Lens

I feel your pain, bud. Nikon do some good landscape lenses.

ps. You can turn your portrait lens into a landscape lens by rotating your camera!
 
24-70mm is indeed a nice allrounder, good for landscapes, etc. mkII is even better and can do those fancy 18 bladed sunstars, and good for astrophotography shooting wide open.
 
drren said:
Hi everyone,
I have started to want a lens for landscapes, I have a canon 5D mk ii,
any Ideas or tips appreciated,
Drren
Click to expand...

What lenses do you currently own - would any of these be suitable to start with to see what focal length your after ?

An idea of budget can help as well ...
 
17-40 f4 is pretty decent and cost effective.....
 
I use my Tokina 12-24mm f/4 as a landscape lens on my 5D ii. I already owned this before purchasing the body as I used it as a wide angle on my 7D. Whilst it won't work without vignetting until about 18/19mm (need to leave the lens hood off too) it does give a lovely sharp image which many think is sharper and better than the 17-40L, which can also be fairly soft in the corners.

I was seriously considering buying a 17-40L a couple of months ago for a trip to California, however decided to take my 12-24 instead given I've taken some of my favourite photos with it and my 7D. Having now returned from California and edited my pics, I've found that my favourite/best images were taken with the 5D and 12-24 combo. I'm really pleased with it and certainly have no intentions of swapping it for a 17-40L any time in the foreseeable future.

The only thing I would say as a potential limitation is that it's a fairly limiting range if you don't have anything from 24mm onwards. For me it's not a problem as I have a 24-105L, but it could be for someone whose next lens may not start until 40-50mm+

You can pick up a second hand Tokina for around £250-275 (£450ish new). A second hand 17-40L will cost you around £375-400 (£600 new). Alternatively you could look at a 16-35mm L ii, but these are considerably more expensive £800+ second hand (£1,025 new), and don't seem to produce a significantly improved image - or at least not an improvement that seems to justify the increase in cost. Whilst the 16-35 is f/2.8 and the other 2 are f/4, this shouldn't really be a concern as most of your landscape shots will be at f/11 or higher.
 
You probably don't want to be going higher than f/11 on landscapes with a wide angle, in fact you don't really need to go beyond f/8 as the dof is still huge and beyond this diffraction will start setting in, softening the image.
 
Thanks for your input guys, a 24-70mm lens would suit but is very costly, but great to have in my collection, I also consider the 17-40mm lens as its cost effective, I will let you know how I get on,
thanks again
 
I got a 24-105 f4 L as the kit lens to my 5D2 and it's great for landscape shots. I don't do many landscape shots and 24 is wide enough for me and I've recently got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 USM and have used that but I still prefer the 24-105. I was thinking of getting a Canon 17-40 L instead of the Sigma but I wouldn't use it enough to justify it.
 
drren said:
Thanks for your input guys, a 24-70mm lens would suit but is very costly, but great to have in my collection, I also consider the 17-40mm lens as its cost effective, I will let you know how I get on,
thanks again
Click to expand...

You could always look at the MKI version of the 24-70mm f2.8
17-40mm f4 not a bad lens, another is the 16-35mm f2.8 MKII or the 24-105mm f4

Depends what your budget is?

You could also consider a prime lens like the 24mm f1.4, or fisheye lens, but it depends on your budget
 
take a look at my gallery. Landscapes were taken with a 24-105 that im selling (as well as a sigma 10-20)

Good all rounder, sharp, manageable and sturdy.
A lot of people use the 17 40 or the 16 35 f2.8
 
Darren, don't be put off by reports of bad Sigmas. Test the one you're going to buy to make sure it's a good copy and make sure you leave with that lens. If 24mm is wide enough, look at a 24-70 f/2.8. While the ultimate image quality may not quite be up to L standards, it comes close enough to be used by some pros - and it focusses closer than the L (IIRC). If you want/need wider, again, think Sigma. Their 12-24 is almost insanely wide on FF and shows almost no rectilinear distortion, even at the wide end (bowed lines near the edge of frame). Not cheap new (£579 in Nikon fit - Mifsuds price) but they do crop up 2nd hand from time to time.

Of course, you could go down the prime route - pick your focal length and look around to see what's available!

Happy shopping!

Nod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top