Landscape Togs - What focal lengths do you use?
Discussion
2slo said:
LongQ said:
When I work on something landscape like I tend to use my 14mm Samyang ..... oh, hang on. Have we been here before?
Lol! The same with the 24mm TS/E. He says no to it at the moment but we all know he'll eventually buy it. Then sell it. Then buy another one...
and indeed to you two!Every lens buying decision I have made has been based on pure logic and rational decision making - and it made perfect sense to sell them later. And then re-buy them even later
I used to shoot most my landscapes with 8-15 at 15mm but since buying a 24mm f/1.4 I have to say that 24mm looks better for landscapes. You appreciate more what's the subject of the photo if that makes sense, even if you miss out on some of it in the corners. That's all on full frame.
2slo said:
Tilt is fairly useless I find (others may well disagree), only good for producing fake miniature type pics.
That's only if you tilt it the 'wrong' way, and it's not really why they build tilt / shift lenses. Tilt it towards the landscape and you get vastly increased depth of field without stopping down the aperture so much. This means you can use the lens at its sharpest aperture setting instead of stopping right down and losing sharpness due to diffraction, and more depth of field than you can get by stopping down alone. Look up the scheimpflug principle for the optical explanation of how it works.tog said:
2slo said:
Tilt is fairly useless I find (others may well disagree), only good for producing fake miniature type pics.
That's only if you tilt it the 'wrong' way, and it's not really why they build tilt / shift lenses. Tilt it towards the landscape and you get vastly increased depth of field without stopping down the aperture so much. This means you can use the lens at its sharpest aperture setting instead of stopping right down and losing sharpness due to diffraction, and more depth of field than you can get by stopping down alone. Look up the scheimpflug principle for the optical explanation of how it works.What you say is quite true. To qualify what I wrote above though, I find that in practice, whilst I could add tilt at, say, f/8 to increase DoF (assuming f/8 is the sharpest point in the aperture range of the 24mm ts/e)the results stopped down to f/16 are as sharp as I want with or without shift applied hence I personally haven't much use for tilt. This shot I took yesterday with the 24mm ts/e is at f/16 without tilt, using shift to correct the verticals:
Mike, this is for your info as well (for when you buy a 24mm ts/e
) Congratulations on your new lens - looking forward to seeing the pics.If you have big vertical structure in the foreground then laying the focal plane down is not going to work.
It's most useful when you have a flat horizontal foreground like sand or flowers and are close to the ground helps avoid having to focus stack or stop down huge.
It's tricky to use tilt though and you have to be very careful with changes, it can take a while to get right.
DD I am getting the 16-35 myself too!
It's most useful when you have a flat horizontal foreground like sand or flowers and are close to the ground helps avoid having to focus stack or stop down huge.
It's tricky to use tilt though and you have to be very careful with changes, it can take a while to get right.
DD I am getting the 16-35 myself too!
RobDickinson said:
If you have big vertical structure in the foreground then laying the focal plane down is not going to work.
It's most useful when you have a flat horizontal foreground like sand or flowers and are close to the ground helps avoid having to focus stack or stop down huge.
It's tricky to use tilt though and you have to be very careful with changes, it can take a while to get right.
Rob I might be being thick here but I'm still not really seeing the point of tilt. Without using tilt, shots taken at f/16 with the 24mm ts/e and hyperfocal distance focused show sharp front to back to me. It's most useful when you have a flat horizontal foreground like sand or flowers and are close to the ground helps avoid having to focus stack or stop down huge.
It's tricky to use tilt though and you have to be very careful with changes, it can take a while to get right.
To be fair I haven't spent much time practicing with tilt adjustments, I probably should try a few comparison shots and look at the results.
Sorry to venture off topic DD, back to you
Got the beast through today
Just a few test shots so far but it's certainly well screwed together, doesn't feel like a cheaper option when compared to the 2.8. No slack in the movements and it's relatively light and compact - reminds me a bit of my old 100L. Tried a few indoor shots handheld with the IS and it's amazing what you can get away with - 1/4 is comfortably possibly.
Can't fault Panamoz either - very very cheap and no issues with the payment or delivery. Recommended.
Just a few test shots so far but it's certainly well screwed together, doesn't feel like a cheaper option when compared to the 2.8. No slack in the movements and it's relatively light and compact - reminds me a bit of my old 100L. Tried a few indoor shots handheld with the IS and it's amazing what you can get away with - 1/4 is comfortably possibly.
Can't fault Panamoz either - very very cheap and no issues with the payment or delivery. Recommended.
Hate to disappoint LQ!
Not a great night for it but lens seems promising
16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
Not a great night for it but lens seems promising
16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
2slo said:
Rob I might be being thick here but I'm still not really seeing the point of tilt. Without using tilt, shots taken at f/16 with the 24mm ts/e and hyperfocal distance focused show sharp front to back to me.
It really depends on the framing.If you are 6 inches from the floor on a sandy beach wanting to do a vertical pano with front/back focus you will either have to focus stack or tilt. Hyperfocal isnt good enough here , and IMO isnt good enough at many other times, tends to give you acceptable softness rather than pin sharp images.
DibblyDobbler said:
Hate to disappoint LQ!
Not a great night for it but lens seems promising
16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
Thanks Mike!Not a great night for it but lens seems promising
16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
Certainly looks pretty good and Rob's comparison shots suggests it may be a whole lot better than his previous lens so a good result all round.
A completely justified purchase I would say.
LongQ said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Hate to disappoint LQ!
Not a great night for it but lens seems promising
16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
Thanks Mike!Not a great night for it but lens seems promising
16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
Certainly looks pretty good and Rob's comparison shots suggests it may be a whole lot better than his previous lens so a good result all round.
A completely justified purchase I would say.
http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-...
Seems I would have to get into the full frame malarkey at the same time to make a purchase worthwhile. Hmm.
LongQ said:
Actually that looked so good I decided to seek out a review and this comparative review was the first I stumbled across although I believe photozone.de have also got their test on line.
http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-...
Seems I would have to get into the full frame malarkey at the same time to make a purchase worthwhile. Hmm.
I can't believe I've ended up tempting you into a purchase LQ - quite a reversal of the norm! http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-...
Seems I would have to get into the full frame malarkey at the same time to make a purchase worthwhile. Hmm.
Here's my second effort:
16-35 f4L test shot (2) by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff