sure its a slouch at 35.

Mar 19, 2008 at 04:46 AM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #24 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

David

"The 2.8 part is not important since no on who knows anything about landscape photography is going to shoot a tripod mounted landscape shot at f/2.8."

Heh, guess i don't know anything about shooting landscapes

Edited on Mar 19, 2008 at 07:55 AM

Mar 19, 2008 at 07:53 AM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #25 · Best Wide Angle for Landscapes

I have the 16-35 MK1, and it is the only lens i seem to want to use anymore.

Mar 19, 2008 at 08:03 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 end