p.1 #1 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
Hello All,
During my travels, I carry RF 24-105 f/4, and RF 100-500. For the wider end, I am debating between RF 10-20mm vs RF 14-35mm for shooting landscapes.
The obvious points: If i go with 10-20mm, I will miss out on 21mm to 23mm essentially, but 10-20 gives me a unique perspective at its wide end. If i take the 14-35mm, I will miss the ultrawide 10mm to 13mm, but lens covers a larger range for landscape photos.
I love landscape photography in general, and i understand so many great landscape photographers here in FM and outside, have shot many keepers before 10-20mm (and 11-24mm) was even available. So my question to you all is , how much value does a landscape photographer see in 10mm to 13mm. Has anyone shot landscape pictures in this ultrawide range , and mind sharing them here ? Or have you come across some great photos shot between 10mm and 13mm, that you can share here ?
p.1 #3 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
IMO, the wider the lens, the more important good foreground content and composition becomes because it will dominate the image unless you're shooting from the edge of a cliff.
The gap between 20 and 24mm, if you go 10-20 and 24-105, is not insurmountable in probably most cases. Otherwise you shoot it at 20mm and crop. Another consideration might be whether or not you want to use filters.
p.1 #4 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
rscheffler wrote:
The gap between 20 and 24mm, if you go 10-20 and 24-105, is not insurmountable in probably most cases. Otherwise you shoot it at 20mm and crop. Another consideration might be whether or not you want to use filters.
You brought up a good point here. With R5's resolution (and a good upscaling software), cropping a 20mm photo should cover the 21 to 23mm, so i wont miss that range.
So the bigger consideration is : The ultra wide perspective of 10mm to 13mm if i have a good foreground to include (vs) Versatility offered by the longer focal range of 14 to 35mm ?
p.1 #5 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
EB-1 wrote:
I used a 70-200 or 100-400/500 more than the 16-35, but I'm more into the ultra-res 2-4 row pans.
I'd get the 14-35 if I could do landscapes anymore.
EBH
Thanks, I do a lot of wide and tight landscapes, so in the past I found using wides (16-35), and telephotos (100-400) a lot more. Thats why I am confused, if i should go further wide to 10mm , and will it give me more composition option compared to 14-35mm at its wide end .
p.1 #6 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
Did you often feel constrained by 16mm?
Both the 10-20 and 14-35 have quite strong distortion at the wide end that is corrected in-camera for the EVF feed, and auto-corrected in many RAW converters. Depending on your RAW converter, you can turn off the software distortion correction and gain wider coverage at the expense of black extreme corners. Some subject content might effectively disguise the uncorrected distortion.
Also, Adobe's distortion correction appears to differ from Canon's in that it often results in a slightly wider final angle of view.
p.1 #7 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
I have 15mm zeiss and 12mm laowa, laowa 15 shift and ts17 ts24.. and some more. I am going to buy 9mm. I typically use ts 17 and 24-105 the most. Perhaps 10/25/65% uwa/17/24-105.
I think the answer is dependent on where you shoot and whats your preferred subject. 9/12mm is needed for shooting really wide subject off a cliff really wide (peyto lookout). [but challenging if a tree is in the foreground when not off a cliff]. Ts is needed for not having bowed trees. But i live in mountains that are close in with lots of trees close in). I like big vistas. And lake/trees/moutains with sunrise.
My preference is ts 17 and 24. But if it requires really wide i go for laowa 12. Soon 10mm.
I would be frustrated by 10-20 because of no shift. The small gap from 20 to 24 i would not notice.
If i were a flat land shooter - desert or ocean without near trees - i could live with 10-20.
Just me i would not be interested in either. I would go primes. But if i had to choose i would go 10-20 expecting to use it mostly at 17 -20. I would not care much about iq differences and digital correction since logistics matter more - time of day, weight, fstop (if ocean).
p.1 #8 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
Scott Stoness wrote:
... go 10-20 expecting to use it mostly at 17 -20...
That is why I´m still warming but not pulling the trigger on the 10-20. I mainly bring the very small but for its size very capable RF16mm, or ZE 15 if zeis don´t matter, for very wides.
10-12mm is so extreme. It is not many times per year I find good use for it. But when the moment is there it can bring very special results. Have the EF Sigma 8mm and 16mm FF fisheyes.
Perhaps an ultra wide prime at around 10mm together with a 14-35 would be more useful with far less need to switch lenses at the 20-24mm break.
Oh boy, do I get 10-20mm GAS now....... Yes.................
p.1 #9 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
Everyone is different, but I’d have very little use for a lens wider than 14mm for landscape photography.
The widest I carry is a 16-35mm and it is my least used lens for landscape. In most cases the 24mm of my 24-70 is plenty wide. I’d guess that I use the 16-35 is less than 5% of my shots.
But, again, this is really a question about your own approach to landscape that I don’t think can be answered in a general sense.
p.1 #12 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
I have both the 14-35 and 10-20. For me, The 10-20 is better at allowing me to get closer to my subject and put it in an environmental context I like than the 14-35. OTOH, the 14-35 is better as a general purpose UWA and complement to the 24-105. I use both for capturing subjects that I'm close to, and for space constrained shooting (like in some forest settings); use them for "the big picture" only very, very rarely.
Keep in mind that your lens choice is very much a matter of your preference for how you want to portray the subject/scene and what that subject/scene is. For example, RF 100-500 is my favorite landscape lens, although I also use the 24-105.
Rusty raised an interesting point. First, you usually won't want to use a CPL with either UWA. Second, if you want to use a color/ND/etc. with the 10-20, you'll need to use gels and cut them to fit the receptical at the back of the lens. For the 14-35 you may need a larger diameter filter to minimize/eliminate vignetting.
Jun 26, 2025 at 12:02 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #13 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
20-24mm gap doesn't sound like anything I'd really consider. The longer end of the 14-35 without changing lenses might be nice, idk 10mm is necessary but does sound cool.
p.1 #14 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
I really like the 14-35. Small, light, sharp, and a nice zoom range. As much as I do like to shoot wide, I really have little interest in getting wider than 14mm. That makes it an easy choice for me.
p.1 #15 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
I use the 14-35 f4L. A few extra mm at the wide end would be nice (I also had the Sony FE 12-24 GM until recently) but I wouldn't buy another UWA lens that I couldn't use a polarizer with.
p.1 #16 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
Why dont you try brightin star 9mm f6.6. Its $450 usd. Good reviews. Comes with a 10 stop nd back filter. It would likely have better iq than 10-20 at 10. Its lighter and cheaper. Its a good match to 14-35
p.1 #17 · 10-20mm vs 14-35mm for Landscape photography
For landscapes I strongly prefer the 14-35L over the 10-20L, mainly because
- of the possibility to use filters
- the 21-35mm range is very convenient and reduces the frequency of lens-changes significantly
- for architecture I use 10-13mm all the time, but for landscapes only seldom - and if I need something that wide, I tend to stitch with the 14-35L, which is very easy to do and possible geometric distortions are not that problematic for landscape photography
- the 14-35L is more robust against flare from stronger point light sources
Yes, an interesting comparison. I wish, though, that he'd compared the 14-35 f/4L because that would have given two f/4 lenses. What he says about the 1-stop advantage for night sky (and other low light) is very relevant, most people I know are trying to decide between the 10-20 and 14-35.
Thanks for posting this, though: I enjoyed the read.
