Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Landscape Lens
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Feb 11, 2019 15:04:59   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
Al Freeedman wrote:

It will mound on a Canon 6D but
will no longer be a 10-18 mm lens.
It will be approx. 15 MM-27 MM.

Captain Al


I own all that gear. Can't be done.
Don't tell any user to try it. Cease
spouting nonsense about stuff you
never did yourself.

FWIW, I have put the 10-18 on a
FF camera. Cuz I actually know of
what I speak. You can put it on a
FF Sony, but not on a FF Canon.
[Acoarst it vignettes big time.]

When you put the 10-18 on a FF
body you do NOT get a 15-27mm
as you've vainly claimed. All your
math is exactly backwards. Keep
away from discussions that you
know just zero about. You'll look
a whole lot smarter.

And yes I do know I'm not very
polite or diplomatic. So sue me.

.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 15:42:24   #
Bipod (a regular here)
 
koosh wrote:
I shoot with Canon 6d and 7D Mark II. Birds and wildlife are my usual subjects, but I now need a good lens for landscape in the Canadian Rockies. Already have a 24-105, 15-55(kit) and 50mm. What else would you suggest either instead of, or in addition to? Budget is modest, less than $500.

It depends on how serious you are about landscape. What you have is great for
snapshots--and may be all that you need. But if you want the best results:

First, make sure you have the proper lens hood for that 50 mm prime.
(Of the lenses you have, it's your best bet for high quality landscape work.)
Not just any lens hood--the one that matches the angle-of-view.

Second, bring a really stable (rigid and heavy) tripod. You will probably encounter
wind in the mountains.

Third, consider a 35 mm prime. This is the most common lens for serious
landscape. Unfortunately, all the EF-mount offerings from Canon and Sigma
are ridiculously over-priced. Canon seems to be pricing primes to avoid
undercutting zoom prices (with the latter having many more elements
and moving groups), and Sigma seems to be following Canon's prices.

The least expensive I saw was the the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM $549.
You could try to find a used one at B&H. Or you could buy an older used
Canon EF-mount lens --- old primes are often very good.

Reasons to use a prime for landscape:
* Sharp even off-axis
* Less distortion (noticeable if the landscape contains a building)
* Contrasty (noticeable on an OLED, CRT or plasma display)
* Rugged
* Can accept a lens hood that matches the angle-of-view
(impossible with a zoom)
* Allows you to concentrate on composition
* Encourages you to walk around and find the best perspective
* Ansel Adams
* Bruce Barnbaum
* Don McCullin

Need any more reasons?

Landscape is different than most photography:
* Multiple points-of-interest in one shot
* Often the entire scene is "the subject"
* Getting the right perspective may require moving long distances
* Often it's important that infinity be in focus
* Can encounter very high contrast
* Flare from the sun is a big problem
* In low light, flash--no matter how big--won't help
* Often printed large
* Much work is still done in true B&W (not de-colorized color)
* Much work is still done in large format film
* "The competition" has set a high standard for image quality
and printing (and that's an understatement)

Usually with FF we have more resolution than we need--that's not the
case with fine art landscape. But even with your miniature format
cameras, you should be able to make some beautiful 8 x 10" prints --
provided everything is done perfectly.

It's not a question of picking the lens to match where you're standing, it's
standing in the right spot to match how you visualize the scene. People
who shoot 50 mm visualize that way, people who shoot 35 mm visualize
that way. Chances are, you'll prefer one or the other for most of your
landscape work.

There is nothing convenient about landscape photography. If you don't
want to walk around, you can drive around and pull off the road at the
perfect spot. But basically, you're going to spend a lot of time getting
just one shot.

So when you do shoot, you want to maximize your chances of success.
Double check the focus and bracket exposure. With a miniature format
camera, you've got a severe trade-off between DoF and diffraction. I wouldn't
set an aperture narrower than f/11 (and that's pushing it), so you'll to pick
your focal plane carefully. Find a DoF table calculated based on sensor
resolution, not "acceptable unsharpness"--there isn't any.)

Flare is a big issue when shooting in outdoors in bright sunlight. Most people
(and all who rely on LCD/LED monitors) only worry about visible flare. But loss
of contrast due to insidious flare is a common problem with zoom lenses outdoors.

On the other hand, in extremely contrast situations, such as a canyon in the mountains,
the loss of contrast with a zoom can actually help stay within the sensor's dynamic range.

So like everything in photography, "it depends on the situation" and what look you are
trying to achieve. Just be aware that the "shoot lots and cull" and "fix in PhotoSlop"
mentality won't work for producing quality landscape prints. You are working right at
the limits of your camera sensor and optics. A color sensor inherently has less resolution
and more noise than a monochrome sensor. The deck is stacked against you, but you
can still bring home a few winners.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 16:26:59   #
rwoodvira
 
Canon 17-40 f4. Keh is having a sale right now and I believe you can get one for less than $500. I have the lens and it’s one of my favorites. It’s been surpassed by other wides but for the price you can’t go wrong.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 16:31:25   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
User ID wrote:
I own all that gear. Can't be done.
Don't tell any user to try it. Cease
spouting nonsense about stuff you
never did yourself.

FWIW, I have put the 10-18 on a
FF camera. Cuz I actually know of
what I speak. You can put it on a
FF Sony, but not on a FF Canon.
[Acoarst it vignettes big time.]

When you put the 10-18 on a FF
body you do NOT get a 15-27mm
as you've vainly claimed. All your
math is exactly backwards. Keep
away from discussions that you
know just zero about. You'll look
a whole lot smarter.

And yes I do know I'm not very
polite or diplomatic. So sue me.

.
I own all that gear. Can't be done. br Don't tell... (show quote)


You get a smaller field of view when you put a lens with a smaller image circle on a larger sensor. This would provide a field of view closer to 15-27 than your proposition. I think you owe Al an apology. He wasn't wrong and you were completely out of line with your snarky post, and dead wrong to boot. Just sayin'

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 16:53:42   #
2666loco
 
Use the lens you have and make photomerges for free. 4-7 images vertical gets over 180 degrees.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 16:58:55   #
whlsdn (a regular here)
 
Gene51 wrote:
You have what you need. You'll find that longer focal lengths produce less distortion and the slight "compression" effect is often desirable. If you stitch panoramas you'll find you have as wide a view as you will ever need and with way more pixels than an ultra wide lens.

With a full frame camera I tend to use a 45mm or an 85mm lens for most landscapes, and sometimes as long as 150mm.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a crop sensor camera for landscape. Hell, I even use my Sony RX10M4, with it's tiny 1" sensor, for landscapes.
You have what you need. You'll find that longer fo... (show quote)


Just absorbing here and appreciate your contribution. And I LOVE your sample photo, Gene51!

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 17:01:19   #
whlsdn (a regular here)
 
joehel2 wrote:
I just came back from a Canadian Rockies trip, Banff NP and Jasper. 95% of the time, I used a 24-70. For landscape scenes that included a great night sky, I used a 17-35 2.8.


Good info for us learners, joehel2. Thanks. But I was left wanting a sample!

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 17:25:11   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
Bipod wrote:
It depends on how serious you are about landscape. What you have is great for
snapshots--and may be all that you need. But if you want the best results:

First, make sure you have the proper lens hood for that 50 mm prime.
(Of the lenses you have, it's your best bet for high quality landscape work.)
Not just any lens hood--the one that matches the angle-of-view.

Second, bring a really stable (rigid and heavy) tripod. You will probably encounter
wind in the mountains.

Third, consider a 35 mm prime. This is the most common lens for serious
landscape. Unfortunately, all the EF-mount offerings from Canon and Sigma
are ridiculously over-priced. Canon seems to be pricing primes to avoid
undercutting zoom prices (with the latter having many more elements
and moving groups), and Sigma seems to be following Canon's prices.

The least expensive I saw was the the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM $549.
You could try to find a used one at B&H. Or you could buy an older used
Canon EF-mount lens --- old primes are often very good.

Reasons to use a prime for landscape:
* Sharp even off-axis
* Less distortion (noticeable if the landscape contains a building)
* Contrasty (noticeable on an OLED, CRT or plasma display)
* Rugged
* Can accept a lens hood that matches the angle-of-view
(impossible with a zoom)
* Allows you to concentrate on composition
* Encourages you to walk around and find the best perspective
* Ansel Adams
* Bruce Barnbaum
* Don McCullin

Need any more reasons?

Landscape is different than most photography:
* Multiple points-of-interest in one shot
* Often the entire scene is "the subject"
* Getting the right perspective may require moving long distances
* Often it's important that infinity be in focus
* Can encounter very high contrast
* Flare from the sun is a big problem
* In low light, flash--no matter how big--won't help
* Often printed large
* Much work is still done in true B&W (not de-colorized color)
* Much work is still done in large format film
* "The competition" has set a high standard for image quality
and printing (and that's an understatement)

Usually with FF we have more resolution than we need--that's not the
case with fine art landscape. But even with your miniature format
cameras, you should be able to make some beautiful 8 x 10" prints --
provided everything is done perfectly.

It's not a question of picking the lens to match where you're standing, it's
standing in the right spot to match how you visualize the scene. People
who shoot 50 mm visualize that way, people who shoot 35 mm visualize
that way. Chances are, you'll prefer one or the other for most of your
landscape work.

There is nothing convenient about landscape photography. If you don't
want to walk around, you can drive around and pull off the road at the
perfect spot. But basically, you're going to spend a lot of time getting
just one shot.

So when you do shoot, you want to maximize your chances of success.
Double check the focus and bracket exposure. With a miniature format
camera, you've got a severe trade-off between DoF and diffraction. I wouldn't
set an aperture narrower than f/11 (and that's pushing it), so you'll to pick
your focal plane carefully. Find a DoF table calculated based on sensor
resolution, not "acceptable unsharpness"--there isn't any.)

Flare is a big issue when shooting in outdoors in bright sunlight. Most people
(and all who rely on LCD/LED monitors) only worry about visible flare. But loss
of contrast due to insidious flare is a common problem with zoom lenses outdoors.

On the other hand, in extremely contrast situations, such as a canyon in the mountains,
the loss of contrast with a zoom can actually help stay within the sensor's dynamic range.

So like everything in photography, "it depends on the situation" and what look you are
trying to achieve. Just be aware that the "shoot lots and cull" and "fix in PhotoSlop"
mentality won't work for producing quality landscape prints. You are working right at
the limits of your camera sensor and optics. A color sensor inherently has less resolution
and more noise than a monochrome sensor. The deck is stacked against you, but you
can still bring home a few winners.
It depends on how serious you are about landscape.... (show quote)


I have seen awful prime lenses and some excellent zooms. I use everything from a 14-24 to the trio of PC-E lenses, a 24-70, 80-200 and a 100-300 F4 for landscape/cityscape.

You can nail exposure without bracketing unless you are deliberately shooting with the intention of HDR merging.

The best lens hood to get for any lens is a compendium or bellows-style lens hood. You can get wide angle and normal focal length ones.

Something along the lines of the first image.

The rest of the images show that you don't need a full frame camera for landscape, and there is nothing at all wrong with zoom lenses, as long as you understand their strengths and weaknesses - which is no different for any lens I attach to my camera.


(Download)
Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 D800.on a tripod
Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 D800.on a tripod...
(Download)
Nikkor 18-70 @18mm D70S hand held
Nikkor 18-70 @18mm D70S hand held...
(Download)
Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 D200 hand held
Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 D200 hand held...
(Download)
Sigma Spprt 150-600 D810 - hand held
Sigma Spprt 150-600 D810 - hand held...
(Download)
Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D, D800 30 sec exposure, tripod mounted
Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AF-D, D800  30 sec exposure, tr...
(Download)

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 17:53:21   #
papaluv4gd
 
agree with gene51. If you want a lens that gives you a different perspective ,fine. But all this talk about that sensor can't do this,or that sensor can't do that. Just take what you have,and go out and have fun.If you do your part,the camera will do it's part. Not everyone can own 1 camera for landscapes,1 for wild life,one for pictures of your dog running around the yard etc. I use olympus gear. when we work together,I get some real pleasing results. photography is supposed to be fun.Getting all caught up in the equipment game is too damn stressfull. I have a blast with my set up,and i'm going to build on it because it suites me.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 18:49:02   #
DeanS (a regular here)
 
Don’t overlook the 16-35 F4 L.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 19:57:14   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
Bipod wrote:
It depends on how serious you are about landscape. What you have is great for
snapshots--and may be all that you need. But if you want the best results:

First, make sure you have the proper lens hood for that 50 mm prime.
(Of the lenses you have, it's your best bet for high quality landscape work.)
Not just any lens hood--the one that matches the angle-of-view.

Second, bring a really stable (rigid and heavy) tripod. You will probably encounter
wind in the mountains.

Third, consider a 35 mm prime. This is the most common lens for serious
landscape. Unfortunately, all the EF-mount offerings from Canon and Sigma
are ridiculously over-priced. Canon seems to be pricing primes to avoid
undercutting zoom prices (with the latter having many more elements
and moving groups), and Sigma seems to be following Canon's prices.

The least expensive I saw was the the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM $549.
You could try to find a used one at B&H. Or you could buy an older used
Canon EF-mount lens --- old primes are often very good.

Reasons to use a prime for landscape:
* Sharp even off-axis
* Less distortion (noticeable if the landscape contains a building)
* Contrasty (noticeable on an OLED, CRT or plasma display)
* Rugged
* Can accept a lens hood that matches the angle-of-view
(impossible with a zoom)
* Allows you to concentrate on composition
* Encourages you to walk around and find the best perspective
* Ansel Adams
* Bruce Barnbaum
* Don McCullin

Need any more reasons?

Landscape is different than most photography:
* Multiple points-of-interest in one shot
* Often the entire scene is "the subject"
* Getting the right perspective may require moving long distances
* Often it's important that infinity be in focus
* Can encounter very high contrast
* Flare from the sun is a big problem
* In low light, flash--no matter how big--won't help
* Often printed large
* Much work is still done in true B&W (not de-colorized color)
* Much work is still done in large format film
* "The competition" has set a high standard for image quality
and printing (and that's an understatement)

Usually with FF we have more resolution than we need--that's not the
case with fine art landscape. But even with your miniature format
cameras, you should be able to make some beautiful 8 x 10" prints --
provided everything is done perfectly.

It's not a question of picking the lens to match where you're standing, it's
standing in the right spot to match how you visualize the scene. People
who shoot 50 mm visualize that way, people who shoot 35 mm visualize
that way. Chances are, you'll prefer one or the other for most of your
landscape work.

There is nothing convenient about landscape photography. If you don't
want to walk around, you can drive around and pull off the road at the
perfect spot. But basically, you're going to spend a lot of time getting
just one shot.

So when you do shoot, you want to maximize your chances of success.
Double check the focus and bracket exposure. With a miniature format
camera, you've got a severe trade-off between DoF and diffraction. I wouldn't
set an aperture narrower than f/11 (and that's pushing it), so you'll to pick
your focal plane carefully. Find a DoF table calculated based on sensor
resolution, not "acceptable unsharpness"--there isn't any.)

Flare is a big issue when shooting in outdoors in bright sunlight. Most people
(and all who rely on LCD/LED monitors) only worry about visible flare. But loss
of contrast due to insidious flare is a common problem with zoom lenses outdoors.

On the other hand, in extremely contrast situations, such as a canyon in the mountains,
the loss of contrast with a zoom can actually help stay within the sensor's dynamic range.

So like everything in photography, "it depends on the situation" and what look you are
trying to achieve. Just be aware that the "shoot lots and cull" and "fix in PhotoSlop"
mentality won't work for producing quality landscape prints. You are working right at
the limits of your camera sensor and optics. A color sensor inherently has less resolution
and more noise than a monochrome sensor. The deck is stacked against you, but you
can still bring home a few winners.
It depends on how serious you are about landscape.... (show quote)


Terrrrrific post.

Most posts as massive as yours are just tedious
collections of well worn bullshit ... but yours is a
GREAT EXCEPTION !

Every bit of it is useful, readable, even insightful
.... except for the name dropping. But one glitch
does not hugely detract from an excellent essay.

.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 23:20:32   #
raferrelljr
 
I would look for a used 14mm or 20mm

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 00:48:48   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
Gene51 wrote:

You get a smaller field of view when you put a lens
with a smaller image circle on a larger sensor.
This would provide a field of view closer to 15-27
than your proposition. I think you owe Al an apology.
He wasn't wrong and you were completely out of line
with your snarky post, and dead wrong to boot.
Just sayin'


I stand by every word, expression, and fact
in my post. YOU are as wrong as he is. No
apologies are owed to either party. As I said,
I own all that gear and know damnt well how
it can and can't combine, and what happens
where you can combine. Usually your posted
advice is quite good, so I suggest you reread
what you say in support of Al's backwards
advice, cuz I'm quite sure you know better
than what you said. Reread it and THINK !!

=========================

Maybe I should repeat my "offending" post
right here. Yeah, I really should ... so I will:

I own all that gear. Can't be done.
Don't tell any user to try it. Cease
spouting nonsense about stuff you
never did yourself.

FWIW, I have put the 10-18 on a
FF camera. Cuz I actually know of
what I speak. You can put it on a
FF Sony, but not on a FF Canon.
[Acoarst it vignettes big time.]

When you put the 10-18 on a FF
body you do NOT get a 15-27mm
as you've vainly claimed. All your
math is exactly backwards. Keep
away from discussions that you
know just zero about. You'll look
a whole lot smarter.


.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 01:20:37   #
mas24 (a regular here)
 
The Canon 10-18mm was such an effective, inexpensive wide angle lens for Canon crop sensor, that Nikon came up with its version of an inexpensive wide angle lens for a crop sensor. The 10-20mm. It will give you a FOV of 15-30mm on Nikon DX cameras. Decent width I would say. I also know a pro photographer who uses a Nikon 70-200mm f4, for portraits and landscapes photography, attached to his D810. He claims it does the job for both.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 02:08:44   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
mas24 wrote:

The Canon 10-18mm was such an effective, inexpensive
wide angle lens for Canon crop sensor, that Nikon came
up with its version of an inexpensive wide angle lens for
a crop sensor. The 10-20mm. It will give you a FOV of
15-30mm on Nikon DX cameras. Decent width I would
say..........


The 10-18 is really handy. Below it is serving as
a shift lens of approximately 20mm [FF equiv] by
turning the camera to portrait position and using
only the upper portion of the frame [or cropping
out the lower portion if that "sounds better"] of
a Rebel. You can see that the lens is at about the
height of the 1st floor doorknobs and yet the lens
axis is level, not tipped upward to include the 2nd
floor and attic, so the building looks very straight.


(Download)

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.