Landscape Togs - What focal lengths do you use?

[DibblyDobbler]

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

[DibblyDobbler]

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

[DibblyDobbler]

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!)

[DibblyDobbler]

ian in lancs said:

Does that answer your question?!

Yes - and very comprehensively at that

Seems like the uwa doesn't get much use - I guess it's one of these things where you don't need it often but it's a real pain when you do need it and it's not in the bag!

[DibblyDobbler]

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

[DibblyDobbler]

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...

Harrumph! 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

[DibblyDobbler]

Well I have plumped for the 16-35 f4 - £700 from Panamoz was too good to refuse (even turned a small profit on what I got for my 16-35 f2.8!)

Should have it in around a week, will post up some pics in due course

[DibblyDobbler]

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.

[DibblyDobbler]

RobDickinson said:

It has sharp corners!

Hmm - it's nice outside, 45 mins to sunset... To the Bridge!

[DibblyDobbler]

Hate to disappoint LQ!

Not a great night for it but lens seems promising



16-35 f4L test shot! by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

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!

Here's my second effort:



16-35 f4L test shot (2) by Dibbly Dobbler, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

JulianHJ said:

Dibbly, you've convinced me to chop in my 17-40L and my Samyang 14mm for the the 16-35 f4. Not only that, but when I told MrsHJ (aka Breadknife on here), she decided she was also upgrading.

Good work

Don't think you'll be disappointed!