Just wondering which lens folk out there would prefer for Landscape pics. I'm contemplating one of two, either 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4.
Any advice, views, or comments would be appreciated.
Depends on your camera to some extent, and .whether you are going for a "normal" or "wide" view. If you do *not* have a full frame camera, the 24mm for sure. For the "grand view" at least. f/1.4 will certainly be fine, but not essential. An f/1.8 prime will be considerably less expensive.
Also for more flexibility have you considered a good wide angle zoom? A 10-20 (yes I know considerably wider than even a 24 prime, but the Sigma constant f/3.5 is an excellent lens for an APS-C camera, very versatile) or a "classic" (for a full frame, but also excellent on an APS-C body) 12-24.
A "standard" high quality f/2.8 zoom (15-50 or so on an APS-C body, 24-70 for "full frame") would also serve you. I don't know what camera you have, but if Nikon, the 24-84 FX (one of the kit lenses on the D610) is an excellent performer and most reasonably priced; at the wide end it gets to f/3.5 nicely. I use it quite frequently on my D7100 most satisfactorily. Such lenses will do much more than landscapes; they are very useful general purpose "standard" lenses.
And of course, many such lenses, prime or zoom, will typically *not* be image stabilized, so you will get best results with a tripod, although hand-held at such short focal lengths can be just fine in good light. But look for the tripod as the light drops.
There are so many options for you, but in the end it comes down to your technique. Good technique can make any in-the-ballpark lens look good. Good luck!
Should have said, sorry; I'm using a canon 5D mkIII, which has full frame sensor. I should also have been clear that I favour a prime lens with the improved image and low light benefits.
Well then, you have a superb full frame camera, so don't skimp on quality lenses. So my first suggestion, it's the way I personally would go if you don't have it, would be the f/2.8 24-70. If you want to go wider the f/2.8 16-35. And if money is no object and you want a specialized super wide-angle zoom the new 11-24 f/4. But $3,000 for a specialized lens I don't think I personally could justify that. All the best.
For me Personally I like wider then 24mm and if you plan on getting into any night landscape photography you will want a wider lens for sure. On my full frame I shoot a rokinon 14mm 2.8 and on my crop sensor I have a 10mm- 20mm. I am mostly shooting night time landscapes on my full frame these days and I love the rokinon, some people might dismiss it because if is inexpensive but the quality is really wonderful. It is great for night but maybe no the best for daytime landscapes as it will not accept any filters if you are into that.
Here are a few images with the 14mm Rokinon
I would suggest investing in something wider than the 24 if you want WA. I use the Nikon 14-24 and love it, but don't think there is anything comparable by Canon. Others have suggested ones in the 10 to 20 range, I would definitely look into those. I prefer prime lenses, but for this, I like have the flexibility of the range, but still with good glass for the lens. It is as clear and sharp as my primes.
@taffy@bighotch The "somewhat equivalent" full frame Canon lenses to Taffy's great FX Nikon 14-24 ( I know it well) are the 16-35 and the (seemingly) stunning but insanely expensive 11-24 (that's insanely wide on a full frame body) as I mentioned above. But having never used them, only read reviews, I could not comment further.
Personally, for landscapes I'd sacrifice the aperture and get a wider angle (reason being, for really good landscapes you should be on a tripod, and thus can lower your shutter speed instead of using a wider aperture). I'm quite happy with my Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 The unique perspective you can get at the 12mm end more than makes up for the lens being "slower".
That said, if I was choosing between the two you mentioned, I'd go for the wider 24mm. I HAVE a sigma 35mm f/1.4, and I love it - but I use it more as a portraiture lens/indoor "just leave it on the camera" lens. For landscapes I often want to go wider.
@frankhymus
Thanks for that Frank, I do have 24-70mm lens but I feel image quality drops off at wider angle so was going to go with a quality prime.
The 11-24mm you mentioned would, even if I did have bottomless pockets, which I don't, would mean I couldn't use my filters because of the integrated lens hood.
Following peoples' comments I'm leaning towards the wider lens at the moment.
It's a real anxious time, spending hard earned cash on something that may turn out to be something that sits gathering dust!
@bighotch If you find yourself gravitating towards a particular lens, how about hiring one to try before you buy?
If you decide you like it, you'll have spent a little more than if you'd just bought it - but a rental payment is a lot less to lose than the cost of the lens (or a lot less bother than selling it on and you're unlikely to recoup your full initial outlay) if you find you don't like it.
I've done that a few times and it's been a great way of helping me make my mind up.
Unless you want to do Astro photography, also worth considering f4 versions for considerably less. Much easier on the budget and f4 is normally fine for most landscape work.
Of course, if money allows, faster is always better.
At the price range you are looking at you may want to consider renting the lenses first to see what works for you before a full investment. I use my wide angle zoom as my primary lens inn most cases.
@toast Regular Lens distortion? Barrel distortion at the wide end? Camera Raw/Lightroom Lens Corrections, the top slider on the Manual Tab, Distortion. Pull it towards the right to correct. The guide grid (V) can help you judge. It typically doesn't bother me too much on a landscape unlesss the horizon is obviously bowed.
@frankhymus yeah i think it barrel distortion.. although i always have issues trying to correct it in software. Maybe because of my shooting angle i'm also getting some issues with perspective
@toast Perhaps. "Yaw" (I think that is rotation about the vertical axis, anyway that's the one I mean, side to side angles of the focal plane) is by far the most awkward one to correct for. It should be that "horizontal perspective correction" should fix it, but the interconnection of the horizontals is a real bear. Much more so than the verticals I find. It takes a great feel and a lot of practice lining up against the viewfinder grid to get it "naturally" right by instinct.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Also for more flexibility have you considered a good wide angle zoom? A 10-20 (yes I know considerably wider than even a 24 prime, but the Sigma constant f/3.5 is an excellent lens for an APS-C camera, very versatile) or a "classic" (for a full frame, but also excellent on an APS-C body) 12-24.
A "standard" high quality f/2.8 zoom (15-50 or so on an APS-C body, 24-70 for "full frame") would also serve you. I don't know what camera you have, but if Nikon, the 24-84 FX (one of the kit lenses on the D610) is an excellent performer and most reasonably priced; at the wide end it gets to f/3.5 nicely. I use it quite frequently on my D7100 most satisfactorily. Such lenses will do much more than landscapes; they are very useful general purpose "standard" lenses.
And of course, many such lenses, prime or zoom, will typically *not* be image stabilized, so you will get best results with a tripod, although hand-held at such short focal lengths can be just fine in good light. But look for the tripod as the light drops.
There are so many options for you, but in the end it comes down to your technique. Good technique can make any in-the-ballpark lens look good. Good luck!
Here are a few images with the 14mm Rokinon
That said, if I was choosing between the two you mentioned, I'd go for the wider 24mm. I HAVE a sigma 35mm f/1.4, and I love it - but I use it more as a portraiture lens/indoor "just leave it on the camera" lens. For landscapes I often want to go wider.
Thanks for that Frank, I do have 24-70mm lens but I feel image quality drops off at wider angle so was going to go with a quality prime.
The 11-24mm you mentioned would, even if I did have bottomless pockets, which I don't, would mean I couldn't use my filters because of the integrated lens hood.
Following peoples' comments I'm leaning towards the wider lens at the moment.
It's a real anxious time, spending hard earned cash on something that may turn out to be something that sits gathering dust!
If you decide you like it, you'll have spent a little more than if you'd just bought it - but a rental payment is a lot less to lose than the cost of the lens (or a lot less bother than selling it on and you're unlikely to recoup your full initial outlay) if you find you don't like it.
I've done that a few times and it's been a great way of helping me make my mind up.
Of course, if money allows, faster is always better.
Not sure about the possibility of renting, I'll have to research that, thanks for the suggestion.
To anyone that shoots wider, how do you handle this distortion? or does it not bother you?