Personally, I like Zooms for landscape use. Especially at the wide end, every mm makes a more drastic difference. !4mm is noticeably wider than 16mm, and 12mm is noticeably wider than 14mm. A zoom allows you to get much more precise with your framing. Another lens you may want to consider is the 12-24mm f4.
I have found a 16-35mm lens a great one lens solution for wide to normal range photography, so you don't have to change lenses as often. But you are trading the ultra wide feeling of 14mm / 12mm for the convenience of not changing lenses as much.
For a long time, I believed that as a landscape photographer I could get by without a zoom lens. I always carried a combination of 14mm, 21mm, 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm, and that often worked quite well.
Last year, I had the opportunity to spend four weeks in northern Norway. During that time, changing lenses annoyed me so much, and I occasionally missed great lighting situations because I needed a different focal length yet again. After that trip, it was clear that I needed a wide-angle zoom.
I decided on the 16–35mm f/2.8 GM II and have been very happy with it ever since; it’s now my most frequently used lens. The overlap with a 24–70mm or 24–105mm often eliminates the need to change lenses, which is why lenses like the 12–24mm or 14–24mm were not an option for me.
Zoom lenses are very useful, especially for landscape image making. They allow you to visualize your various angles of view and comps very quickly. Today's zooms are every bit as good as primes, unless you're neurotic about pixel peeping at the molecular level (which doesn't necessarily make a better over all image). Some primes are faster, but landscapers don't care about that.
I don't think the reasoning is optical, it's how you work. I used a 16-35 for a lot of years and mostly shot it at 35 and some at 28-35. On occasion, I'd "play" with the zoom on the wide end, but I'm not a fan of that look. Still, I like that lens. For a while, I carried a 21, 25, 50, 105 and never used the 21 even though a 21 can be shot without giving the ultra wide look.
Dogmatic opinions on either side of the prime-zoom debate usually reflect the often strong (and often unfounded) biases of the individual. It's pretty hard to argue that today's high quality (eg Sony G or GM, and others from Sigma and Tamron) zooms are significantly inferior to today's primes, unless seriously pixel peeping, and even then...
I agree with jay w, the reasoning is not optical, it's how you choose to work. Unless shown examples side by side, few people, even photographers, can see differences between lenses, especially at the apertures used for landscape work, eg in the f/5.6-8 range, even those with the courage to use f/16, which almost always has some diffraction, but if you need it, you need it. Today's sharpening and noise reduction software can at least partially mitigate problems in these areas.
Bottom line, choose how one prefers to work and then choose focal lengths either prime or zoom and go out and make photographs. Often composition beats technical perfection anyway and I consider myself a detail freak. I make photographs for me; I am fortunate not to have to please clients.
I do the worst of both worlds. I carry both, but mainly shoot the zoom. Not uncommon for me to carry the Sony 20mm f1.8 for astro and for sun stars, one of the Loxia 25mm, or 50mm and a CV 35 APO, in addition to the 16-35GM II. Vast majority of shots are with the zoom, but for a special shot like Mesa Arch, you need a prime for better sun stars and flare resistance.
The out of camera color from the Loxia and CV's are amazing.
The Samyang 16mm doesn't get mentioned much but seems to be a small, cheaper way to test if 16mm is all you need. There is the well thought of 17mm from Sigma also.
Some people still hang on to hangups about 'certain focal lengths'. You hear them say they never shoot wide, or they stick to a 'favorite' focal length, or even think that a certain focal length has a 'look'. This is so ridiculous. Anyone who has actually studied the craft of image making (as opposed to those that have simply bought a cool expensive camera) knows that cameras and lenses are tools that let you make the image that you visualize. Part of the craft (mostly that relates to landscape and architecture) is studying the scene that interests you, defining your comp and edges, knowing the best camera to subject distance, and then selecting the lens that gives you the angle of view that will capture the scene as you have defined it. Maybe it's 14mm or 200mm, it doesn't really matter the number of the focal length and the lens chosen is not a determining factor. The scene and your vision is. Could be a prime or a zoom. Who cares? It's simply the right one for your picture as you see it.
Jeffrey wrote:
Some people still hang on to hangups about 'certain focal lengths'. You hear them say they never shoot wide, or they stick to a 'favorite' focal length, or even think that a certain focal length has a 'look'. This is so ridiculous.
Agree with a lot of things you wrote, but I think no-one can argue that ultra wide focal lengths (let's say below 18-20mm, but of course this is a gradual and not a binary threshold) have "a look".
Rectilinear projection will always lead to "geometric elongation", which is when 3D objects get stretched unnaturally towards the edges of the frame. Every UWA lens that's not a fisheye has this look.
On top of that you have to deal with perspective distortion (which can be a positive or a negative) as UWA lenses are typically very close to the foreground. And there's just more in the frame that needs to be arranged in a way that results in a pleasing image.
In consequence it's much harder to use UWA lenses well and imo most photographers fail most of the time (incl. myself).
As someone said above the question of zoom vs prime is really mostly about what one prefers in terms of workflow. I can see the argument for a 16mm prime or a 12-24mm zoom.
In my case I'd still prefer a 16-35mm as I tend to avoid <20mm focal lengths most of the time - e.g. if I'm shooting at a waterfall (which is where I'm most likely to use UWA lenses), I will never only shoot at 16mm but also in the 20-35mm range. And I certainly don't enjoy changing lenses when there is water spraying about
I have an excellent copy of the 16-35GM mk1 (I tried the mkii but 3 copies were defective so gave up) so maybe consider finding a good one 2nd hand. I only really use it now if I'm going on a dedicated landscape outing or if covering an event so also have the CV 15/4.5 which will often be in the bag along with my lightweight kit. The CV is small and optically excellent thought not so light
fjablo wrote:
Agree with a lot of things you wrote, but I think no-one can argue that ultra wide focal lengths (let's say below 18-20mm, but of course this is a gradual and not a binary threshold) have "a look".
Rectilinear projection will always lead to "geometric elongation", which is when 3D objects get stretched unnaturally towards the edges of the frame. Every UWA lens that's not a fisheye has this look.
On top of that you have to deal with perspective distortion (which can be a positive or a negative) as UWA lenses are typically very close to the foreground. And there's just more in the frame that needs to be arranged in a way that results in a pleasing image.
In consequence it's much harder to use UWA lenses well and imo most photographers fail most of the time (incl. myself).
As someone said above the question of zoom vs prime is really mostly about what one prefers in terms of workflow. I can see the argument for a 16mm prime or a 12-24mm zoom.
In my case I'd still prefer a 16-35mm as I tend to avoid <20mm focal lengths most of the time - e.g. if I'm shooting at a waterfall (which is where I'm most likely to use UWA lenses), I will never only shoot at 16mm but also in the 20-35mm range. And I certainly don't enjoy changing lenses when there is water spraying about ...Show more →
Choices... I know ultra wides are often hyped as the one and only landscape lens. I know they can make an image look striking and different but using that perspective can also be be tiring. However, there is a reason why most of the classic landscape images seem to be shot with close to normal for or even telephoto. I say "seem to be" because we cannot see the exif - or in case of a painting there is no exif
Personally I am usually happiest shooting landscapes with 24-70mm zoom. Zoom is flexible and in case of GM II also very prime like quality when stopped down. If used right 24mm is wide enough to look really wide. Recently I have used extensively Fuji GFX100RF which is 28mm eqv. But no hard rules here. Depends on the scene and desired creative idea. Sometimes I happily take 20mm with me, and it works ok. Sometimes 135mm is what I think is right. Some of my best landscapes are shot with 200mm or longer focal length.
I'm mostly a zoom user, don't typically take my primes along. I suppose I could get a "bigger bag" for car trips and carry more? I've had a 17-28/2.8 for quite a while, got it with the 28-200, and it's actually gotten more urban use than landscape. I've done some revisiting of my "carry" kit for urban areas and added a 20-70/4, perhaps mostly to reduce swapping at times and added a 14/4 because now and then, 17mm may not have been wide enough.
I have, both in urban or landscape scenarios done some stitched shots. That can allow use of an on camera already lens, perhaps more of a more moderate view portions to work with, less stretched edges? Stitching may be less useful in images with moving elements whether walking tourists, moving cars or water.
I have the 16-35/4, the 12-24/2.8 GM, Batis 18mm and Loxia 21mm.
Of those four, for landscape use, I nearly always grab the 16-35/4 because a lot of my recent photography starts with a hard hike. Plus it's so much easier to use filters on that lens as opposed to the 12-24. Having said that I would not give up the 12-24 becomes sometimes using wider than 16mm is fun. I should probably sell the primes.
In the ultrawide range I have the 12-24/4 G and 20/1.8G. I'm not a huge fan of ultrawide, so I found I don't use the 12-24 much. Because it is wider in diameter and has the built in hood, I found I often left it at home due to size reasons. I find the 20/1.8 is much more likely to come along.
The 16/1.8 is very small, an aps-c crop gets you to 24mm and obviously you could crop anywhere in between. The 16-25 is also fairly compact, but longer. If it was me I would look at the 16/1.8 but that is mainly because I like to shoot astro, and northern lights, and inside churches. I'm thinking about selling my 12-24G, but haven't gotten around to listing it yet.
Few years ago I reached to conclusion that F4 or slower zooms accompanied with F2 or faster primes is the best solution.
F4 zooms and F2/1.8 primes are very manageable in terms of cost, size and weight.
What would kill you back and wallet is F2.8 zooms with F1.4/F1.2 primes.
I once watched video of renowned landscape photographer @MadsPeterIversen, his main complaint to lens makers is slow zoom lenses tend to be cheap in feel, coatings, distorted, have CA/LoCA, flaring and vignetting. Instead he feels landscapers won't mind a lens starting at f5.6 but premium well corrected.
Who needs f2 for landscapes from a bland fast food modern zoom? It's another clear case of industry disdain for the many great advantages of slow zooms. I got lucky in 2008, finding a Contax 35-70/3.4 new in box. Low aberration load, flat field, great 3D, excellent bokeh, superb color/contrast, dreamy yet sharp rendering style, even fine for portraits.
T* was already wonderful by the 80. Carl Zeiss AG had invented coatings in 1935, so they already had a half century of development. It's a gem, so good the mainstream will never make anything like it. Maybe the Chinese, many of their enthusiasts love it too. 575 grams on an adapter, 475g for the lens. This lens is literally as old as Shenzhen (the world's most advanced city). I would not swap it for quids.
Media Division say it's the only legacy zoom they will use for productions. Three YT videos from US, Germany and China, so you see its quality is universally liked by mature cine and photography people:
