Yosemite Trip - 24mm wide enough?

kevindar · Jul 29, 2016

MPekala said:
Here's a situation:

Person A: "Is a 15mm wrench wide enough for this bolt?"

Person B (placing a 15 mm wrench on the bolt, finding that it fits): "Yes."

That answers the question.

Putting a 25mm wrench (or a 6mm wrench) on the bolt and saying "no" isn't as helpful.

Person A: I right now I am only allowed to stay up till 5 pm to watch tv, but I may be able to ask for more. is that late enough for good tv

Person B: Sure look, i watched Oprah at 4 pm. Its obviously good enough.

MPekala · Jul 29, 2016

Is it hard to fall asleep at 5pm?

kevindar · Jul 29, 2016

MPekala said:
Is it hard to fall asleep at 5pm?

does a tree make a sound when its upside down????????

cpharm86 · Jul 29, 2016

kevindar said:
MPekala said:

Is it hard to fall asleep at 5pm?

Click to expand...

does a tree make a sound when its upside down????????

Einst Stein · Jul 30, 2016

I have a 17-35mm f2.8 and a 4-85mm. I rarely need wider than 24mm. I am slitting half half beween the two lenses. I would take 17-35mm for its f2.8, but I rarely use it beyond 24mm. I would take 24-84mm when I want it a little smaller, and when I want to take more close up/portriat. Overall, I think 24~50mm covers 99.9% of my need.

This does not mean there is absolutely no use beyond 2mm, but I am yet to see any picture to show any compelling justification.

Go toheck out Ansel Adam Gallery, tell me which picture, includingtaken by other photographers, is taken by wider 24mm.

Dan_168 · Jul 30, 2016

Einst Stein said:
Go toheck out Ansel Adam Gallery, tell me which picture, includingtaken by other photographers, is taken by wider 24mm.

Now it's really funny, because Ansel Adams didn't use anything wider 24mm so now no one needs it, Ansel Adams didn't use a 50 MP FF DSLR and some carbon fiber tripod either I believe, so the OP better go find some classic wood tripod or he will never be able to create any masterpieces like the master, LOL.

plantdoc · Jul 30, 2016

Consider taking panoramic shots instead. Often an ultra wide will make everything seem to distant and lose the perspective you are seeing with your eyes. Not saying that an ultra wide is not useful but it takes some careful planning of the pics for the best results. Overall, I generally prefer pano pics but the problem is printing and displaying them compared to standard sized prints. May try renting an ultra wide before investing in one.

Greg

stratobill · Jul 30, 2016

wgravesphoto said:
KENTGA said:

You "talked" me into getting the 16-35 f4 for my upcoming trip to Y'stone in Sept and letting the 17-40 fall by the wayside. To answer the OP's question, I'd definitely get a wider lens.

To the OP- Be sure and visit Tunnel View and also drive up to Glacier Point for some afternoon photos. A tele would be good for both of these places.

Kent

Click to expand...

Is the 16-35 really that much better than the 17-40?

---
William Graves
www.wgravesphoto.com

I went from the 17-40 (couldn't get the corners sharp enough), to the 16-35 F2.8LII (a nice lens, corners pretty sharp at f8), sold that because I wasn't suing it much, then 2 weeks later the 16-35 F4LIS came out, and I bought that on a whim. The corners are good wide open and get really good stopped down a bit.

Normally I wouldn't be so cray about corners being perfect, but I think it's important for landscapes.

I don't think you can go wrong with the 16-35 F4.

stratobill · Jul 30, 2016

Dan_168 said:
wgravesphoto said:

Hey, folks! I am a wedding photographer taking a personal trip to Yosemite in a few weeks, and I have a decent selection of high quality lenses. But my largest concern is, being extremely inexperienced with landscape photography, whether or not 24mm is wide enough. I'll be shooting on a Canon 6D, so crop factor won't be an issue.

My Lenses:
24-70mm f/2.8L ii
70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii
50mm f/1.2L
100mm f/2.8L IS Macro

Click to expand...

In my opinion 24mm is wide enough for most cases, and in the case you need wider than that, you can simply do some stitching, with the LR or other software, that's becoming a pretty easy task these days. so I would just take the 24-70 on any hike and leave the rest behind, ideally i would suggest a 16-35 range but you don't have that listed, I personally always carry huge camera pack but just saying if you are not a crazy hiker just want to go out there to enjoy the view then lighter the pack, the easier for you. I hike/photograph there about 8-10 times a year and been up to most of the summit at the Tioga pass area and I found I mostly use the 14-50mm range a lot or the 300mm + end, not much between 100-300, but of course that has everything to do with personal preference.

Here is just some of the recent shots I share with friends, actually I may head up there this Friday after work and stay up in the Tioga pass area for some Milkyway shots.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskkrJ2mY

Really nice shots Dan! I haven't been there in quite a few years, and now I want to return!

To OP, there are several nice shots of a river with rocks in the foreground from Dan's page; these are the kind of shots that UWA lenses do well.

stratobill · Jul 30, 2016

plantdoc said:
Consider taking panoramic shots instead. Often an ultra wide will make everything seem to distant and lose the perspective you are seeing with your eyes. Not saying that an ultra wide is not useful but it takes some careful planning of the pics for the best results. Overall, I generally prefer pano pics but the problem is printing and displaying them compared to standard sized prints. May try renting an ultra wide before investing in one.

Greg

Yes, if that's what you are using UWA for. They are not just for wide shots. They are really useful for getting close foreground to background photos, for instance, as well.

wgravesphoto · Aug 15, 2016

Thanks so much, everyone. Your input has been very helpful. I've decided to rely on my 24-70 and 70-200 for my time in the park. This will keep my bag reasonably light.

---
William Graves
www.wgravesphoto.com

lighthunter80 · Aug 16, 2016

wgravesphoto said:
KENTGA said:

You "talked" me into getting the 16-35 f4 for my upcoming trip to Y'stone in Sept and letting the 17-40 fall by the wayside. To answer the OP's question, I'd definitely get a wider lens.

To the OP- Be sure and visit Tunnel View and also drive up to Glacier Point for some afternoon photos. A tele would be good for both of these places.

Kent

Click to expand...

Is the 16-35 really that much better than the 17-40?

---
William Graves
www.wgravesphoto.com

Yes it is.

asr10user · Aug 16, 2016

I have only primes and am debating between the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 as a general walk around lens. I like landscapes more than anything. I am also wondering if I will need to go wider than 24mm. The consensus seems to say no.

I previously had the Rokinon 14mm and it was way too wide for me.

Lawn Lends · Aug 16, 2016

asr10user said:
I have only primes and am debating between the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 as a general walk around lens. I like landscapes more than anything. I am also wondering if I will need to go wider than 24mm. The consensus seems to say no.

I previously had the Rokinon 14mm and it was way too wide for me.

For me, 24mm is a sweet spot, it is usually wide enough when I need something wide and it is not "boring" like pretty any FL between 28 and 50.

But when you are going to a "special" place that calls out for wide angles, 24mm will probably only be adequate, not great.

Of course, when there is no motion in the scenes (wind, birds, water flowing, cars....), stitching might cover for a good WA lens.

Search

Yosemite Trip - 24mm wide enough?

kevindar

Senior Member

MPekala

Well-known member

kevindar

Senior Member

cpharm86

Senior Member

Einst Stein

Leading Member

Dan_168

Forum Pro

plantdoc

Senior Member

stratobill

Senior Member

stratobill

Senior Member

stratobill

Senior Member

wgravesphoto

Active member

lighthunter80

Senior Member

asr10user

Well-known member

Lawn Lends

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts