Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mg73 on May 31, 2015, 10:40:16 am
-
I've had a Canon 5DII for years and have been very satisfied with it. Very versatile. I shot candids, studio portraits, and landscapes with it using the following lenses:
Canon 24-105 F4L. My most used lens for everything.
Canon 70-200 F4L. The most outstanding picture quality of the three.
Canon 17-40 F4L. My least used lens, even for landscape.
My primary needs is to have a good quality landscape lens that will fit with the technical capabilities of the high resolution 5Ds (or possibly the 5DsR, haven't made up my mind yet which body I will buy)
Here's my current plan:
1. Keep the 24-105 for candids and non critical work. I'll probably be using it in the reduced resolution modes anyway. The 24-105 rand just seems to be perfect for this kind of stuff and the quality is more than adequate for non critical stuff.
2. Keep the 70-200 F4L for any studio portraits work. This is informal studio portrait stuff with strobes, not high end commercial work. I just love the picture quality of this lens. I suspect the quality will be adequate for this type of work.
3. Sell the 17-40 F4L and purchase a quality landscape lens. For my needs, I'm buying this high resolution body mostly for the landscape capability, so I want a lens worthy of the body.
So what suggestions do you have for landscape lens to complement the 5Ds (or possibly the 5DsR)? I'm open to zooms or primary. I don't believe I'll have enough to purchase more than one landscape lens, so can we please confine it to a one lens purchase. From looking back on my images, I find I shoot most of my landscapes in the 30-50mm range.
If you want to get an idea of the type landscapes I shoot, you can visit my website: www.markgenero.com
Thanks
-
I recommend the 16-35/4/IS/L to replace the 17-40. It's extremely sharp, has very low CA, uses normal-size (77mm) filters, and is affordable at c. US$1000.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is
-
I recommend the 16-35/4/IS/L to replace the 17-40. It's extremely sharp, has very low CA, uses normal-size (77mm) filters, and is affordable at c. US$1000.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is
Hi Jeffrey.
¿ Why not the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II for low light situations ?
He might also have a lot of fun with the new EF 11-24mm for landscape especially for Panorama after cropping.
-
I also have the 5DII and the Canon 24-105 F4L, Canon 70-200 F4L and plan on purchasing the 5DS R. In addition, I've been using the 17mm TS-E and 24mm TS-E for several years and think they are both great. The tilt shift capabilities provide many useful additional capabilities (e.g. greater DOF at larger (less diffraction limited) apertures and perspective corrections) I only shoot landscapes and have used them to make 24 inch wide prints. I'd suggest you give serious consideration to the 17mm TS-E as a replacement for your wide angle zoom.
-
I've had a Canon 5DII for years and have been very satisfied with it. Very versatile. I shot candids, studio portraits, and landscapes with it using the following lenses:
Canon 24-105 F4L. My most used lens for everything.
Canon 70-200 F4L. The most outstanding picture quality of the three.
Canon 17-40 F4L. My least used lens, even for landscape.
My primary needs is to have a good quality landscape lens that will fit with the technical capabilities of the high resolution 5Ds (or possibly the 5DsR, haven't made up my mind yet which body I will buy)
Here's my current plan:
1. Keep the 24-105 for candids and non critical work. I'll probably be using it in the reduced resolution modes anyway. The 24-105 rand just seems to be perfect for this kind of stuff and the quality is more than adequate for non critical stuff.
2. Keep the 70-200 F4L for any studio portraits work. This is informal studio portrait stuff with strobes, not high end commercial work. I just love the picture quality of this lens. I suspect the quality will be adequate for this type of work.
3. Sell the 17-40 F4L and purchase a quality landscape lens. For my needs, I'm buying this high resolution body mostly for the landscape capability, so I want a lens worthy of the body.
So what suggestions do you have for landscape lens to complement the 5Ds (or possibly the 5DsR)? I'm open to zooms or primary. I don't believe I'll have enough to purchase more than one landscape lens, so can we please confine it to a one lens purchase. From looking back on my images, I find I shoot most of my landscapes in the 30-50mm range.
If you want to get an idea of the type landscapes I shoot, you can visit my website: www.markgenero.com
Thanks
I have the 5DSR on order and will use the 3 zoom lenses I have for landscape work: Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I expect these lenses to be excellent with the 5DSR. I will also dust off my Canon 500 f/4L IS to see how it works with the 5DSR :D
-
I've had a Canon 5DII for years and have been very satisfied with it. Very versatile. I shot candids, studio portraits, and landscapes with it using the following lenses:
Canon 24-105 F4L. My most used lens for everything.
Canon 70-200 F4L. The most outstanding picture quality of the three.
Canon 17-40 F4L. My least used lens, even for landscape.
If you're satisfied with the 24-105 f4L for those focal lengths and the 70-200 F4L for those, and you're selling the 17-40 then my only suggestion for landscape might be a Extra or Superwide prime. Even a 20mm prime would be a relatively small addition in size and weight. Or even wider would work, but as you go wider, they get harder to control.
I'm a Nikon guy and own the 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200mm f.2.8 and 16-35mm f/4. And It is also my least used lens. I make a conscious decision not to pack it sometimes and instead pack a wide prime if I feel going wider than the 24mm of the zoom is not real likely.
-
Like Dwswager, I use Nikon and the three lenses I use most on FX bodies for landscape, in order of frequency of use, are:
24-70mm
70-200mm
14-24mm
They are all f/2.8 lenses but, frankly, I rarely use them below f/8 for landscapes.
I find that I use the wide-angle less and less nowadays. A number of years ago there was a "fad" for using w/a lenses to grotesquely distort the perspective of landscapes with foregrounds unnaturally prominent. We don't seem to do so much of that today.
-
I'm a bit amused by the recent Nikon shooters responses.
However if the OP want's to get the best Canon lenses for this camera there are a few choices among zoom lenses:
Canon 16-35 f/4L IS -- an excellent and moderately priced lens which is much better than the older Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II which I do not recommend.
Canon 11-24 f/4 -- a new best in class lens which is also very expensive.
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II -- a very good standard range zoom lens although a bit pricy the best lens in this category for the 5DS.
There are prime lenses as well, but with the quality of the above zoom lenses I would recommend to replace the 17-40 with the 16-35 f/4L IS.
Many landscape shooters think that an ultra wide angle lens is the best for landscapes. In my opinion this is not the case. There are scenes that lends themselves nicely to a wide angle or ultra wide angle lens, however in many landscapes I will shoot exclusively with a 70-200 lens. For the Canon 5DS the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is a very good lens however the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the better lens to choose for landscapes simply due to the optical quality.
-
Good zooms are good with landscape apertures, at f/8 or so (not smaller if we want to avoid diffraction). BUT, if you really want to squeeze the maximum quality from a 50 MPix sensor I am afraid you have to look outside both zoom and Canon lenses.
My suggestion: Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4. By far the sharpest medium WA lens you can buy for your new Canon. Not awfully expensive either.
-
Good zooms are good with landscape apertures, at f/8 or so (not smaller if we want to avoid diffraction). BUT, if you really want to squeeze the maximum quality from a 50 MPix sensor I am afraid you have to look outside both zoom and Canon lenses.
My suggestion: Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4. By far the sharpest medium WA lens you can buy for your new Canon. Not awfully expensive either.
If you want to replace the Canon 17-40 and with something optically better than the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS then at least 3 prime lenses would be needed. Then the price would be significantly higher and less flexible.
If the OP shoots a lot a 35mm then the Sigma lens could add to the Canon lens as the 35mm this is the weaker end of the spectrum when looking at the corner sharpness.
-
I'm a bit amused by the recent Nikon shooters responses.
However if the OP want's to get the best Canon lenses for this camera there are a few choices among zoom lenses:
Canon 16-35 f/4L IS -- an excellent and moderately priced lens which is much better than the older Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II which I do not recommend.
Canon 11-24 f/4 -- a new best in class lens which is also very expensive.
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II -- a very good standard range zoom lens although a bit pricy the best lens in this category for the 5DS.
There are prime lenses as well, but with the quality of the above zoom lenses I would recommend to replace the 17-40 with the 16-35 f/4L IS.
Many landscape shooters think that an ultra wide angle lens is the best for landscapes. In my opinion this is not the case. There are scenes that lends themselves nicely to a wide angle or ultra wide angle lens, however in many landscapes I will shoot exclusively with a 70-200 lens. For the Canon 5DS the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is a very good lens however the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the better lens to choose for landscapes simply due to the optical quality.
I fully agree with Hans' observations. The 24-70mm f/2.8L II may be the best addition if you also want to travel relativeely light. Not that it's such a light lens but it combines several useful focal lengths and is reported to have excellent optical performance, and (after selecting a vantage point with your feet), you can finish with a tiny bit of final zoom for optimal use/cropping to use the full image real estate. At the wider end, another possibly useful consideration is the TS-E 24mm II, which allows to control the plane of focus with tilt, and some control over the perspective/projection distortion with shift.
At the even wider end, I'd rather use stitching with a/the 24mm to avoid the weight of the otherwise excellent 11-24mm. If the scene demands a wider angle of view, it's usually not in all directions, and you end up cropping a lot. Not so with stitching, where you keep adding to the angle of view until you have enough, and only where you need the extra field of view. While probably not strictly needed with a 5DS(R), you also gain resolution by shooting with a longer focal length (= magnification), and the 24mm probably offers enough DOF already.
The TS-E 24mm also allows to focus at close distances, and also does well there, which allows pretty unique vantage points (close landscape details with a connection to the larger environment, yet with huge DOF (or selectively less) if the subject allows tilt to be used. A 24mm focal length is also very usable in other shooting scenarios, but I don't know if that is of any use to the OP.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. By the time you use f/8 or narrower, the quality differences between most lenses gets leveled by diffraction, although the 24-105 F4L seems to suffer from vignetting that may not disappear as well as it does in other lenses when used on a full 36x24mm sensor.
-
...
Many landscape shooters think that an ultra wide angle lens is the best for landscapes. In my opinion this is not the case. There are scenes that lends themselves nicely to a wide angle or ultra wide angle lens, however in many landscapes I will shoot exclusively with a 70-200 lens. For the Canon 5DS the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is a very good lens however the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the better lens to choose for landscapes simply due to the optical quality.
I've probably shot less than 5 photos in the last 5 years a focal l length wider than 24mm. Actually, I seldom shoot wider than 35mm and I hang on to a nearly unused 17-40 just in case I ever need it again. I used to shoot considerably wider but over the years have slowly gravitated toward longer lenses. Most of my shots are between 35mm and 90mm, and I've shot more landscapes at 600mm than at focal lengths under 24mm. FWIW.
-
I've probably shot less than 5 photos in the last 5 years a focal l length wider than 24mm. Actually, I seldom shoot wider than 35mm and I hang on to a nearly unused 17-40 just in case I ever need it again. I used to shoot considerably wider but over the years have slowly gravitated toward longer lenses. Most of my shots are between 35mm and 90mm, and I've shot more landscapes at 600mm than at focal lengths under 24mm. FWIW.
I always have a 16-35 or 14-24 in my bag for the case when ultrawide is the right choice, but it is not that often. The stats from my last workshop in Tuscany in May a couple of weeks ago was: 1.5% under 24mm, 20% 24-70 and the rest 70-200. However during a trip to Scotland on Isle of Skye a week ago the stats were quite different: 16-35: 4%, 24-70: 68% and 70-200: 28%. But again the trend about the ultra wide is the same. So my workhorses for landscape are the 24-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses. My setup is in fact to have a 24-70 on one camera body and 70-200 on another camera body in my bag so I can take them out and shoot without changing lenses. Only when shooting with the 16-35 I need to change lenses.
-
I always have a 16-35 or 14-24 in my bag for the case when ultrawide is the right choice, but it is not that often. The stats from my last workshop in Tuscany in May a couple of weeks ago was: 1.5% under 24mm, 20% 24-70 and the rest 70-200. However during a trip to Scotland on Isle of Skye a week ago the stats were quite different: 16-35: 4%, 24-70: 68% and 70-200: 28%. But again the trend about the ultra wide is the same. So my workhorses for landscape are the 24-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses. My setup is in fact to have a 24-70 on one camera body and 70-200 on another camera body in my bag so I can take them out and shoot without changing lenses. Only when shooting with the 16-35 I need to change lenses.
In addition to 24-70 and 70-200, I've often found the 90mm TS-E helpful to get 90mm perspective with more DOF than would normally be had at 90mm.
-
if you're shooting mostly in the 30-50 range I'd recommend a prime - or 2 to benefit from the 5Ds resolution across the frame - 3 possibilities that won't break the bank are the Canon 35 f2 IS (in addition to the corner-corner resolution, the amazing IS makes this an outstanding low light street lens), the Sigma 35 Art, and the Sigma 50 Art.
Even though I usually take a 16-35 f4 (which has replaced the always marginal 17-40), it doesn't get used all that much - even less for landscapes.
I use the 70-200 f4 a lot (including stitching) and even though the new f2.8 is sharper, I'm not sure it's worth the cost and weight penalty - particularly as you've describe your use.
-
Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 is a darn good landscape lens, if you like the focal length. It is my most used focal length for landscape.
-
Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 is a darn good landscape lens, if you like the focal length. It is my most used focal length for landscape.
Could you elaborate on why this focal length is so used by you? Is it because of the locations you like that fit so well with this focal length?
-
Hi Jeffrey.
¿ Why not the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II for low light situations ?
The F2.8 is too heavy for me, and it's not quite as good optically as the F4.
-
... I use the 70-200 f4 a lot (including stitching) and even though the new f2.8 is sharper, I'm not sure it's worth the cost and weight penalty - particularly as you've describe your use.
If you take a look at the comparison here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3), at f/5.6 and smaller there's not a much difference between the f/2.8 and f/4 lens, but the weight difference is considerable. It really depends on whether you need a max aperture of f/2.8.
-
The F2.8 is too heavy for me, and it's not quite as good optically as the F4.
[/quote
Correct the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II is not as good as the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS lens.
-
If you take a look at the comparison here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3), at f/5.6 and smaller there's not a much difference between the f/2.8 and f/4 lens, but the weight difference is considerable. It really depends on whether you need a max aperture of f/2.8.
I had have had both versions and sold the f/4 again. The f/2.8 for me wins by a margin, but it is heavy. The mass helps handheld shooting although (of course) a tripod is always advisable for landscape shooting. However I often shoot handheld when the light is good enough. I also like the f/2.8 doing wild flower shots with the very nice bokeh this lens has. But the weight difference is like another extra wide angle lens.
-
Hans, I shoot a fair amount in forests and glades, and the 35mm lens on a FF camera gives me a wide-but-natural "intimate landscape" view that is versatile in the local terrain. If there is a strong foreground feature or great skies, or I am shooting a feature in a restricted space (small slot canyon, for example - we have lots of eroded limestone and dolomite), I use the 21mm lens, but often those elements are lacking. My locale (mostly Ozarks hills and river bottomlands) is not particularly "grand".
-
Perhaps I stressed the weight issue too much, especially since the OP didn't mention weight as an issue.
I do have a bias toward lighter equipment lately. A couple years ago I went on what was for me a very difficult photo hike. There were miles of deep sand and significant elevation changes. I left my 70-200 f/2.8 lens behind because it was just too heavy to carry along with everything else I needed. As it turned out I could have made very good use of a 70-200mm lens. Not having one bugged me so much that my quivering legs and buying a 70-200 f/4 were all I thought about on the hike out. When I got back to my vehicle I was as exhausted as I have ever been, so leaving the heavy lens behind was actually the right decision. OTOH, having a lighter version of it and making other weight adjustments to compensate would have gotten much higher quality photos than those I didn't get. For decades I carried mostly f/2.8 lenses and Canon 1-series bodies everywhere but that hike made me realize that weight and time were starting to make a tangible difference in what I could accomplish. A couple f/4 lenses and the much lighter 5DSR may put some spring back in my step when I need to hike. I'll keep the other stuff around for when I don't.
-
Perhaps I stressed the weight issue too much, especially since the OP didn't mention weight as an issue.
I do have a bias toward lighter equipment lately. A couple years ago I went on what was for me a very difficult photo hike. There were miles of deep sand and significant elevation changes. I left my 70-200 f/2.8 lens behind because it was just too heavy to carry along with everything else I needed. As it turned out I could have made very good use of a 70-200mm lens. Not having one bugged me so much that my quivering legs and buying a 70-200 f/4 were all I thought about on the hike out. When I got back to my vehicle I was as exhausted as I have ever been, so leaving the heavy lens behind was actually the right decision. OTOH, having a lighter version of it and making other weight adjustments to compensate would have gotten much higher quality photos than those I didn't get. For decades I carried mostly f/2.8 lenses and Canon 1-series bodies everywhere but that hike made me realize that weight and time were starting to make a tangible difference in what I could accomplish. A couple f/4 lenses and the much lighter 5DSR may put some spring back in my step when I need to hike. I'll keep the other stuff around for when I don't.
Good reason which I am starting to feel too ;D
BTW, I looked at your profile and you are 14 Years Old ;D
-
Hans, I shoot a fair amount in forests and glades, and the 35mm lens on a FF camera gives me a wide-but-natural "intimate landscape" view that is versatile in the local terrain. If there is a strong foreground feature or great skies, or I am shooting a feature in a restricted space (small slot canyon, for example - we have lots of eroded limestone and dolomite), I use the 21mm lens, but often those elements are lacking. My locale (mostly Ozarks hills and river bottomlands) is not particularly "grand".
Thanks Nancy for you answer. That makes sense. Btw. I just checked my last US trip folder and a lot were shot at 24mm up to 35mm. Still about 50% were shot with the 70-200. I was in Utah, Death Valley and Yosemite.
-
Hi,
My take is that there is nothing like a landscape lens. Wide angles are useful but so are telephoto lenses. Regarding zooms vs. primes, a well designed zoom will be quite excellent over a part of it's focusing range, so they are often better than primes midrange. According to Hubert Nasse of Zeiss, this depends on the zoom lenses having a large number of air to glass surfaces, thus giving good options to correct aberrations.
For instance, a classical 50/1.4 may contain seven lenses, a classical double "Gauss" configuration with a field flattening element. The Zeiss Otus has 12 elements in 10 groups and uses a Distagon type design. Much of this effort goes into maximising performance at full aperture and reducing vignetting and "colour bokeh". But, the Otus will not perform a lot better than a normal double Gauss + field flattener design at f/8.
Personally, I am using the following lenses for landscape:
- Sigma 10/3.5 APS-C fisheye lens
- Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 zoom (the old version)
- Samyang 14/2.8, this lens has a terrible moustache type distortion but it is very sharp at f/5.6 and beyond
- Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8 zoom. This lens has a large "sweet spot" but has bad corners. Not very good at 70 mm.
- A Minolta 100/2.8 Macro lens
- Sony 70-400/4-5.6G. A very good lens with very well controlled axial chroma
Now, I am using Sony and the OP asks about lenses for Canon. Still I feel that my experience with Sony is a bit relevant, as canon has similar lenses.
What I see in my set up is that 70-85 mm is a week spot. Here I am eyeing the new Batis 85/1.8. I would like the Otus 85/1.4 but both size and costs speak against it. A Sigma 70/2.8 macro may be an economic alternative. Zeiss has a Sonnar 135/2.0 APO, that is quite affordable. Unfortunately I don't feel 135 mm is where my heart lives.
Getting back to Canon, my impression is that the new lenses like the 11-24/4, 16-35/4 and the 24-70/2.8 LII are very good. They will match the 50MP sensor very well.
Here are some images from 2014:
10 mm fishey:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-8CKnJ3t/0/XL/20140602-_DSC6001-XL.jpg)
70-400 at 140 mm:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-grJdXpF/0/XL/20140605-_DSC4390-XL.jpg)
24-70/2.8 at 24 mm:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-NWcHL7L/0/XL/20130821-_DSC2779-XL.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
I'm a bit amused by the recent Nikon shooters responses.
However if the OP want's to get the best Canon lenses for this camera there are a few choices among zoom lenses:
Canon 16-35 f/4L IS -- an excellent and moderately priced lens which is much better than the older Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II which I do not recommend.
Canon 11-24 f/4 -- a new best in class lens which is also very expensive.
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II -- a very good standard range zoom lens although a bit pricy the best lens in this category for the 5DS.
There are prime lenses as well, but with the quality of the above zoom lenses I would recommend to replace the 17-40 with the 16-35 f/4L IS.
Many landscape shooters think that an ultra wide angle lens is the best for landscapes. In my opinion this is not the case. There are scenes that lends themselves nicely to a wide angle or ultra wide angle lens, however in many landscapes I will shoot exclusively with a 70-200 lens. For the Canon 5DS the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is a very good lens however the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the better lens to choose for landscapes simply due to the optical quality.
-
You want bias toward light weight? I have found that the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM is a fine lens for landscape, and it is ~130 grams.