p.1 #1 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Hello All,
Since my questions is specific to landscape photography, I am posting my questions here, to get a more informed response:
During my travels , I carry RF 24-105 f/4, and RF 100-500, and for the third lens, to shoot wide landscapes, I am debating between RF 10-20mm vs RF 14-35mm .
The obvious points: If i go with 10-20mm, I will miss out on 21mm to 23mm essentially, but 10-20 would give me a unique perspective at its wide end. If i take the 14-35mm, I will miss the ultrawide 10mm to 13mm, but 14-35 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 ultra-wides like 10-20mm and 11-24mm were 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 if have you come across someone else's photos that impressed you (between 10mm and 13mm), that you can share here ?
Will really appreciate your thoughts and help.
PS: I posted this in Canon forum, but since my question is specific to landscape photography needs, I am posting it here. hope its not a breach of FM rule. If yes, Admins, please delete my post.
p.1 #2 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
I'm curious too. I have so many issues finding uses for even 16 mm that the wider-than-that lenses seem like a fun idea that I wouldn't know how to use!
p.1 #3 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
I have the 10-20 and overall I liked it. Sometimes I not 100% sold on the corners of the image they seem a little distorted to me.
That said, I rarely use it for landscapes. It will be nice next time I am in a tight slot canyon, up close to a large waterfall, or in a dense forest. It would also be nice for storm chasing landscapes too, the landscapes with the really cool storm structure.
p.1 #4 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Having a "gap" in focal length coverage between 20 & 24mm is trivial. If you find that 24mm is not quite wide enough, then use the wider optic and crop as needed.
The real question is whether or not your style would want to push things past 14mm all the way to 10 mm. Just saying that you like landscapes is not enough to answer the question. It will also vary depending upon the types of landscapes you find yourself in.
p.1 #5 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Orphoto wrote:
The real question is whether or not your style would want to push things past 14mm all the way to 10 mm. Just saying that you like landscapes is not enough to answer the question.
I have enjoyed shooting wide landscapes at 14/15/16mm with good foreground element to compose with. Regarding, 10mm to 13mm, I would not know unless I see some landscape pictures that appeal to my personal taste. Thats why I requested people here , in my original post, to share some pictures taken at ultra wide, which will hopefully help me in my decision.
p.1 #6 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Brad Williams wrote:
That said, I rarely use it for landscapes.
Thanks Brad. What do you use it for it otherwise ?
Brad Williams wrote:
It would also be nice for storm chasing landscapes too, the landscapes with the really cool storm structure.
That would be an exciting endeavor.
p.1 #7 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
For my shooting, I have the EF 16-35mm f/2.8. I can say that I rarely missed out on any photos due to a lack of wider focal lengths. Worst case, I shot multiple overlapping photos at the wide end and stitched them together. For tight interior shots where tripods are not allowed, I take multiple shots both vertically and horizontally, to cover it all.
p.1 #8 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Sankar Salvady wrote:
Thanks Brad. What do you use it for it otherwise ?
Its really flat and wide open here so it just doesn't make sense for landscapes unless I need a really big sky. I usually prefer telephoto landscapes around here.
p.1 #9 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
10-20 is a much more exaggerated look, for many people there will be fewer use cases for that type of focal length than the 14-35 range, which while it offers quite wide options, contains a much more 'normal' range from 24-35ish that doesn't push the distortion as far. I don't think you will ever say to yourself 'I'm missing 2-4mm of focal length coverage and that made me miss the shot!' But truthfully it's not really a question someone can answer for you, it depends on you and what you like to shoot. If you have the option, maybe rent each for a trip and see which one you actually pull out and use more? In prep sometimes you can think of tons of use cases that never actually make it out of the bag when it comes to real life practice
p.1 #10 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
How many great photos have you seen that were shot with FL less than 14mm?
Right, very few. And these very few were shot by real professionals who have the "eye" and the experience to pull it off.
So, forget it. Don't think that "trying other focal lengths" will bring you out of a photography rut and magically will inspire you to suddenly make better photos.
Simply choose a really practical solution, i.e. a 16-35 or 14-35, like virtually every landscape photographer does, and rightly so.
p.1 #11 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
I often carry with me the Voigtlander 10mm 5.6, in addition to my landscape & nightscape workhorse, the 16-35 GM(2).
10mm is definitely very specific and you need to look for images with interesting foreground to create depth and exaggerate geometry / significantly change the balance of elements in the image... alternatively or additionally, cool skies always help.
Here are some landscape examples shot with that lens (some are slightly cropped, so probably 10-12mm effective range). I have more of architectural elements.
p.1 #12 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Own a 12-24 and once owned a 16-35. I used the latter much more than I use the former. Some of my most cherished photos came from the 16-35 FL and even now when I use the 12-24 most of my shots are taken between 16&24mm. Hope this helps.
p.1 #13 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Al Trujillo wrote:
Own a 12-24 and once owned a 16-35. I used the latter much more than I use the former. Some of my most cherished photos came from the 16-35 FL and even now when I use the 12-24 most of my shots are taken between 16&24mm. Hope this helps.
p.1 #14 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
jaggedhorizon wrote:
I often carry with me the Voigtlander 10mm 5.6, in addition to my landscape & nightscape workhorse, the 16-35 GM(2).
10mm is definitely very specific and you need to look for images with interesting foreground to create depth and exaggerate geometry / significantly change the balance of elements in the image... alternatively or additionally, cool skies always help.
Here are some landscape examples shot with that lens (some are slightly cropped, so probably 10-12mm effective range). I have more of architectural elements.
These are very useful in getting more clarity on the usefulness of ultra-wides. thanks for sharing.
p.1 #15 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
hasenbein wrote:
How many great photos have you seen that were shot with FL less than 14mm?
Right, very few. And these very few were shot by real professionals who have the "eye" and the experience to pull it off.
So, forget it. Don't think that "trying other focal lengths" will bring you out of a photography rut and magically will inspire you to suddenly make better photos.
Simply choose a really practical solution, i.e. a 16-35 or 14-35, like virtually every landscape photographer does, and rightly so.
Haha, i am of the opinion that there's nothing wrong in trying something new. Some lenses teaches you to see things differently, and I will think 10-20 would be one of them. Having said that, I am going to rent it first and try soon. I will be guilty of not trying it..
Having said that, you have some beautiful pictures in your flickr . Kudos !
p.1 #16 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
J2323 wrote:
10-20 is a much more exaggerated look, for many people there will be fewer use cases for that type of focal length than the 14-35 range, which while it offers quite wide options, contains a much more 'normal' range from 24-35ish that doesn't push the distortion as far. I don't think you will ever say to yourself 'I'm missing 2-4mm of focal length coverage and that made me miss the shot!' But truthfully it's not really a question someone can answer for you, it depends on you and what you like to shoot. If you have the option, maybe rent each for a trip and see which one you actually pull out and use more? In prep sometimes you can think of tons of use cases that never actually make it out of the bag when it comes to real life practice...Show more →
Thats a very well thought reply, and thank you so much for that. i am planning to just go with 10-20 for a trip to force myself to shoot more with it, and search for good foregrounds. That should give me a good idea.
p.1 #17 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
Sashi wrote:
For my shooting, I have the EF 16-35mm f/2.8. I can say that I rarely missed out on any photos due to a lack of wider focal lengths. Worst case, I shot multiple overlapping photos at the wide end and stitched them together. For tight interior shots where tripods are not allowed, I take multiple shots both vertically and horizontally, to cover it all.
p.1 #18 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
My widest lens is the Viltrox 16mm f1.8. I use it here and there like the Grand Canyon or West Fork at Oak Creek in Sedona in fall or astro photography.
I've also used it for interior photos in the Harvey House dining rooms in Barstow, CA. When I took photos of the outside of the Harvey House it seemed to stretch the photo of the building.
But I always seem to use my Sony 24-105 more for most general photography.
p.1 #19 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
my only lens for years and years was a Nikon 14-24mm. Also had a 12-24mm on Sony. I will say the difference of even 2mm on the short end is drastic. Personally I can give up the long end for the dramatic look of the wider angle. But obviously this is based on ones vision and needs.
p.1 #20 · 10-20mm vs 14-35 for landscape photography
This has been an interesting thread.
Based on my own experience—the Nikon 14-24mm lenses are favorites of mine—I’d have initially have said, “Avoid going wider then 14mm—the distortion will be killer--unless your photographic vision has clear situations where wider lenses may work for you.”
Then jaggedhorizon convincingly showed images where his photographic vision emerged splendidly with his Voigtlander 10mm. Not sure it would work for me, but it sure does for him.
Horses for courses. And lenses matched to individual photographers, who may have very different ways of seeing the world. Long live this difference!
. Kudos !