Landscape Togs - What focal lengths do you use?
Discussion
Gents (and Ladies if we have any?!) - have sold my 16-35 f2.8L Mk2 on account of it lacking a bit of sharpness at the corners when shooting ultra-wide (ok it was crap actually). I was contemplating blowing the proceeds on the newly released 16-35 f4 which reviews really well and appears to be sharp across the frame.
However ... I also have a 24-105 f4L which I am very fond of and on full frame is plenty wide enough at least 80-90% of the time - so a dilemma presents itself! Is 24mm on FF wide enough? What do you guys generally shoot at?
Any guidance would be appreciated as I would rather not buy yet another lens I don't really need having done it so many times before!
TIA
However ... I also have a 24-105 f4L which I am very fond of and on full frame is plenty wide enough at least 80-90% of the time - so a dilemma presents itself! Is 24mm on FF wide enough? What do you guys generally shoot at?
Any guidance would be appreciated as I would rather not buy yet another lens I don't really need having done it so many times before!
TIA
markmullen said:
I went through a phase of shooting really wide, 17mm a lot of the time but I grew out of it and now shoot a lot on my 24mm ts-e and 45mm on medium format digital which is around 27mm, plus 47mm on the Linhof which is about 30mm in full frame 35mm equivalent.
Thanks Mark, appreciate the input In the old days 28mm was considered wide!! We have now got used to a large number of ultra-wide lenses. Similarly we have become obsessed with sharpness across the whole frame, which in reality is not mandatory for a great photograph.
I shoot landscapes mainly on 14mm on a.crop sensor equivalent to 21mm FF, but also shoot a lot with a 18-55, approx 27mm at the wide end. But I also spent a year just shooting at 23mm (35mmFF) and still scored some cracking sots.
I shoot landscapes mainly on 14mm on a.crop sensor equivalent to 21mm FF, but also shoot a lot with a 18-55, approx 27mm at the wide end. But I also spent a year just shooting at 23mm (35mmFF) and still scored some cracking sots.
I've had the 17-40mm for a couple of years and it would take some beating for what it can deliver at the price. I really can't see the 16-35mm f/4 IS doing that. Most of the time lenses like this are used on a tripod anyway so is it worth paying for IS? Not to me anyway. Plus, looking at the images people are posting from the new lens, I'm not seeing anything to make me rush out and buy the 16-35. If you're undecided between the two, save yourself £600 and get the 17-40mm. Having said that, I too wanted something better a few months back for the occasional landscape I take and so I bought the 24mm TS/E. As mentioned above, horizontal shift allows for easy and precise stitching of images if you need wider and, of course, you can correct verticals before you take the shot. I haven't measured it, but I reckon a vertically corrected 24mm TS/E image will give a similar or possibly better FoV than a pp vertically corrected 17mm image. Even if you don't use the tilt shift function much, the 24mm TS/E is still a superbly sharp lens.
Beyond that, for a Canon DSLR, images I've seen from the Zeiss 21mm can be incredible. One I'm currently considering getting.
Beyond that, for a Canon DSLR, images I've seen from the Zeiss 21mm can be incredible. One I'm currently considering getting.
Thanks All - a variety of responses as I would expect!
A lot of love for the 24tse but they just sound like a faff to me with all the tilting and shifting malarky which I can't get my wee brain around.
I bought the 16-35 f2.8 as it was reputedly slightly better than the 17-40 so I don't think I will have one of them as it would feel like going backwards.
I agree with the comments about sharpness across the frame not being necessary but sometime it is - there are one or two shots I have taken recently which really disappointed me - eg this where the rocks on the right are really not sharp at all.
Loch Greshornish Mono by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
So I suspect I will probably go ahead and get the new 16-35 f4 - the reviews have been stellar and although I agree about the IS not being much use the sharpness does appeal (and I get a shiny new toy of course!)
A lot of love for the 24tse but they just sound like a faff to me with all the tilting and shifting malarky which I can't get my wee brain around.
I bought the 16-35 f2.8 as it was reputedly slightly better than the 17-40 so I don't think I will have one of them as it would feel like going backwards.
I agree with the comments about sharpness across the frame not being necessary but sometime it is - there are one or two shots I have taken recently which really disappointed me - eg this where the rocks on the right are really not sharp at all.
Loch Greshornish Mono by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr
So I suspect I will probably go ahead and get the new 16-35 f4 - the reviews have been stellar and although I agree about the IS not being much use the sharpness does appeal (and I get a shiny new toy of course!)
I have both 12-24 and 16-35 Nikons and they don't get much use; especially the 12-24. I took the 16-35 (rather than 12-24 due to 77mm filter and VR) to Tuscany with a 24-70 and 70-200 they took 315, 1735 and 698 respectively. I used it for a walkabout lens in Siena and further analysis shows most of the 16-35 were shot in the 20-35 range. Only nine shots were true landscapes. Usually, if I want wider I'll shoot a panorama with the 24-70.
Does that answer your question?!
Does that answer your question?!
DibblyDobbler said:
A lot of love for the 24tse but they just sound like a faff to me with all the tilting and shifting malarky which I can't get my wee brain around.
Tilt is fairly useless I find (others may well disagree), only good for producing fake miniature type pics. Shift though, really useful, allows you to create wider or taller shots with ease and is nothing more difficult than turning a scroll wheel on the lens after you've got your settings input into the camera. After that just photomerge in CS or whatever you use and crop as required. 2slo said:
Tilt is fairly useless I find (others may well disagree), only good for producing fake miniature type pics. Shift though, really useful, allows you to create wider or taller shots with ease and is nothing more difficult than turning a scroll wheel on the lens after you've got your settings input into the camera. After that just photomerge in CS or whatever you use and crop as required.
Thanks for the info Mark 
With ref to the tse..
Shift is easy to use, especially for stitches, you have to remember to use it for perspective control..
Also makes a very handy tool for rotational panoramics , you can level the head and use shift to set the horizon nob centrally.
Tilt us a brain ache but very useful sometimes. I tend not to use it in time critical situations...
Another thing.. Don't get too hung up on pin sharp corners viewed at 100 pc as they generally look OK when printed normal sizes. If you want huge prints stitching is always best anyhow you can overshoot and use th best part of the lens over the whole frame
Shift is easy to use, especially for stitches, you have to remember to use it for perspective control..
Also makes a very handy tool for rotational panoramics , you can level the head and use shift to set the horizon nob centrally.
Tilt us a brain ache but very useful sometimes. I tend not to use it in time critical situations...
Another thing.. Don't get too hung up on pin sharp corners viewed at 100 pc as they generally look OK when printed normal sizes. If you want huge prints stitching is always best anyhow you can overshoot and use th best part of the lens over the whole frame
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff