repleo Loc: Boston

My GAS tank is starting to fill up again and I am considering my next lens purchase for my A7Rii. I currently have the Sony 24-105 F4 G which is a great mid zoom and become my mainstay. I also have a 28mm F2.8 (for lightness and compactness), 50mm 1.8 (for speed/portrait) and 90mm F4.0 G (for macro/portrait) - all Sony. I also have a Rokinon 12mm F2.0 which I use in crop mode for occasional MW shots or when I need an ultra wide lens.

I do mostly landscape. I am not really interested in birds or wildlife other than as an element in the landscape, but would take a close-up shot if the opportunity arose. There are plenty of ospreys, snowy owls, cranes, seals etc on Cape Cod where I spend most of my time.

The 24-105 is great, but it is both my widest and longest lens at the moment. My question is should I go wider or longer next. I am considering the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS at the wide end or the Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS for extending the long end. I know landscape shooters usually prefer wider, but I find the 24-105 mostly wide enough. Also, I am tending to look more for landscape details or what I call 'small landscapes' instead of wide sweeping vistas. However, I am wondering how useful I would find the 70-300. I would like to hear from other landscapers which they would consider most versatile. Experience with either of these lenses or recommendations for alternatives would be especially appreciated.

JPL

I think you should rather look at some 100-400 lens than a 70-300. Or even a 150-600. There are good options in that range. You already have everything coverd to 105 mm. And at the other end if you have the option to find a 20 mm prime lens it would be a good option for the landscapes. This lens here or something similar http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1393490-REG/sigma_20mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html

wayne barnett Loc: Grants Pass, Oregon

Since you say you are not interested in wild life shots or wide vistas the lenses you describe should cover your needs quite well. Save your gas money or have a trip to one of your bucket list locations.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

You may find some interesting examples on one of our members sites, Mike Jackson, but most are with longer lenses. It has me thinking about different perspectives. Very nice site!

http://www.bestofthetetons.com/

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

On of my photographic goals this year is to get out of the constant wide angle landscapes and find what you call small landscapes using a 70-200 at 100 mm. I did this on my recent Death Valley trip, and got some rewarding images.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

The FE 12-24 F4 is a marvelous lens, should you choose to go wide zoom, I have both the 70-200 F4 and 100-400 and there it is really a question of cost, reach, size. Both produce superb sharp, well rendered images. I tend to use the 70-200 more frequently because of smaller size and weight.

PhotoKurtz Loc: Carterville, IL

Go longer or buy a 1.4 or 2x converter. If you happen to need a wider view of something do a pano. Have fun! Send pics.

Photocraig

The technique is called telephoto extraction. It concentrates on details within a landscape like an escarpment, waterfall, a particularly appealing grove of trees midway up a mountain. Also, it is used for what I call mini-scapes. That's where there is a combination of features that are actually small, but when made to fill the photo frame, the image looks like a traditional landscape. Pebbles become boulders, twigs become logs and small plants become trees. I learned this at some workshops, notably (for credibility's sake), with the late Galen Rowell.

The extraction technique is also useful in places where there is an interesting landscape just above an urban setting. You can usually shoot past the urban obstructions and wires et. and "extract" the pure landscape in the, hopefully good light, you are observing.

While the great vistas seduce us into wide angle landscapes, often the beauty is in the details and features among the million or so trees and rocks. It is another tool in the landscaper's kit and can save the day when the perfect vantage point is unattainable at that (decisive to you) moment when a number of other factors are right.

My 70-300 works well for this.

C

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

[quote=However, I am wondering how useful I would find the 70-300. I would like to hear from other landscapers which they would consider most versatile. Experience with either of these lenses or recommendations for alternatives would be especially appreciated.[/quote]

I think you would like a 70-300 lens. I have found it to be a good size for walk around shots. Here’s a link to one of my photos with the older model 70-300 canon lens. Single shot cropped for effect.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-507077-1.html

illininitt

The Sigma 18-250 is rated the best for landscapes!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I am a lanscape shooter - and on a full frame camera I can count on one hand the times I have used my 14-24 for landscape, other than for some special effect or if I am in tight quarters. My go to lenses are 45mm and 85mm primes, and 80-200, and sometimes 100-300. If I need wider field of view, I shoot overlapping shots to stitch in Lightroom or Photoshop.

D300 crop camera, 50mm focal length, camera in portrait, 8 shots

(Download)

D800, 85mm, portrait, 5 panels

(Download)

repleo Loc: Boston

OP here. Thanks for all of the great input and examples.
In following up on some of the suggestions, I came on this article from Ken Rockwell which I found very informative. https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm I recognized the 'get it all in' syndrome he mentions. I asked my local camera store, Hunt's Photo to notify me when they get one in stock.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

Its easy to convince ones self that we need a new and exciting lens. After going about collecting canon glass I realized I wasn't loving them all as much as I thought I would. The 24-105 seldom came off. I think one just needs a change up from time to time. Although I have never done it, I think renting a lens you are considering would be very worthwhile. Its hard to mistake when you and a lens are a good team. I find myself in a position to borrow lenses now that I have started using Nikon, and that accomplishes the same thing. Hard to imagine buying a pair of shoes without at least trying them on.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I generally prefer wider. The longer the tele, the more you can have a problem with vibration. I like being able to get down low and get the ground near me and the distant scene all in the shot.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

Other than the reach, i.e., in terms of IQ, how would the Sigma 18-250 compare to the Nikon 18-140, which I'm interested in and it has sufficient magnification for my likes?

Thanks in Advance,
William