Does anyone use a 35mm for landscapes?

[asr10user]

I just ordered a 6D and was looking at getting either the 17-40mm f4 or the rokinon 14mm. But after seeing incredible images of from the 35mm Sigma 1.4, I am thinking of getting this lens and using only this lens for everything (besides by 85mm for portraits)

Does anyone have experience with using only a single 35mm for landscapes? I guess I could always do a pano, but I hope 35mm isnt too long.

 

[The Irish Coast]

My own experience has been that for landscapes, you will more often find yourself in a position of wanting to go wider, than you will wanting to go longer.

I also bought a 6D and have teamed it up with a Canon 16-35mm L mk2, Canon 24-105mm L, Canon 70-300mm L and a Canon 40mm.

Personally I can't imagine being stuck with the 40mm for landscape as I usually reach for the 16-35 or the 70-300. In your position, with the benefit of hindsight, I would go for the 17-40mm as the 16-35mm is a bit unnecessary and probably isn't worth the premium.

However, if it is within your price range I would give some consideration to the new 16-35mm L, which I understand is a superb lens. You can read a good review here:

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/

Feel free to also check out my website. All of the latest images have been taken on the 6D.

 

[SoupOrPhoto]

I'm no pro but have used the Sigma 35 1.4 for some of my best landscape shots. I also found it fantastic for general photography, snapshots of the family (especially in poor lighting), and night/astrophotography. But it is big and expensive.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

I think it matters a good deal what type of landscape you are shooting and what the surrounding topography looks like. I looked through 3 or 4 trips and find I am all over the place with lens choice. I use a 24-80 and 70-200 zooms and shot about 1/4 of my shots between 24 and 34 mm, but also shoot a good deal in the 80 to 180 range. I think the zoom for landscape would suit your needs better than the fixed 35mm lens. For seascapes it might be different (less rugged topography) than the mountain scenes I typically shoot. I suspect I'd be wider more often in shooting lake or seascape scenes.

 

[hypercore360]

There is no such thing as a "landscape' lens. It's whatever works best for the situation, and the photographer knowing what to use. I have used 70-200 quite a lot for landscapes. Just depends what the subject is...

 

[osv]

Does anyone have experience with using only a single 35mm for landscapes? I guess I could always do a pano, but I hope 35mm isnt too long.

what you are shooting would be a factor... flat ground in the midwest, or standing on a cliff at the grand canyon.

35mm prime on ff rocks, it's definitely not too long... it works better as a prime than at the end of a wide zoom, where zoom lenses are typically at their weakest point.

for landscapes, i like 28mm primes on ff, because they generally render close foreground objects in better focus than 35mm primes do, but each has it's purpose... sometimes you don't want too much foreground, 35mm works there.

why not get an old 35mm prime, take it out with that 40mm stm you have, and do a bit of testing at landscape distances... you might be surprised at how much of a difference 5mm really makes.

--
dan

 

[biza43]

Buying a fast lens to shoot landscapes is a waste. Any good quality zoom shot at typical landscape apertures will be more than adequate. For Canon, the best is 16-35 f4 L.

Of course the 35mm focal length can be used for general vista landscapes, no problem.











--
www.paulobizarro.com

PauloBizarroPHOTOBLOG – Some of my photography

 

[asr10user]

I'm no pro but have used the Sigma 35 1.4 for some of my best landscape shots. I also found it fantastic for general photography, snapshots of the family (especially in poor lighting), and night/astrophotography. But it is big and expensive.

Can I get a link to some of your work? Would love to see some examples. Its a bit hard to find certain images on flickr.

 

[NancyP]

The Sigma Art 35 is my single most-used landscape lens. And, in fact, it is the default walk-about lens on my 6D. And I also use the pancake 40mm on occasion, mostly when I am carrying multiple lenses. The pancake is a PITA to manually focus, but I can live with it. It is my "just in case" landscape lens when out shooting macros or telephoto.

It depends on the type of landscapes you are interested in composing. The perspective of a 35mm lens on full frame is still pretty natural, whereas the 20 to 24mm lenses have distinct perspective distortion that is great in some situations, and overkill in other situations. I shoot a lot of photos in woodlands.

 

[NancyP]

Agreed - but a "wide normal prime" like 35mm on FF can function for landscape as well as low light shots. A good f/2 35mm lens could be the ticket for a good compromise on weight and speed/cost.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Does anyone use a 35mm for landscapes?

Nobody uses those because your pictures would be like all the others.

(Couldn't resist.)

 

[BBbuilder467]

I just ordered a 6D and was looking at getting either the 17-40mm f4 or the rokinon 14mm. But after seeing incredible images of from the 35mm Sigma 1.4, I am thinking of getting this lens and using only this lens for everything (besides by 85mm for portraits)

Does anyone have experience with using only a single 35mm for landscapes? I guess I could always do a pano, but I hope 35mm isnt too long.

I was surprised to find that the bulk of my landscapes are at 35mm (equivalent). I prefer the 50mm focal length as a prime, but I found it very uncomfortable to not have a zoom lens that doesn't overlap the 35mm focal length. These shallow mountains and valleys with all the foliage and rivers and streams must just favor it.

 

[Bing Chow]

Yep. And I wanna go longer still.

 

[Andaremos]

I use the 35mm and 50mm lenses for landscape. I prefer a more natural look to the images without the usual wide angle distortion. I want my distant mountains to maintain some size and not flatten out. More extreme wide angles excel when you have strong foreground elements in the scene. I have not been able to find those compositions frequently.

 

[biza43]

Agreed - but a "wide normal prime" like 35mm on FF can function for landscape as well as low light shots. A good f/2 35mm lens could be the ticket for a good compromise on weight and speed/cost.

 

[I Shoot Raw]

I do- I use a 28-80 USM 0n a EOS 1 D MK 4 and at 1.3X crop it brings it up to about 35mm I use aperture priority, F 8 in auto ISO mode.

You may all think cheapo lens on a Pro body (LOL) but it works ideal anyway I find that anything wider distorts the image-m I paid £ 3700 for the body back in 2010 and the sales assistant said "Yeah you can use all your lenses off your EOS 50E film camera they will all work" of which I have had for ten years. I also have The First of The EF 75-300 and can tell you it has a groove to clip the hood on.

Yes you can use a 35mm focal length its a standard wide angle you will just have to walk back a bit - as long as you dont walk back off a slop bridge or cliff like I did and broke my collar bone ( protecting the camera of course).

Seriously sometimes you have to crop wide angle images to take out the vignetting or distortion and just think you have a Leica 111F with 35mm Elmar the widest lense they had nothings changed.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

This thread is 4 1/2 years old. Please let it die.

 

[I Shoot Raw]

Oh sorry I did not know that !

 

[mfinley]

This thread is 4 1/2 years old. Please let it die.

Yes, please. Especially a thread where somebody is looking for their single "Landscape" lens, ignoring the fact that landscapes are shot using lenses from super wide to telephoto and everything in-between. It's right on par with the "what lens should I take to Thailand?" type threads.

 

[Keoghan]

For Thailand, i'd suggest any lens around f2.8 so you can track those ping pong balls.

lol.