PixelStan77 wrote:
Considering buying a Prime Lens for Landscape Photography. Considering a 35MM F2 and a 25MM F2.8. Which in your opinion is the BEST for Landscape Photography and why?
Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Stan
I don't know what camera system you're using.... nor if you are using full frame or crop sensor camera.
It's certainly not a hard and fast rule, but more often than not I find myself using a wide angle lens for landscape photography. Anywhere from a moderate wide to an ultrawide. Sure, sometimes a normal or even a telephoto might be useful.... But, at least for me, that's far less frequent.
In the past, I used only primes because most older zooms were pretty poor. But today there are highly capable zooms, so prime versus zoom is more down to your personal preferences. I still prefer primes, perhaps just out of around 40 years habit, but find myself using more and more zooms.
On my crop sensor cameras I use a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and a 20mm f/2.8 a lot. I've also use a 12-24mm f/4 lens on croppers, in the past. On full frame, I use the same 20mm, often along with a 24-70mm and a 50mm f/1.4.
There are times I wish I had wider. If were shooting more landscapes with the full frame, 1'd want a 16-35mm f/4. Alternatives are 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2 (alongside the 20mm I'm already using). f/2.8 version of that zoom and f/1.4 versions of both those primes are available in the system I use... but as someone else already mentioned... large apertures simply aren't often needed for landscape work. I've also considered some 14mm and 15mm ultrawide primes for use on full frame. I used to have a 17-35mm f/2.8 that I used with my film cameras (several examples done with it below, but exact focal length wasn't recorded).
Less extreme aperture lenses are smaller, lighter and often less expensive. They also may offer better sharpness from corner to corner. Size and weight might be an important consideration if you'll need to hike some distance to take the shots. Compare the weight and bulk of several smaller primes versus a single zoom.
I was very impressed recently with some work done using an 11-24mm, which is available for full frame in the system I use. However, that lens is quite expensive, big and bulky. It also has a protruding, convex front element that makes using filter on it difficult (this is true with some other ultrawides, too). Standard screw-in filters are impossible, so a special holder and over-size, rectangular filters are needed. I often use a circular polarizer and sometimes a neutral density filters for landscape photography, so this is another consideration.
Some examples....
20mm lens on full frame:
20mm lens on full frame, image cropped to more panoramic format:
50mm lens on full frame, shot from virtually the same vantage point as the image above:
Same 20mm lens on APS-C crop camera (where it "acts like 32mm on full frame"):
17-35mm lens on film (full frame):
12-24mm on APS-C crop sensor camera (at 15mm, equiv. to 24mm on full frame), image cropped to panoramic format:
10-22mm lens (at 10mm, equiv. to 16mm on full frame) on APS-C crop camera: