What are your Canon landscape lenses? (for FF)

DaelpixPhotography

DaelpixPhotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,801
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Looking for some inspiration on what lenses I could invest in for landscape photography.

Below are my lenses. Also think I may buy a Canon 16-35mm f4 as I miss having a wide angle :(
 
i dont have one anymore but used to have a 17-40 L and found it fine for me but im not super fussy.

by the time i hiked for ages up a high hill i was more worried about how cold it was and how windy than what the lens was.
 
I've seen a comparison between the 16-35 and 17-40 and I'll be going for the first
 
Generally speaking I use the 24-105 f/4L - but the 45mm f/2.8 TS-E often gets an outing too and it's not unheard of for the 70-200 f/2.8L (or the 80-200 f/2.8L) to get an outing... Or the 50 f/1.8 (Mk I) or the 17-40 f/4L indeed the pinhole lens...

TL-DR - every lens I own has been used for landscape shots apart from the 40 f/2.8 STM (mostly because I've just remembered I still have it)
 
You've got the range from 24 to 500mm covered, I can't really see what more you would need, I very rarely use my 16-35, in fact I'm usually shooting landscapes in the 50-100mm range. Sounds more like you need to refresh how you think about subjects rather than lenses. Spend the money on some photo books or courses and tutorials (and not youtube, have a look at some of the RPS events for example)
 
When I had a canon FF (5dmk2) either a 17/40 or my preference when I carried all my gear a 24mm ts-e
 
Dael_Pix said:
I've seen a comparison between the 16-35 and 17-40 and I'll be going for the first
Click to expand...

Well I had the latter, fell for all the "must-have" hype and traded it for the 16-35 excusing myself with "it'll be better for low-light indoorsy architecture shots etc. Either way the lens doesn't receive a lot of use.

Did I gain half a stop or a third? Durr! ISTR the 17-40 was then regarded as slightly sharper but... well I'd say that on a 5D then a 5DII there's really not much in it. HTH
 
EF 24-105 f4 L for me. Don’t have anything else wider and have never felt i’d need it.
 
I use my 17-40 a lot. I don't have the 16-35, so can't compare, but I have no complaints about the 17-40.

I tend to do mostly do what could loosely be called landscape photography, but really it's all sorts.
 
16-35 is a good wide angle, can be tricky to use for a good landscape photo though. It all depends what image you have in mind. I’m in the camp there’s no such thing as a landscape lens and use the full range I have from 11mm to 600mm for landscape images.
 
I had a 17-40 for years, traded in for a 16-35 which to me is better.
 
I'm often phased by people who think they need a specific lens for landscape photography. Surely it'll vary with the landscape you're stood in front of, what you want to capture and how.

I suppose it depends what you want to achieve. I assume it's not razor thin DoF as that would be a bit niche, so if not just about any lens that's decent when stopped down a bit could come into play if you don't look at the extreme corners. If you do and want something that's excellent across the frame that will whittle down the shortlist. FoV matters and it's a personal choice. My advice therefore is to think what FoV or range you want, create a shortlist and then think about what aperture you'll be using and whittle the shortlist down a little more based on performance at those apertures. Maybe you'll want something that's free of field curvature? Maybe something resistant to flare and ghosting?

Maybe not bother with a new lens and just head out with your 24-70mm, 100mm and 150-500mm and if you know where your going and what sort of picture you want to end up with maybe you'll only take one lens out with you :D

Good luck deciding.
 
woof woof said:
I'm often phased by people who think they need a specific lens for landscape photography. Surely it'll vary with the landscape you're stood in front of, what you want to capture and how.

I suppose it depends what you want to achieve. I assume it's not razor thin DoF as that would be a bit niche, so if not just about any lens that's decent when stopped down a bit could come into play if you don't look at the extreme corners. If you do and want something that's excellent across the frame that will whittle down the shortlist. FoV matters and it's a personal choice. My advice therefore is to think what FoV or range you want, create a shortlist and then think about what aperture you'll be using and whittle the shortlist down a little more based on performance at those apertures. Maybe you'll want something that's free of field curvature? Maybe something resistant to flare and ghosting?

Maybe not bother with a new lens and just head out with your 24-70mm, 100mm and 150-500mm and if you know where your going and what sort of picture you want to end up with maybe you'll only take one lens out with you :D

Good luck deciding.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree there is no such thing as a landscape lens, for me I often need something wider than 24mm. To each his own.
 
I agree. The widest lens I have now is 17mm but I did have a 12-24mm. However, wide angle landscape is maybe a bit niche, maybe a bit of a one trick pony. I suppose we could say that about any focal range but perhaps with wide angle more so. Wide certainly doesn't do it all all of the time.

I suppose one idea is to look at pictures that inspire and see what they were taken with but keeping in mind the places you're likely to visit and the end result you'd like.
 
just recently gone back to canon and picked up the 15-85.. that extra bit of wide and going up to 85 makes a great all day walkabout lens. edit ignore this, the 15-85 is an efs lens not for ff
 
Last edited:
I loved having a wide angle on my 450D crop and I was sad for it to go when I upgraded to FF. I couldn't resist buying another wide angle. I do have plans for it.

I also had my 70-300mm up for sale on my website, but took it down. I should be able to use it for non wildlife shots. Only down side is that it doesn't have IS
 
I have a 17-40 L but the 16-35 is a newer and better lens (sharper in the corners below f/8 and it's got Image Stabilisation), however, I've not bothered upgrading as I've found I seldom use a wider angle than 24mm, which I have covered by my 'standard' zoom lens. If I were starting out (and had the money) then I'd go for a mint used 16-35 f/4 IS, but only if I really needed it for the type of photography I was doing and could get enough use out of it to merit going for that in preference to another focal length.
 
Last edited:
24-70 f4 it is all day long

if you need wider you can stitch and if longer you can crop

the 16-35 is fun for exaggerating foreground objects but you will probably need to focus stack

if you were going to take out a second lens then the 70-200 f4 non is ('cos it's lighter and as good as the 2.8 at long distance)

oops

don't have any of those any more

Dave
 
I did wonder why I created this post, I think I wanted some ideas what others used for landscape photography.

I bought the 16-355mm this week. I've tested it out a couple of times and love it. Absolutely mint condition with no dust in the lens.

I'm going to start using my 75-300mm lens. As I said above it doesn't have IS, so I'll have to take my tripod on outings.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I did wonder why I created this post, I think I wanted some ideas what others used for landscape photography.
Click to expand...

When I shot Canon FF (2010 - 2014/5) I soon swapped out the 24-105L for the 17-40L When I stopped doing the abandoned buildings stuff I swapped out the 17-40L for the 28/1.8 for the last year or two & used that alongside the 50/1.4 & 135L - I did like that set up at the time. Actually I had the 85/1.8 too at some point....

I now use on Sony FF the Voigtlander 40/1.2 & Contax Carl Zeiss 80-200/4 primarily for 'landscape' outings & Voigtlander 21/3.5 if I know I might need 'wide' ;) I do have the 35/1.4 on pre-order though & the 85mm I only take out occasionally (people shots) if I know I might need it. I get by pretty well on just that.

I guess it depends on 'how' we all shoot. What we look for & what we see. I've never really shot wide landscapes & I rarely do now. I do enjoy the shooting & editing of a panoramic image though. If I lived in Wales I guess I'd have a wide angle for the waterfalls - the same if I lived along the rugged coast of Devon/Cornwall/Ireland/etc maybe. I know if I lived in Scotland & spent my time up mountains I'd have the 100-400mm instead of a 80-200mm...

There's certainly no right or wrong but I do get frustrated at the "landscape = wide angle" thing* ;)

*just saying, not aiming.
 
FWIW

When I had Canon my main carry lens was the 24-105mm, I used it on both crop and FF bodies.

However, one trip we had was to Venice and I hired a Canon 10-22mm EF-S because I knew from prior visit that my 24-105 was not wide enough on the crop body in the city. Suffice to say I think I never removed it the whole trip.....and I shot wider vista cityscapes as much as street scenes with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top