Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: J. Paul on June 08, 2009, 07:13:58 pm
-
Hello All,
I am going to Iceland this summer for a photography workshop with Focus On Nature. If anyone has ever been there and can make some recommendations for lenses I would be most appreciative. My existing line up is the 24-105 (not one of my favorites) 70 - 200 f4. I have a 24mm TS and a 100 macro, but probably won't take them. I am using these with the 1Ds Mark III.
Thanks,
J. Paul
-
Hello All,
I am going to Iceland this summer for a photography workshop with Focus On Nature. If anyone has ever been there and can make some recommendations for lenses I would be most appreciative. My existing line up is the 24-105 (not one of my favorites) 70 - 200 f4. I have a 24mm TS and a 100 macro, but probably won't take them. I am using these with the 1Ds Mark III.
Thanks,
J. Paul
Depends on what you like, and how much you're weight-limited. I also use an Eos-1Ds III, and find that about 60-70% of my landscapes are taken with a 70-200 f:2.8, and about 25% with the 24-70 f:2.8. I actually own the 24-105 f:4 as well, but use it mostly for a 'walking around lens' when I have the camera around my neck. The 24-70 is just a bit sharper, and it lacks the corner vignetting that is the achilles heel of the 24-105. I end up shooting quite a few panoramic sequences with the 24-70, and its lack of vignetting makes it easy to stitch even blue-sky images.
If it were me I'd add something wider, just for the occasional near/far composition that really needs a 16-20 mm focal length. I find the 16-35 f:2.8 II barely adequate; it sure would be nice to have something as good as Nikon's 14-24. Finally, something longer for the occasional 'extracted' composition that really needs 300-400 mm. If you're weight-limited the 70-200 with a teleconverter may be all you can afford to drag with you. I have a love-hate relationship with Canon's 100-400 L zoom; too many shots from it are soft, but just enough of them look terrific so I have to keep trying.
If you plan on shooting any macro subjects, try Canon's 500D two-element close up diopter. It's very heavy for a filter and certainly not cheap, but it's a featherweight bargain if you compare it to a macro lens. On the 70-200 it'll give you decent working distance and surprisingly good sharpness.
-
Thanks Geoff. This is very helpful information. I think my weakest link is at the wide angle end of my lenses. I am hoping to purchase the new 24mm TS II lens to replace the older version if it proves to be as sharp as predicted. I shoot a lot of scenes at 24mm and this lens will be very useful for my architecture photography. I may just rent a 300mm for the trip.
J. Paul
-
Hi,
I'd guess that the 24-105 is quite ideal. I have been to Iceland myself toting 17-35, 28-75, 80-200 and 400 + extenders on APS-C and used everything. Don't forget tripod.
Best regards
Erik
Hello All,
I am going to Iceland this summer for a photography workshop with Focus On Nature. If anyone has ever been there and can make some recommendations for lenses I would be most appreciative. My existing line up is the 24-105 (not one of my favorites) 70 - 200 f4. I have a 24mm TS and a 100 macro, but probably won't take them. I am using these with the 1Ds Mark III.
Thanks,
J. Paul
-
Are you planning to backpack or do a lot of hiking? I'm leaving for Iceland on Monday and plan to take everything from very wide 16mm through 400mm, plus extender. But I will be working out of my vehicle and not be backpacking. Since weight is not a major factor I would rather bring something and not use it than wish that I had brought it.
Mark
-
Hello Mark,
I will be taking a backpack, but the workshop will be working out of some type of all terrain vehicle. I just have to make sure all my gear (including laptop) will fit in my backpack and that it will be OK for taking on the airplane. I need to buy or rent a good wide angle lens, the 24-105 is just a poor quality lens.
Best,
J. Paul
-
Hi,
The 24-105 seems to have a good reputation, perhaps you have a bad sample?
For lens resources you may check http://www.diglloyd.com (http://www.diglloyd.com) , lots of good writings
Lens tests (among others):
http://www.slrgear.com (http://www.slrgear.com)
http://www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de)
Erik
Hello Mark,
I will be taking a backpack, but the workshop will be working out of some type of all terrain vehicle. I just have to make sure all my gear (including laptop) will fit in my backpack and that it will be OK for taking on the airplane. I need to buy or rent a good wide angle lens, the 24-105 is just a poor quality lens.
Best,
J. Paul
-
Hello Erik,
I don't think I have a bad copy of the 24-105. This lens is just not sharp out to the corners. A good friend of mine has this lens too and agrees. The CA on this lens is pretty noticeable too. This lens is probably better off as walk around lens but stopped down it just isn't cutting it for me. I am not the only one that thinks that the Canon lenses are not up to par in the wide angle zoom department. Digital Lloyd is a good resource and I refer to them often.
Best,
J. Paul
-
Hello All,
I am going to Iceland this summer for a photography workshop with Focus On Nature. If anyone has ever been there and can make some recommendations for lenses I would be most appreciative. My existing line up is the 24-105 (not one of my favorites) 70 - 200 f4. I have a 24mm TS and a 100 macro, but probably won't take them. I am using these with the 1Ds Mark III.
Thanks,
J. Paul
Take a good tripod with you, Iceland is most amazing in "bad" weather and more wide angle would be good too, but that is a hard thing with Canon, at least the 14 mm is quite good. Alternative a 15 mm Sigma Fisheye lens is better than the price might suggest and can get you quite dramatic views. The 24 TS I found the be a really bad lens on digital, so I dont think you should take that with you. Macro is an option, but a closeup lens might be enough to take.
Christian
Author of the Iceland hiking guide (R.Rother publishing house)
-
I wouldn't fret too much about the sharpness of this lens vs the sharpness of that lens. I love the 24-105, and the 17-40 is capable of producing great images as well. I've never had someone look at one of my photos and go 'ooh, that photo looks like it's a touch soft at the extreme edge at f8 in comparison to this lens.' Just doesn't happen in the real world. Non-photographers usually give the subject of the image primacy, not the technical quality of it. After all, many of the greatest photos of all time were taken using lenses that today, if they were put through the barrage of tests and online reviews that we now have, would turn out about as soft as shooting through the bottom of a milk bottle. If the content of your photos is engaging enough, no one will really care about what lens you used.
-
Hello Buckshot,
I agree that most folks wouldn't see the difference in any of these lenses, and in capable hands, a really good photographer can come away with amazing images with a disposable camera. For making images for my stock photography agency and for fine art prints, I must have the best optics I can get my hands on.
Thanks,
J. Paul
-
Hello Erik,
I don't think I have a bad copy of the 24-105. This lens is just not sharp out to the corners. A good friend of mine has this lens too and agrees. The CA on this lens is pretty noticeable too. This lens is probably better off as walk around lens but stopped down it just isn't cutting it for me. I am not the only one that thinks that the Canon lenses are not up to par in the wide angle zoom department. Digital Lloyd is a good resource and I refer to them often.
Best,
J. Paul
At least in my hands the 24-105 f:4 L is a quirky lens. On the one hand I find the corner vignetting a real problem, to the extent that I just can't use it for stitched panoramics. Corner sharpness at some focal lengths can also be a bit iffy.
On the other hand, I've taken some shots with this lens wide open at night that were amazingly sharp right into the corners. I'm convinced that a lot of the 'softness' users see with this lens is due more to bad technique than optical shortcomings. It's so light and compact that it's tempting to hand-hold, and the IS can fool you into thinking you can get away with it.
As someone else has noted in this thread, lots of fabulous iconic photos have been taken using thoroughly mediocre glass. There are plenty of highly skilled technicians who can't "see" a great photo.
-
J. Paul, you might want to check on your airline's rules for carry on luggage. I'm flying Icelandair and it turns out that they not only have size limits but also weight limits. Icelandair only allows 6kg which is about 13lbs. I'm not sure if they charge for the extra weight or make you check it. I would be VERY unhappy to have to check my pack.
Hello Mark,
I just have to make sure all my gear (including laptop) will fit in my backpack and that it will be OK for taking on the airplane.
Best,
J. Paul
-
Mark,
Thanks so much for the heads up on Iceland Air and luggage restrictions. I certainly have more than 13 lbs of gear! I will check in to this further. If anybody else has any additional info about this, please let me know.
Thanks,
J. Paul
-
Hi,
Allmost all airlines have weight limitations, this is not specific to Iceland Air. Fortunately they are seldom checked or enforced.
One trick is to use a Photo West and put things in the pockets and hang your heaviest camera around the neck. Once you have boarded put everything back in the bag.
It can be absurd. Once I flew on a KLM/Air France and Delta flight with three different weight limits on the same plane.
Erik
Mark,
Thanks so much for the heads up on Iceland Air and luggage restrictions. I certainly have more than 13 lbs of gear! I will check in to this further. If anybody else has any additional info about this, please let me know.
Thanks,
J. Paul
-
Mark,
Thanks so much for the heads up on Iceland Air and luggage restrictions. I certainly have more than 13 lbs of gear! I will check in to this further. If anybody else has any additional info about this, please let me know.
Thanks,
J. Paul
This is no guarantee, but I think appearance is more important than actual weight. I've flown on IcelandAir with a camera bag weighing nearly 30 lbs. and nobody said anything about it. I bought an extra small camera backpack that I use when flying. Everything is cramped in the bag, but it fits very easily under the seat.
-
Well, I'm back and give a more informed answer now.
First, my photo pack was not given a second look either going or returning. So it appars that the 6kg rule is not being enforced. Just in case, I wore my vest under a rain shell and was prepared to transfer my lenses to the vest if my pack had bee challenged.
As for lenses to take, I wound up using my wide angles more than any others: 28-70 and 16-35. I did use my 70-200 a fair amount and my 400 to photograph puffins at Latraborg. My most useful accessories were my lens shades, a towel and a pack of lens tissue. We had a LOT of rain and keeping the front of my lenses dry was a chore.
Hope this helps.
Mark
-
Mark,
Thanks for the additional information about equipment for Iceland. Hope to see some of your photos posted.
J. Paul
-
Hi Mark;
Welcome back, I hope the trip was a success. I'm about to head off to Iceland in a couple of weeks to join a workshop being led by Daniel Bergmann, so I have some gear questions. I plan to take two digital bodies:
40D, 5D Mk II
Plus some of the following lenses, roughly in this order of priority:
24 - 105/F4
70 - 200/F4 IS
300/F4 IS + 1.4 extender
35/F1.4
17-40/F4
It's a lot to carry (plus tripod, laptop and enough electronics to run a small country), so I'd like to cut back on some weight if possible. Any suggestions?
Thanks, ...Dave
-
Hi Mark;
Welcome back, I hope the trip was a success. I'm about to head off to Iceland in a couple of weeks to join a workshop being led by Daniel Bergmann, so I have some gear questions. I plan to take two digital bodies:
40D, 5D Mk II
Plus some of the following lenses, roughly in this order of priority:
24 - 105/F4
70 - 200/F4 IS
300/F4 IS + 1.4 extender
35/F1.4
17-40/F4
It's a lot to carry (plus tripod, laptop and enough electronics to run a small country), so I'd like to cut back on some weight if possible. Any suggestions?
Thanks, ...Dave
Dave,
I can only share my experience in Iceland... I shot a lot of photos with my 100-400 (birds and arctic foxes). My 24-70 was also heavily used. My 24 TSE and 17-40 were only used for a dozen of shots. I was using with 1D bodies.
If I had to do it again, I would take my 24-70, my 70-200 (+ 1.4x extender). This covers 90% of my usage (with a full-frame camera body). I'd add the 17-40 if I had room to spare. I must also say that I rarely use very wide lenses.
How about asking Daniel Bergmann?
-
Dave,
I can only share my experience in Iceland... I shot a lot of photos with my 100-400 (birds and arctic foxes). My 24-70 was also heavily used. My 24 TSE and 17-40 were only used for a dozen of shots. I was using with 1D bodies.
If I had to do it again, I would take my 24-70, my 70-200 (+ 1.4x extender). This covers 90% of my usage (with a full-frame camera body). I'd add the 17-40 if I had room to spare. I must also say that I rarely use very wide lenses.
How about asking Daniel Bergmann?
Thanks Francois;
My list was selected at Daniel's suggestion from about twice the number of lenses I mentioned. I would like to leave the 300 mm lens at home because it's so heavy and my copy doesn't work well with the 1.4 extender, but otherwise it's very sharp. I suspect the only use it would receive is shooting puffins. Would the 70-200 mm F4IS on 40D be a good alternative to the 300 mm on a 5D MkII? The FOV is about the same, but the 5D MkII is such a sweet camera. Alternatively I could crop the 5D MkII images and still come out somewhat ahead of the 40D + 70-200 combination.
Like you, my two favorite lenses are the 24-105 and the 70-200, followed by the 35 mm F1.4. I don't normally shoot very long (>300 mm) or very wide (<24 mm). I have a Tokina 11-16 mm F2.8 lens that is much better than my Canon 17-40 F4, but I doubt I would use it very much on this trip.
Normally I'm not so indecisive about gear choices because my wife helps out a bit with transportation (she's a good Sherpa <grin>), but not on this trip. Another option is a rolling hard case that I could lock and check at the gate.
Cheers, ...Dave
-
Hi Dave,
We each have our own way of seeing and that influences the lenses we choose to use. For me, Iceland had many grand vistas of wide open spaces and I chose to use my 16-35 and 28-70 lenses much more often that I ordinarily do. That said, I went back to the LR2 statistics and to my surprise found that I only used these lenses for about 1/3 the shots taken. I used my 70-200 about 40% of the time, although I'd bet that most of those were at the wider end.
The rest were with my 400 with and without the extender. I shoot with a full frame body and found that for many of the puffin shots this was required to fill the frame. For other puffin shots the 70-200 was fine as the puffins are very tame and allowed me to get quite close. These shots include more of the background setting. The hardest part was dealing with the strong winds and making sure I wasn't blown off the cliffs. A little exaggeration but not that much. If you plan to use your 40D for birds / wildlife then your 70-200 with extender should do just fine. For a full frame body I would bring your 300 with the extender. [Edit - I also used my macro for tiny wildflower photography. That was one late afternoon when we decided to camp at a specific spot to wait for the sunset that never came.]
On the wide end I can only give you my experience, which is that I would have missed not having my 16-35.
I'm kind of slow in post-processing - still relatively new to digital and am trying to improve my LR2 skills. But I will post photos sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
Iceland is a beautiful country and the people are very friendly and helpful. Have a great trip and if there is anything specific you wish to ask, feel free to do so.
Mark
-
Hi Dave,
We each have our own way of seeing and that influences the lenses we choose to use.
Snip, Snip
Mark
Hi Mark;
Thanks for your advice. I'll probably take everything mentioned earlier. I'd really hate to miss a good photo op. Let us all know when you are ready to post your work.
Cheers, ...Dave