Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

Started May 21, 2013 | Questions
Doug_PS
Doug_PS Contributing Member • Posts: 801
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?
1

Collett wrote:

Doug_PS wrote:

Collett Wrote:

I have the 24f2.8IS and it's a really nice lens.  The colors, contrast, micro contrast, flare control, and saturation are top notch.  The IS comes in handy for low light landscape or interiors where you don't have a tripod.  Here is a link to a review.  The 28F2.8IS is very similar and a bit cheaper.  Here are some shots with the 24F2.8IS (all hand held).

Collett,  Great Photos!  Just curious to know if you used a polarizer filter and/or Graduated ND filter for any of those photos?  Tremendous color and balance.  I just bought the 24 2.8 IS primarily to use for landscapes, architecture and indoors when traveling.  I'm curious if a polarizer filter is a good match for this lens?  Or, is 24mm (on Full Frame), pushing the limits a bit to much for a polarizer?

Many thanks.  Yes, 24mm on FF is pushing it for using a polarizing filter.  That said, I believe I did use one on shots 3-5 (definitely on # 5).  The problem however is that you often need to crop the corners from the very strong 'vignetting' caused by the filter under many conditions (depends on angle of the light - and happens often when a polarizer is normally most effective).

I am guessing that the fov of 24mm needs to be cropped to 28mm or narrower when using a polarizing filter.  I bought a 'normal' BW circular polarizing filter before I knew they apparently make thinner ones that reduce the vignetting affect.  You might want to check on this because I don't know how effective they are.

I should also mention that I believe shots 3 and 4 are HDR's performed in camera on the 5dIII.  I am able to hand hold and sometimes get some good HDRs if the SS is fast enough and there are no people or other moving objects for the HDR shots.

I had my new ND set in the bag when I took these, but I had a couple of other people with me and did not want to screw around with using them Sometimes its better to just shoot alone, but not always practical when one is traveling

Thanks for all of the info!  I've ordered a couple of sizes a B+W polarizer to test with the 24 2.8 IS.  One is a 58mm thread size and the other is a 67mm (Along with a 58-67 step-up ring for the 67mm filter).  Both are normal thickness MRC versions (not the thin versions).   If the 57mm causes vignetting and the 67mm version does not.....I'll probably go with the 67.  The reason I'm testing the 67mm......I'm strongly considering also picking up the 35 2.0 IS ....if the prices ever drop! It has 67mm threads....so could use the filter on both.  My ND Grad is a 4x6 Lee rectangular that I hand hold.....so not an issue there.

I've heard that the B&H thin filters do not have front threads making it tough to attach a lens cap...haven't done a lot of research though.

 Doug_PS's gear list:Doug_PS's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M6 Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM +9 more
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,407
Re: Level of understanding

ILeicaPictures wrote:

Thank you BAK.

BAK wrote:

As I read these points, I wonder just how much you know.

How much do I know about what?

1. I have the 24-105. Love the picture quality, but want to see if I can get anything better.

2. I also have the Canon 50mm F1.8. Not that impressed with the color tones.

3. I'm planning to buy a Samyang 14mm. I've seen good reviews on it. The manual focus is something I'd prefer (I also own a Fujifilm X-E1 and am planning to use it with the Samyang).

Thoughts:

We have not been told what your end result is, but for 16x20 or smaller prints of landscapes, you won't get anything better than the 24-105, used properly.

Perhaps you are right and that was exactly my question - is there anything better than 24-105.

The comment about 50mm colors makes no sense. Digital photography is designed to allow tiny, tiny modifications in color, much more precise and much more easily than with dozens of different films.

I'll try to explain. Some lenses such as the 24-105 and even my 100-400 produce colors that are quite close to reality (or my perception of it anyway). I don't get the same effect from the 50mm f1.8. Perhaps I had a bad copy. I am not trying to put the 50mm f1.8; just saying that my experience isn't as good. I did speak to a photographer who runs a store and his feedback was that instead, the 50mm f1.4 produces beautiful colors.

The 50mm f1,8 is not very contrasty, and a tad "cold". It is not strange you are not grabbed by its colours. I never like that lens much either, but of course in post processing one can improve its output and make it look really impressive.

But we don't know what form the image is in when you look at these colors that don't impress you. Prints? What kindofpaper? Computers? With calibrated monitors? What is the room light like?

I understand the reason for these questions. However, this is not a criteria I am considering. The needs vary. Sometimes small prints, sometimes very large, sometimes just a dell monitor in a room with "normal" lighting.

And 14mm is awfully wide for landscapes. You need a huge print in order to get elements in a landscape big enough to actually see.

Thanks. That is really good feedback and something I need to consider. Perhaps I can use this lens on the Fuji X-E1 with a 1.5 crop factor.

It will make that Fuji, which would shine because of its small size/weight, big and heavy. Odd idea.

ANYWAY: the just-discontinued 35mm f2 lens is great for so-called full frame landscapes.

Thank you. Could you please expand on this ? What aspects of the 35mm f2 did you particularly like?

The Canon EF 35mm f2 is a nice lens. It has smooth bokeh for close ups, and is relatively light and small. however, I would not recommend it for FF landscape stuff as its extreme corners on FF leaves a bit to be desired. Better suited for street photography of the corners are not attention grabbing.

Better suited will be its follow up, the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM. Better in the corners, a bit more contrasty and a tad nicer colours. Whether 35mm is wide enough for you, you can test with your 24-105mm.

Other candidates (obviously) and the new EF 28mm f2.8 IS USM, and 24mm f2.8 IS USM. Again, you can test the focal length with your current lens.

Another lens, a little longer, is the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM.

If you want wider than your current 24-105mm lens, then look at the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SLII. Nicer than most reviews lead you to believe, and especially stopped down to/past f5,6 it really shines, Unusually contrasty. MF only, but that should not be a problem at all. And lovely build quality.

BAK

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: Level of understanding

brightcolours wrote:

ILeicaPictures wrote:

Thank you BAK.

BAK wrote:

As I read these points, I wonder just how much you know.

How much do I know about what?

1. I have the 24-105. Love the picture quality, but want to see if I can get anything better.

2. I also have the Canon 50mm F1.8. Not that impressed with the color tones.

3. I'm planning to buy a Samyang 14mm. I've seen good reviews on it. The manual focus is something I'd prefer (I also own a Fujifilm X-E1 and am planning to use it with the Samyang).

Thoughts:

We have not been told what your end result is, but for 16x20 or smaller prints of landscapes, you won't get anything better than the 24-105, used properly.

Perhaps you are right and that was exactly my question - is there anything better than 24-105.

The comment about 50mm colors makes no sense. Digital photography is designed to allow tiny, tiny modifications in color, much more precise and much more easily than with dozens of different films.

I'll try to explain. Some lenses such as the 24-105 and even my 100-400 produce colors that are quite close to reality (or my perception of it anyway). I don't get the same effect from the 50mm f1.8. Perhaps I had a bad copy. I am not trying to put the 50mm f1.8; just saying that my experience isn't as good. I did speak to a photographer who runs a store and his feedback was that instead, the 50mm f1.4 produces beautiful colors.

The 50mm f1,8 is not very contrasty, and a tad "cold". It is not strange you are not grabbed by its colours. I never like that lens much either, but of course in post processing one can improve its output and make it look really impressive.

But we don't know what form the image is in when you look at these colors that don't impress you. Prints? What kindofpaper? Computers? With calibrated monitors? What is the room light like?

I understand the reason for these questions. However, this is not a criteria I am considering. The needs vary. Sometimes small prints, sometimes very large, sometimes just a dell monitor in a room with "normal" lighting.

And 14mm is awfully wide for landscapes. You need a huge print in order to get elements in a landscape big enough to actually see.

Thanks. That is really good feedback and something I need to consider. Perhaps I can use this lens on the Fuji X-E1 with a 1.5 crop factor.

It will make that Fuji, which would shine because of its small size/weight, big and heavy. Odd idea.

ANYWAY: the just-discontinued 35mm f2 lens is great for so-called full frame landscapes.

Thank you. Could you please expand on this ? What aspects of the 35mm f2 did you particularly like?

The Canon EF 35mm f2 is a nice lens. It has smooth bokeh for close ups, and is relatively light and small. however, I would not recommend it for FF landscape stuff as its extreme corners on FF leaves a bit to be desired. Better suited for street photography of the corners are not attention grabbing.

Better suited will be its follow up, the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM. Better in the corners, a bit more contrasty and a tad nicer colours. Whether 35mm is wide enough for you, you can test with your 24-105mm.

Other candidates (obviously) and the new EF 28mm f2.8 IS USM, and 24mm f2.8 IS USM. Again, you can test the focal length with your current lens.

Another lens, a little longer, is the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM.

If you want wider than your current 24-105mm lens, then look at the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SLII. Nicer than most reviews lead you to believe, and especially stopped down to/past f5,6 it really shines, Unusually contrasty. MF only, but that should not be a problem at all. And lovely build quality.

Does the Voigtlander 20mm in Canon mount have electronic coupling for metering and focus confirmation like Zeiss MF lenses? Looks like an interesting option.  How is the corner sharpness at F5.6 on FF? Do you have any images you could show on FF?

I have heard of this lens before and it looks interesting.  Thanks for bringing it up again because I forgot about it.

BAK

-- hide signature --

Jim

brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,407
Re: Level of understanding

Collett wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

ILeicaPictures wrote:

Thank you BAK.

BAK wrote:

As I read these points, I wonder just how much you know.

How much do I know about what?

1. I have the 24-105. Love the picture quality, but want to see if I can get anything better.

2. I also have the Canon 50mm F1.8. Not that impressed with the color tones.

3. I'm planning to buy a Samyang 14mm. I've seen good reviews on it. The manual focus is something I'd prefer (I also own a Fujifilm X-E1 and am planning to use it with the Samyang).

Thoughts:

We have not been told what your end result is, but for 16x20 or smaller prints of landscapes, you won't get anything better than the 24-105, used properly.

Perhaps you are right and that was exactly my question - is there anything better than 24-105.

The comment about 50mm colors makes no sense. Digital photography is designed to allow tiny, tiny modifications in color, much more precise and much more easily than with dozens of different films.

I'll try to explain. Some lenses such as the 24-105 and even my 100-400 produce colors that are quite close to reality (or my perception of it anyway). I don't get the same effect from the 50mm f1.8. Perhaps I had a bad copy. I am not trying to put the 50mm f1.8; just saying that my experience isn't as good. I did speak to a photographer who runs a store and his feedback was that instead, the 50mm f1.4 produces beautiful colors.

The 50mm f1,8 is not very contrasty, and a tad "cold". It is not strange you are not grabbed by its colours. I never like that lens much either, but of course in post processing one can improve its output and make it look really impressive.

But we don't know what form the image is in when you look at these colors that don't impress you. Prints? What kindofpaper? Computers? With calibrated monitors? What is the room light like?

I understand the reason for these questions. However, this is not a criteria I am considering. The needs vary. Sometimes small prints, sometimes very large, sometimes just a dell monitor in a room with "normal" lighting.

And 14mm is awfully wide for landscapes. You need a huge print in order to get elements in a landscape big enough to actually see.

Thanks. That is really good feedback and something I need to consider. Perhaps I can use this lens on the Fuji X-E1 with a 1.5 crop factor.

It will make that Fuji, which would shine because of its small size/weight, big and heavy. Odd idea.

ANYWAY: the just-discontinued 35mm f2 lens is great for so-called full frame landscapes.

Thank you. Could you please expand on this ? What aspects of the 35mm f2 did you particularly like?

The Canon EF 35mm f2 is a nice lens. It has smooth bokeh for close ups, and is relatively light and small. however, I would not recommend it for FF landscape stuff as its extreme corners on FF leaves a bit to be desired. Better suited for street photography of the corners are not attention grabbing.

Better suited will be its follow up, the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM. Better in the corners, a bit more contrasty and a tad nicer colours. Whether 35mm is wide enough for you, you can test with your 24-105mm.

Other candidates (obviously) and the new EF 28mm f2.8 IS USM, and 24mm f2.8 IS USM. Again, you can test the focal length with your current lens.

Another lens, a little longer, is the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM.

If you want wider than your current 24-105mm lens, then look at the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SLII. Nicer than most reviews lead you to believe, and especially stopped down to/past f5,6 it really shines, Unusually contrasty. MF only, but that should not be a problem at all. And lovely build quality.

Does the Voigtlander 20mm in Canon mount have electronic coupling for metering and focus confirmation like Zeiss MF lenses?

Canon cameras do not need coupling for metering. I do not own this lens yet, but the Canon versions do not have the aperture rings the Nikon versions have, so the aperture is camera controlled. And the lens does support focus confirmation.

Looks like an interesting option.  How is the corner sharpness at F5.6 on FF? Do you have any images you could show on FF?

While the lens does not measure super impressively in the corners, in practice it seems to perform really nicely due to its low CA and very high contrast.

I have heard of this lens before and it looks interesting.  Thanks for bringing it up again because I forgot about it.

BAK

-- hide signature --

Jim

Jim Cassatt Veteran Member • Posts: 4,868
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

Since you have the X-E1, pony up the $$$ and buy the 14 mm f2.8.  I have the lens and you can believe the reviews. There is nothing better on the market.

When buying equipment only cry once.

-- hide signature --
 Jim Cassatt's gear list:Jim Cassatt's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 300D Fujifilm X-E1 +24 more
billythek Veteran Member • Posts: 5,260
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

ILeicaPictures wrote:

Thank you for your reply. I'm looking for a lens in addition to the Samyang 14mm. I have a good Manfrotto tripod. However, it is not always practical to take it along because of the weight. Lately, I have a renewed interest in pictures with good bokeh and hence, the fast lens.

Definitely start with the Samyang 14mm.  It is the best bang for the buck out there.  And get the lens profile for LR to fix the distortion.

My other suggestions are probably outside your price range: 24-70II, Zeiss 21, TS-E 17 or 24.

You might check out the new tilt-shift lens from Samyang.  I heard they are pre-ordering, but don't know if they are shipping yet.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

 billythek's gear list:billythek's gear list
DxO One Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

billythek wrote:

ILeicaPictures wrote:

Thank you for your reply. I'm looking for a lens in addition to the Samyang 14mm. I have a good Manfrotto tripod. However, it is not always practical to take it along because of the weight. Lately, I have a renewed interest in pictures with good bokeh and hence, the fast lens.

Definitely start with the Samyang 14mm.  It is the best bang for the buck out there.  And get the lens profile for LR to fix the distortion.

My other suggestions are probably outside your price range: 24-70II, Zeiss 21, TS-E 17 or 24.

Agreed. I picked up 17 TS-E for UWA shooting. Sure I need a bit more time to prepare shots including hand-held but its IQ is better than any UWA lens from edge to edge in average sharpness, actually wider than at least 16mm or would close to 14mm after fixing the vertical perspective (that I always do now as converging verticals simply look ugly), very little distortion. 24-70L II can compete to any 24mm lenses including 24 TS-E II at 24mm (but latter is wider after fixing vertical perspective, therefore I sold 24 TS-E II and bought 17 TS-E for UW shooting purpose) to 70mm (as sharp as but L primes are still better in bokeh and can shoot below F2.8). I sold 17-40L short ago despite it's a pretty good zoom (except relative soft edges/corners). I can live in the gap between 17 and 24mm.

You might check out the new tilt-shift lens from Samyang.  I heard they are pre-ordering, but don't know if they are shipping yet.

Lensrentals has a quick review of Samyang 24mm TS-E recently that is very good. It's much cheaper than Canon copy. In the holiday season that usually has the best price, you can get Canon 24 TS-E II around $1800 (I bought $1809 from Adoroma in Dec 2011) and can get a used copy around $1700 in eBay.  So the difference is smaller than one with list price.  Canon version is still better at F3.5 wide open and likely has better build quality and durability but Samyang version is close when stop down. Nevertheless so far Canon 17mm TS-E is unique and no competitors.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

-- hide signature --
Rakumi Veteran Member • Posts: 6,234
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

I use the canon 28mm 1.8 but i use crop so this is more like a normal focal length for me as well as i use it mostly for indoor/people photography.  You did not say you need super wide so maybe this or the sigma could be an option.  Do you shoot raw or jpeg?  If you shoot jpeg, try getting familiar with the picture style system to deal with color issues

-- hide signature --

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

BAK Forum Pro • Posts: 23,847
Re: Level of understanding

The 35mm f2 lens is relatively  inexpensive, sharp, compact, and has a field of view that gets lots in the picture without obvious stretching and distortion and perspective problems.

BAK

dbledsoe Contributing Member • Posts: 771
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

The Canon 24mm f/2.8 NON USM lens is a bargain.  It's a wee bit noisy but who cares for landscape.  It's cheap and it is sharp.  Get one while you can before the 24/2.8 IS causes its discontinuance at three or more times the price of the original.  I bought mine several years ago and it is my most used lens.  Very compact, inexpensive, lightweight, and sharp stopped down a bit (think f/4) but even at 2.8 is is great for the price.

-- hide signature --

'The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.'
Bruce Cockburn

rebel99 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,025
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

Jim Cassatt wrote:

Since you have the X-E1, pony up the $$$ and buy the 14 mm f2.8.  I have the lens and you can believe the reviews. There is nothing better on the market.

When buying equipment only cry once.

hi jim, i have the canon tse17mm and when i take shots of landscape, things look pretty small, such as mountains, trees, etc how is your experience with 14mm f2.8, could you post a landscape photo, plz? thanks.

cheerz.

carnac
carnac Regular Member • Posts: 433
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

How about a different direction?...I've found the Canon 70-200/4L to be an excellent landscape lens, even for very wide angle shots - just stitch several together. The resolution is fantastic. The 70-200/4L is very inexpensive and the longer focal length makes it easier to include a nice item of interest in foreground.

I often use a UWA lens for landscapes (Canon 16-35/2.8L) and love the look, but thought I'd throw out the telephoto as an other option - the sharpness is remarkable.

-- hide signature --

Jim 'Carnac' Carnahan

 carnac's gear list:carnac's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +4 more
Gunzorro Senior Member • Posts: 1,889
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

I'm always pleased with the quality of the original EF 28/2.8. It's very cheap too! You'll be surprised what you can get it for used on eBay (around $150).

I like the old EF 35/2 also, for around $250 used.

The Samyang 35/1.4 is pretty impressive for the price.

Not really wide angle, but the new pancake 40/2.8 is pretty nice, and you can't beat the price. Makes a good pair with the 28/2.8, above.

Otherwise, regardless of price, I prefer the 17/4L TS-E, 24/3.5L TS-E and 16-35L II.

OP ILeicaPictures Junior Member • Posts: 34
Re: Lens for landscape photography with Full Frame?

Thank you billythek, qianp2k, Collett,  happysnapper64, BAK, brightcolours, Kevin Jorgensen, biza43, MirekE, Rakumi, Jim Cassatt, dbledsoe, carnac, Gunzorro.

Your feedback is very helpful.

I apologize for not replying sooner, but I've been down with cold.

I recently got delivery of the Samyang 14mm lens and am going to try it out before deciding on my other lens. The focal length will be a huge factor.

I have to say this, I tried my 5DII with 24-105 with another camera / lens combo (won't be saying which one because I haven't fully learned how to use it plus I don't want to start any kind of provocative discussion) and have to say that it made me realize how versatile my 5DII and 24-105 is. I also want to clarify to everyone that I am fully satisfied with my 24-105 and don't have any complaints. I was merely exploring if there were any other options in prime lenses.

I'm not in any hurry to decide but am going to consider the 16-35mm, 17mm TSE and the Voigtlander 20mm over the coming weeks / months.

Thank you once again.

Regards,

S

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads