Landscape lens - Prime or Zoom?

A

Apache_sim

Suspended / Banned
Messages
45
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
I would like to add another lens to my Canon 5D MkII setup. I have a 70-200 F4, but would like to ad a reasonable Wide angle lens for landscape photography... What are the pros and cons of a prime over a zoom and which one of each is a good middle of the road lens?
 
The main difference is that primes tend to have lower f/numbers. Otherwise zooms are just as good and obviously do much more.

Canon 17-40L is very good indeed and very good value for an L lens.
 
You could reasonably go for 24-105mm, 24-70mm or wider like 17-40mm. They are excellent lenses that rival the IQ of primes when stopped down. Landscapes are rarely done wide open. Versatility of a zoom is very important.
For portraits I am more than happy to opt for a prime though.
 
I'd personally avoid a prime for landscapes as its not always possible to get yourself into position to frame your shot properly, avoiding the fixed focal length of a prime will open up a lot more opportunities.
 
It looks like a zoom lens is teh better option... just a case of finding one I can afford...

Thanks
 
Prime wise you will probably be looking at a 28 f/1.8 or 35 f/2, between around £200 and £350ish.
 
I'd go for the 17-40L, if you've got a 5dMkII you want the best glass to get the full potential - the 17-40 is one of the cheapest L lenses and on your full frame would provide an excellent landscape focal range.
 
HoppyUK said:
The main difference is that primes tend to have lower f/numbers.
Click to expand...

Of course, you generally don't want a narrow depth of field with landscapes (or, well, I certainly don't).

Usually I'm shooting them at f/8 or f/16 anyway (depending on the max aperture of the lens).

Personally I love my Sigma 10-20mm for this kinda stuff, but I've been having a go with some of the wide-ish M42 primes I've been picking up recently.

At f/8 and f/16, they're all kinda sharp. :)
 
The oldish Tamron ƒ/2.8-4 17-35mm is cheap, full-frame and has a fair reputation.

Edit: read the final comment here ;)
 
The old Sigma 15-30 was always highly regarded. I use one on my 5D and have no complaints. Should be available at a reasonable price somewhere or other.
 
I had then 17-40mm L but just use the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 now on my 5D2, the Canon was just a little too wide for me and i don't see a difference in IQ.
 
17-40L - or if you want something crazy wide, 12-24 Sigma EX. I have the latter, and it's pretty amazing on a FF camera.

You really need to be putting good quality lenses in front of a 5DmkII or there is little point in having one though. Such a massive image size does no favours at all to anything other than the best lenses.
 
If you can find them the 28-70 and the sigma 24-60 are very good bang for your buck - a very affordable alternative to the 24-70 and without any loss of quality once stepping down for landscape work
 
RevOnline said:
17-40L - or if you want something crazy wide, 12-24 Sigma EX. I have the latter, and it's pretty amazing on a FF camera.

You really need to be putting good quality lenses in front of a 5DmkII or there is little point in having one though. Such a massive image size does no favours at all to anything other than the best lenses.
Click to expand...

Just because a len's has a red L in the name it doesn't guarantee the best IQ .
 
Completed fleabay listings for the Tamron 17-35 and Sigma 15-30 start at £100-£150. For the Canon 17-40: £400-£450.
 
Some people suggest that using a prime makes you think more about your composition, leading to better images. Personally I have both but prefer to use the zoom as I find it just provides more flexibility, IQ wise at F11 there's little difference although prime lenses do normally have quite a bit less distortion than zooms and are often a better bet if you like to shoot panos

Simon
 
simonkit said:
Some people suggest that using a prime makes you think more about your composition, leading to better images. Personally I have both but prefer to use the zoom as I find it just provides more flexibility
Click to expand...

Exactly, sometimes the old "get closer to your subject" doesn't really work if your subject's 5 miles away. :)
 
simonkit said:
Some people suggest that using a prime makes you think more about your composition, leading to better images. Personally I have both but prefer to use the zoom as I find it just provides more flexibility, IQ wise at F11 there's little difference although prime lenses do normally have quite a bit less distortion than zooms and are often a better bet if you like to shoot panos

Simon
Click to expand...

That's just framing. Composition is about both perspective and framing.

Having a zoom allows you to select a camera position for best perspective, then zoom for framing, leading to better images.

That's how they should be used, rather than standing on the easiest spot and just zooming to fit.

If you want the 'discipline' of a fixed focal length, which does force you to think a bit more, you can always tape up the zoom ring ;)
 
Some people want primes for weight and space saving considerations. Some because they enjoy using lenses from several different manufacturers and eras, rather than just two or three zooms from a single, current lineup.

"Get closer to your subject" relates to telephoto vs. standard/wide focal lengths, rather than zooms vs. primes per se.
 
the samyang 14mm f2.8 interests me. a lot of people are raving about the 85mm so the 14mm should be fantastic as well. only prob - it's not a zoom.
 
photon said:
"Get closer to your subject" relates to telephoto vs. standard/wide focal lengths, rather than zooms vs. primes per se.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, "get closer to your subject" refers to the apparent laziness of zoom owners. :)
 
"the apparent laziness of zoom owners"

Noooo. It's a health and safety issue. Zoom with your feet...fall off the cliff.
 
I use a Tamron 19-35mm EF mount lens for wide angle shot. Granted I use it on a film SLR, and definitely won't be up to L glass standards, but it's autofocus and only cost me around 50 quid. Example:

4752626360_e98e33bc34_z.jpg
 
zoom said:
Primes for me for landscapes. Always.
Click to expand...

But your name is "zoom" :shrug:

Remember the 17-40L is waterproof. I'm not sure about the 5d11 as far as waterproofing goes but for me this would be a bonus. You could always just wrap the body in a plastic bag if it were raining but the lens/body interface is sealed so you wouldn't have to worry about it too much.
 
I'd say that a 5D MKII deserves some L glass, the L series lenses are designed for the full frame sensor.
Rather than scrimp i'd save until my budget was much higher.

The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX is probably where i'd be putting my money if I really really couldn't justify shelling out a grand for the Canon version.
 
Wow,
Excellent feedback from everyone thank you for your cander, advice and thoughts.
I have learned a huge amont from just this thread.
I took the plunge and splashed out (risking this years holiday spends) and bought the Canon 17-40 L. Tryed it out last night on the Norfolk Broads near Herringfleet. The light wasn't up to much but the lens was.
Thanks Everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top