Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: guardian
Username   Password

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
2
end
Archive 2008 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii Go to previous topic Go to next topic
chupacabra31
Online
Image Upload: On
p.2 #1 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii


Esquire08 wrote:
chupacabra31 wrote:
Will Patterson wrote:
chupacabra31 wrote:


Can't you just filter your photos in Photoshop CS3?



There's a lot you can do in CS3, and a lot you can't just because certain things can only be done with the camera in the field. Such as ND's, you can't get extremely long exposures any other way without them. CP's - you can't recover harsh reflections and blown out skies without them. Even split gradient filters, it's a lot easier to use them instead of trying to recover a portion of the photo in post.


Uhm...thanks for assuming I know what your talking about when you use code words like ND's and CP's...but I don't so I am not sure what your talking about. Thanks.


CP = circular polarizer. Do you have polarized sunglasses? It helps reduce glare and delivers a very unique look, providing very nice contrast (not my image):
This image is copyrighted by the owner

ND = neutral density. It's basically a black plate in front of your lens that lets very little light in. It provides a number of "stops" to achieve another unique look. Do you like time exposures? ND's allow for extremely long exposures (again, not my image):
This image is copyrighted by the owner

But I'll assume that because you don't know what these are, you don't know the cost. They're expensive, about $150 each for 77mm sizes.


Very cool! Thanks for posting this! Makes it very clear for dummies like me.


Aug 15, 2008 at 02:01 AM
danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
p.2 #2 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii


freaklikeme wrote:
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.

Jeez, I'm starting to sound like a zealot.


The "color reproduction and contrast" of the best zooms is excellent and generally indistinguishable from a prime in a print. In addition, by cropping in camera you will in many cases get better resolution since you'll often have to crop prime shots if the focal length isn't exactly right of the scene. (And you cannot always move to a better position in landscape photography - unlike, say, product photography.)

The big advantages of lenses like the 35L and (perhaps) the 24L does not lie in IQ improvements in typical landscape shooting, which for most folks generally does not mean shooting at f/1.4. (If you _do_ shoot landscapes at f/1.4, YMMV.) Just because a lens is bigger and more expensive does not mean it is better for everything.

Dan

Aug 15, 2008 at 06:50 AM
danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
p.2 #3 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii


(The attribution sequence is unclear above, so I'll just put the comment I'm responding to in quotes.)

"Can't you just filter your photos in Photoshop CS3?"

"There's a lot you can do in CS3, and a lot you can't just because certain things can only be done with the camera in the field. Such as ND's, you can't get extremely long exposures any other way without them. CP's - you can't recover harsh reflections and blown out skies without them. Even split gradient filters, it's a lot easier to use them instead of trying to recover a portion of the photo in post."

I'm going to partially agree and partially disagree.

1. It is true that the polarizing effects of polarizing filters cannot really be replicated in Photoshop. I carry one and use it to control reflections (on water, glass, vegetation, etc), to increase contrast in certain subjects (e.g. clouds/sky), and to use as a emergency neutral density filter.

2. Plain neutral density filters can be useful if you do very long exposures in relatively bright conditions. You probably don't need these right out of the gate, but if you eventually hanker for the longer exposures and/or wider aperture possibilities they may be useful.

3. I'm in a different camp on the graduated neutral density ("ND grads") issue. With film essentially the only realistic method for capturing a scene with an extremely wide dynamic range was to use ND grads in the field. One can still do this with DSLRs but it is not necessarily the best choice. I frequently shoot landscape subjects in which the DR is too wide for the camera, but rather than using ND grades I make two or more exposures (from the tripod) a stop or more apart - one exposed for the shadows and the other for the highlights. I combine them in PS using masks to allow the better exposed portions to become visible. (This is _not_ the same as HDR photography.)

Why do this rather than use the ND grad filters? Mainly because it is much more flexible and requires no extra equipment if you are already using a tripod.* A few observations:

- with the ND grads you are limited to whatever f-stop difference is built into the filter. With the multiple exposure method the dark/light exposures can be whatever you need.

- in very complicated situations you can combine more than two exposures - I've used 3 or 4 at times.

- the "dividing line" between the light and dark areas does not have to be a line - you can custom mask the areas to follow whatever shapes the subject dictates.

Dan

* Some photographers forego the use of the tripod for the multiple exposures and let the camera auto bracket (with varying shutter speeds- NOT aperture) in a burst.



Edited on Aug 15, 2008 at 07:20 PM


Aug 15, 2008 at 07:00 AM
chupacabra31
Online
Image Upload: On
p.2 #4 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii


I hate to ask this but are there any Sigma or other canon mount lenses that are maybe just as good or nearly as good as the canon lenses mentioned?

Thanks.

Aug 20, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Will Patterson
Offline
Image Upload: On
p.2 #5 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii


chupacabra31 wrote:
I hate to ask this but are there any Sigma or other canon mount lenses that are maybe just as good or nearly as good as the canon lenses mentioned?

Thanks.


I just bought the Sigma 12-24 after reading rave reviews about it, and I don't plan on using it at 12mm for landscapes, I'll be zooming it in somewhat to lower distortion (eventhough for 12mm it has very low distortion already).

Aug 20, 2008 at 02:02 PM
danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
p.2 #6 · What lens for landscapes with a 1dmkii


Pixel Perfect wrote:
For landscape I don't see the benefit of the 16-35L. Put the money you save on the 17-40 toward a good tripod and ball head combo.


+1

If your landscape shooting practice is typical - e.g. shooting at smaller apertures - there is essentially no benefit to using the 16-35. Although it is a fine lens, its main virtues are at f/2.8 and f/4. At smaller apertures, especially on full frame, the 17-40 equals or exceeds its performance.

Dan

Aug 20, 2008 at 03:58 PM

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1
2
end
  Go to previous topic Go to next topic

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost password?