Landscapes with a zoom
May 5, 2017 16:42:22 #
I do a lot of landscape photography using my Canon 18-135mm zoom. Worth it to purchase the 24mm fixed lens it appears many landscape photographers use?
May 5, 2017 17:26:55 #
I wouldn't make the purchase on the basis that that is what a lot of other photographers use. It really is a matter of what you will use. Yes, prime lenses can be great for landscapes as good quality primes can be very sharp. However, depending on where you go zooms can have the versatility of allowing you to compose shots more easily without the need to carry a large number of lenses and make lens changes in the field. Many modern zooms have very good sharpness across their zoom range, so having prime lenses is really more a preference than a necessity in my opinion.
May 5, 2017 17:50:03 #
May 5, 2017 17:53:02 #
pkgoldberg wrote:
I do a lot of landscape photography using my Canon 18-135mm zoom. Worth it to purchase the 24mm fixed lens it appears many landscape photographers use?
It really depends on the look you want to achieve. If you want a vast, wide open look you need the wider aperture but you already have an 18mm, which is wider than the 24mm, so you can already achieve that look. If you want a more compressed look, you use the 135mm view. Unless the 24mm lens you are thinking of buying is a fixed lens or a very superior lens, I can see no reason to purchase it other than you just want to.
May 5, 2017 21:33:10 #
pkgoldberg wrote:
I do a lot of landscape photography using my Canon 18-135mm zoom. Worth it to purchase the 24mm fixed lens it appears many landscape photographers use?
You can use just about any lens to do landscape. Here are some examples of landscapes done with all sorts of lenses, including zooms and teles. No wide or ultrawide lenses used for these. For wider views I just took multiple overlapping shots and stitched the images in Lightroom, which is very easy to do. I have a 14-24, and several lenses that cover 24mm to 70. I don't often use 24mm, and rarely go to 14mm. They are too wide, come with extreme extension distortion, and I find are best used in special situations for specific effects.
150mm (150-600mm zoom)
(Download)
45mm
(Download)
85mm
(Download)
85mm
(Download)
100mm (100-300mm zoom)
(Download)
May 5, 2017 22:02:56 #
May 5, 2017 23:33:58 #
pkgoldberg wrote:
I do a lot of landscape photography using my Canon 18-135mm zoom. Worth it to purchase the 24mm fixed lens it appears many landscape photographers use?
If you use Lightroom to post process your photos, it can tell you which focal lengths you use. If you find that you use the zoom at or around 24mm then you might want to think about purchasing the prime lens as it would be a bit sharper than the zoom. You might also find that another focal length would be better OR you may find out that you use most or all of the range of the zoom in which case you may not want a prime. Buy a lens based on what you actually use, not on what other landscape shooters are using.
May 6, 2017 03:11:37 #
Great photos - no. 2 had me going back for another look a few times
May 6, 2017 06:30:49 #
pkgoldberg wrote:
I do a lot of landscape photography using my Canon 18-135mm zoom. Worth it to purchase the 24mm fixed lens it appears many landscape photographers use?
It's a financial question. You have 24mm covered with your zoom.
May 6, 2017 06:51:01 #
Resqu2
Loc: SW Va
For landscape shots I love my Canon ef 16-35 f/4. I think it's the sharpest lens I have. Mine is on a full frame camera.
May 6, 2017 07:20:18 #
Jeffcs
Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina
Never let others have you chasing after gear
Be familiar and comfortable with your gear
What you will get over zooms is a bit more sharpness and a wider apture
My zooms are mostly straight 2.8 also increases weight while my primes are 1.8 to 1.2
Be familiar and comfortable with your gear
What you will get over zooms is a bit more sharpness and a wider apture
My zooms are mostly straight 2.8 also increases weight while my primes are 1.8 to 1.2
May 6, 2017 07:22:00 #
I very rarely use a zoom for landscapes. 35 to 28mm for landscapes, lower has too much distortion for me and a diopter (or numerous other named close-up filters) will turn most low 'mm' lens into a reasonable close-up lens. That included a 50mm on a medium format camera. That's just me.
May 6, 2017 08:03:28 #
arlo6060 wrote:
Great photos - no. 2 had me going back for another look a few times
Thanks! it was towards Yosemite Falls (out of the frame to the left) standing on the banks of the Merced River in Yosemite National Park.
May 6, 2017 08:09:03 #
pkgoldberg wrote:
I do a lot of landscape photography using my Canon 18-135mm zoom. Worth it to purchase the 24mm fixed lens it appears many landscape photographers use?
Since I do a lot of panoramics, I made the decision to use primes because they are faster than my zooms and while panning, it mitigates the risk of shifting the zoom ring even a little bit which would throw off the perspective from one shot to the next and you wouldn't know that until you were home trying to stitch them together.
I have found that in landscape orientation my 50 f1.4 is preferred. I frequently use my 85 f1.8 in portrait orientation and make my sweep with that. I get a closer view and I can reduce cropping significantly taking fuller advantage of the native resolution from the sensor. I use my 20 for nighttime sky shots; not trying to stitch together consecutive images as the star field shifts to the west and any horizon I might have on the water will not match up.
May 6, 2017 08:16:27 #
via the lens wrote:
It really depends on the look you want to achieve. If you want a vast, wide open look you need the wider aperture but you already have an 18mm, which is wider than the 24mm, so you can already achieve that look. If you want a more compressed look, you use the 135mm view. Unless the 24mm lens you are thinking of buying is a fixed lens or a very superior lens, I can see no reason to purchase it other than you just want to.
That's not completely accurate. The last image I posted was a panorama using a 100mm lens on a D800. It has that expansiveness without the extension distortion that is a necessary evil that comes with using a wide lens. You end up cropping the sky and foreground in most wide-ultra-wide shots anyway. In addition, I tend to go longer because they have much better corner to corner sharpness, and for landscape I would rarely use a fast aperture short lens anyway. However the Nikon 24 F1.4 is quite a lens with good to excellent sharpness, corner to corner, at F4 and smaller apertures. In certain situations it is the perfect lens, but not for that "expansive" look. My go to lenses for landscape are my 45mm and 85mm PC-E - which provide very useful tilt and shift.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.