Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

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.
  • Like 2

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
On 3/19/2017 at 8:06 PM, robthebruce said:

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

Beautiful images, great advice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:17 PM, kgkigiiii said:

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.

Agreed - most people don't need a fast aperture wide angle lens for landscape photography - therefore you are paying a lot of money for performance (fast aperture) that you don't need.  It also makes the lens bigger and heavier.

We have discussed "what lens is best for landscape" many times here, and on other forums.  It would be useful to see landscape work you take, or others work you aspire to - because there is often a misconception that "landscape = ultra wide angle".

Lots of landscapes are taken with standard zooms or even tele-zooms, as wide angle lenses make the horizon appear very far away and make all the details very tiny.  They also only work on compositions where there is some foreground interest to fill the frame, otherwise compositions are full of full foreground near the camera without much to see, with tiny details off on the horizon.

I would politely suggest that an 18-55 or a 55-200 or both might be better suited to landscape work - but it really depends on what you are trying to achieve.  I use a 16-35mm (full frame) for cityscapes and skylines, but may often shoot in the 28-35mm focal length (full frame), and often use a 24-70mm zoom instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, artuk said:

Agreed - most people don't need a fast aperture wide angle lens for landscape photography - therefore you are paying a lot of money for performance (fast aperture) that you don't need.  It also makes the lens bigger and heavier.

We have discussed "what lens is best for landscape" many times here, and on other forums.  It would be useful to see landscape work you take, or others work you aspire to - because there is often a misconception that "landscape = ultra wide angle".

Lots of landscapes are taken with standard zooms or even tele-zooms, as wide angle lenses make the horizon appear very far away and make all the details very tiny.  They also only work on compositions where there is some foreground interest to fill the frame, otherwise compositions are full of full foreground near the camera without much to see, with tiny details off on the horizon.

I would politely suggest that an 18-55 or a 55-200 or both might be better suited to landscape work - but it really depends on what you are trying to achieve.  I use a 16-35mm (full frame) for cityscapes and skylines, but may often shoot in the 28-35mm focal length (full frame), and often use a 24-70mm zoom instead.

I agree with Artuk's advice and would add that with modern software it is easy to take several photos to stitch together giving better results than the panorama feature. To begin with you can shoot raw rather then pano jpg only, to enable better recovery of highlights which can be an especial problem in wide vistas. Even then of course you should shoot in fixed manual exposure (ISO too), biased toward the brightest part of the scene so as not to have overlapping exposure changes. keep the feet still and swivel. Easy really and Adobe's LR or PS will do the stitching or free, Microsoft ICE but I think the latter is JPG only.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, farrell said:

A "landscape lens" is any used to shoot a landscape, ever.

Farrell, you are a very inteligent guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dr.S said:

Farrell, you are a very inteligent guy.

If I were I probably wouldn't be puzzled by such descriptors as 'landscape lens".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the 10-24mm and I have the 50-230 for those intimate shots. I traded in my 18-55mm to get the 10-24mm and have missed the 24-50 range more then I thought I would.

But like has been said any lens is a landscape lens

 

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


  • Similar Content

    • By ZKUP
      Hi! 
      Selling my beloved X-Pro2 kit since need a little lighter set-up. Would be interested in a trade to X100F.
      X-PRO2 body + metal grip (improves ergonomics)
      Bought in EU, should still have a valid warranty. Light usage marks, but nothing significant. Box and all the regular stuff included. 
      Fujicron XF23 F2
      Bought in Japan. There is a warranty card, not sure if warranty works in EU. Box, covers, and all the regular stuff included. The lens is in perfect condition, a few scuffs on the hood. I'll add an extra metal screw-on lens hood.
      I'm asking for 1490€ for the set.
      Located in Vilnius, Lithuania, but it's pretty cheap shipping anywhere in the world from there.
      I also have an XF14 for sale for 550€, if someone would be interested.

    • By veejaycee
      Cures the problem of XP2 freezing-up in CH mode.
      http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/xpro2/download.html
    • By Dennis
      I am still hanging on to my X-Pro 1 but existing case needs to be replaced and I have spotted a few halfcases – nothing on the back, little on the sides and mounted with a screw in the tripod mount. But nowadays most of these are for X-Pro2; is the tripod mount in the exact same location? The AF switch?
      Surely, someone will be quick and point that I should just move on to X-Pro 2 - and I might at some point. Maybe I should just buy a case, and if doesn’t fit, buy the X-Pro 2… 


×