Dr.S

Landscape lens

6 posts in this topic

I need some input on this question.
After long deliberation the final lens candidates are the 16mm and the 10-24 mm zoom.

I know that both are big and heavy - not a problem. 
I intend to use the lens on small aperture - above f5.6 - exclusively for landscape.

I would like to know landscape shooters opinion.

Thanx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 10-24 gives you more options. I would take the 16 only if I needed low light capability or shallow depth of field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I like using the 18-55 f2.8-4.0 particularly when I'm walking into a national park. Its versatility and weight allow me to cover most situations. I also carry the 14mm f2.8 for the occasional need of a super wide angle shot. (See the image below of the rocks in the harbour in the SW of Tasmania.)

However, a telephoto lens is good for picking up a feature, like a house against a background of mountains. A telephoto will also remove the extraneous fore and background details so your eye is led into the feature. For this reason I cart in or carry the 50-140 mm (weighing in a 1 kg or 2.2 lbs).

Another approach, I suspect one which is looked down on or undervalued, is to use the panorama mode set to 120 degrees and the camera on portrait (ie: vertically), I then set the 18-55 lens to 18 mm and often get a pleasing result. I've attached two pics using this method. The bottom photo is using the 14mm. 

At the moment, I am thinking of getting a small telephoto like the 55 f1.2, and also an 18 mm which would be used with my 23mm and 14mm. (I usually leave the 23mm on and only use the 18-55 occasionally.) This would reduce some of the bulk and weight I carry. I was even considering buying the new x100F as it offers: 23 mm lens, big pixels, panorama and the built in telephoto ability. I survived relatively happy with the x100 for 18 months when it came out and got some stunning landscapes using the panorama method as described above.

 58cf1a95cffe6_SScene2.jpg.31e3a99f395295474181e529ecbf7203.jpg58cf1ace79156_SSunset2.jpg.ecf8f07cd0c2b07ff268e12b5075b083.jpg

Hidden Bay rocks S.jpg

Edited by robthebruce
Updated and corrected.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own both the 16 and the 10-24.  Deciding between them for Landscape would be difficult.  The zoom of the 10-24 definitely provides a bit more versatility when shooting a landscape photo and it can definitely go wider than the 16.  It is an outstanding lens for landscape work.

The f1.4 speed and sharpness of the 16 mm is something I could not give up though.  The 16 mm is a spectacular lens you can also use for close up work.  The wide angle and speed make it also good for night work.  The wide angle of course makes it great for landscape.  It is a very versatile lens that I find on my camera likely more often than any other lens.  My only complaint about the 16 mm is that is makes my post processing take A LOT longer.  Instead of filtering out the majority of images to process only a few, with the 16 mm 99% are keepers and I have to process ALL of them :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both and when I go out to shoot landscape/city and general outdoors walk-around it is the 10-24/4 every time.  Love how sharp it is and the IS is great for me pushing longer shutter speeds when handheld.

The 16/1.4 is strictly for when I'm indoors and need fast glass.  And that is when that lens (for me) really shines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now