What is a good lens for landscapes with this camera? I guess it would be great if it could do portraits, but not completely nec. I'm not sure of budget yet so I guess for now anything goes. Thanks.
Edited by chupacabra31 on Aug 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM GMT
Edited by chupacabra31 on Aug 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM GMT
Selecting a good landscape lens----really depends on the subject matter you're trying to capture!
Although wide angles typically come to mind, the longer focal lengths can actually be quite good for landscapes.....
Most all my landscapes are shot with medium format digital---and I've used a range from 35mm up to 300mm for landscapes. (35mm equivalent would be approximately 20mm to 200mm).
There are many lenses that are suitable for landscapes, because there are many focal lengths suitable for landscapes, so it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Lately, I've been shooting landscapes with a 70-200 (I only have thef/2.8 IS so thats what I've been using, but the f/4 would also be great).
If you are looking to do portraits with it as well, the 70-200 should be a fine choice.
Yeah, these two are versitile, good build, good IQ...you would be good with either...assuming wide is what you are talking about, which is most typical, although as pointed out here, certainly not the only way to shoot landscapes.
Instead of asking what lens would work I would say you really need to cover about 16 or 17 to about 200. Then look at what you want to capture, think about what you want to express, compose in your mind. Then choose the lens......practice, practice and practice. After a while you will always choose the right lens to express what your mind is seeing........This is much better then asking some one else who has no idea what you are shooting or wanting to express.......Peter
Peter Le wrote:
Instead of asking what lens would work I would say you really need to cover about 16 or 17 to about 200. Then look at what you want to capture, think about what you want to express, compose in your mind. Then choose the lens......practice, practice and practice. After a while you will always choose the right lens to express what your mind is seeing........This is much better then asking some one else who has no idea what you are shooting or wanting to express.......Peter
Ultimately, this is exactly right and well said. But hard to do in the beginning, or the middle for that matter.
Go prime. You're shooting landscapes and portraits. Why settle for anything less than the best color reproduction and contrast you can get in a lens? If weather sealing is important to you, either the 24L or 35L would be spectacular in front of your mII. Primes can be a little limiting for landscape work, yeah, but if you invest in a good pano head, I think you'll be far more satisfied with your well-planned panos than you would be with a single shot from an UWA zoom.
Yeah this is not for professional results. I don't intend to be a Zen master at landscape photography. I simply want to try my hand at it. This will probably be nothing more then to satisfy my need for memories while abroad. Which Ill admit I am a wee bit more picky then the average joe, but not nearly as picky as say an advertiser or the like. Thanks everyone for your suggestions.
I've found that some of my favorite landscape shots that I have taken were with a telephoto. While everyone recommends a 16-35 etc. those hard to take a good picture with. The problem is that you are taking so much in that it's hard to exclude any distracting elements and you really have to find some good subject matter to make a wide angle shot work. With a good telephoto (think 70-200 f/4 IS ) you can pick out the details you want and exclude distracting stuff. What it comes down to, and the same as what other have said, you need a good range, not just one lens.
24 is not wide enough on a 1.3x crop for many things. Thus the need for something really wider.
I concur, if landscapes are what you're after, 17-40 is the way to go. Had one, loved it, and only recent needs to shoot indoors forced me to get the 16-35/II. For landscapes alone I'd be happier with the 17-40 (77mm filters, size, and all that).
Just got my 17-40L today. I have the chance to "upgrade" to a 16-35L for this lens and $500 cash, but will likely stay with this lens.
The 16mm v. 17mm has been debated, but is negligible in my opinion when compared with the 35mm v. 40mm end of the lens. f/2.8 is nice, but f/4 is more than acceptable for landscapes.
You really have to assess it on your lineup of lenses. I'll be acquiring the 24-70 f/2.8L in the near future, and combined with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, there's really no reason for me to spend an additional $500 to get f/2.8 from 17-24mm. There might be fore other people, just not me, and that's one reason why I went with the 17-40, rather than the 16-35L.
Also...filters! ND, CPL, and other special filters are expensive enough as it is. The difference between a 17-40L and 16-35L is about $600 ($500 in my unique situation), but don't forget that if you want a polarizer or ND filter, you're going to spend another $200 on either. All of my lenses (save the 50 f/1.4) are 77mm lenses. Yes, you could get step up rings, but when you put all of the costs in front of you, you're paying a considerable amount of money more--close to $1000--for f/2.8. And if you have f/2.8 covered from 24mm to 200mm like me (and most from what it seems on this website), why pay another $1000 for f/2.8 from 17-24 when that money could be spent on a sweet tripod setup that'll give you all the vibration reduction needed to "make up" for f/4.
