TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?
Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Dyxum Community
Forum Name: Knowledge Base
Forum Description: Improving photo techniques & getting more from Dyxum
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15888
Printed Date: 14 February 2025 at 19:14
Topic: TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?
Posted By: calpon
Subject: TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes?
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:24
Is 17mm wide enough? I am leaning "No" with my use of a kit lens
Zooms:compare
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 12-24
KM/Tamron 11-18 (I am leaning this way at the moment)
KM/Tamron 17-35 (not wide enough?)
Tamron 17-50 (not wide enough?)
Zeiss 16-80 (not wide enough?)
Prime: compare (I don't think I want a Fish)
Sigma 14 2.8 (Is this a fish Eye?)
Tamron 14 2.8 (Is this a fish Eye?)
20mm options (not wide enough?)
Other option?
------------- http://tkunkel.zenfolio.com/ - http://tkunkel.zenfolio.com/
NEX7,Sel CZ 16-70,CZ E24 1.8,Touit 32, Sony E50 1.8,Contax 90 2.8
|
Replies:
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:27
those 14mm's are rectlinear, and expensive.
i think sigma once made a 14/3.5 that is cheap..
------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos.
|
Posted By: infrastellar
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:40
20mm is enough... 17mm and less are more difficult for composition options in landscapes.
------------- http://photo.infrastellar.net/home.php - Infrastellar travel photo
Slovakia, Czech republic, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Indonesia, England
|
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:47
infrastellar: i thought the wider is the better in landscape photography.. and you are doing it great! now it seems that i was wrong with that prejudgement.
why do you think 20mm is better for landscapes?
and something more 'urgent' than the question above: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15862&PID=148715#148715 - here
------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos.
|
Posted By: binbald
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 18:51
I used to have the 17-35G and it was in most of the cases enough. Sometimes I wished to have a wider angle - but just for getting a bit more on the picture, not for reasons of art.
It needs a very special way of photographing below 24mm film equivalent, and you can rarely find subjects that require (!) that. Composing a convincing and compelling image so wide is extremely difficult and the effect and the impact you achieve with that is soon becoming boring and you get used to that and won't take too many pictures anymore.
17-xx or 16-80 would be enough, also the Sigma 15-30. Everything below is nice and fun to have, but I'd rather invest in some better lens replacing the 18-70kit.
But it depends on your favourite subjects.
------------- Regards, Michael
A77II with zooms, A7II with primes
|
Posted By: NIKO
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 19:11
Well, I don't know what is truely wide enough or not. However, I do have the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle zoom for my Maxxum 5D. I couldn't see myself without it. It's not too steep in price either($450-489). It is rectilinear and its barrel distortion is well controlled. In fact between 10-12mm distortion is at it's worst depending on the type of shot you're making, but nothing you can't fix rather easily with photoshop. From 12-20mm distortion of any kind isn't relevent. Again, depending on the type of shot you are taking. If it's landscape, not a problem. If it's architectural (buildings in its entirety), you'll always have something to fix regardless of what lens you use unless it is a landscape of buildings you are taking a picture of. In doors with close quarters, you'll not be able to fix everything, just mildly adjust angles of the room with photoshop.
You can't go wrong by having this lens. Though, I have the 18-70mm KM kit lens I barely ever use it. It isn't always wide enough for me nor does it always have enough reach. So, I use the Sigma 10-20mm when I need it and the Sigma 24-135mm as my walk around lens. These two lenses give me most of what I need. On the rarity that I need more reach (mainly with wildlife) I have my Sigma 135-400mm or my 70-200mm "Beer can." But, I tend to use the Sigma by far more because it has significantly less chromatic aberrations then the "Beer Can" and is practically as sharp through most of its range.
I hope some of what I've written helps you out.
Regards,
Niko
------------- A77II|2xA700|5D|7D|2xMaxxum7|CZ1680|1635|2470|S28|50|24105|70200G|1.4X&2XTC|2xF60M|4xF56AM|M50|2885|28135|3570|70210|KM1870|1735|2875|2x3600HSD|Σ10|50|70|85|1020|100300|1.4X&2XTC
|
Posted By: micahtd
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 19:37
I also could not be without my sigma 10-20mm. For landscape pictures anything between 10-20mm is perfect in my opinion. For mos of my landscapes I do tend to shoot more towards the 10mm end than the 20mm. I suppose it is all a matter of preference, and shooting style. The distortion at the widest angles can give some interesting looks to different shots and can be easily fixed when needed in PS. I have read some reviews about the sigma 10-20mm vs. the KM 11-18 and the sigma was rated a little better. The only draw back I see with the 10-20mm is if you plan on buying a FF sensor camera when it comes out. If so you may want to look at the sigma 12-24mm, although it doesn't take traditional treaded filters because of the very large front element.
Rgds,
Micah
------------- A7r3, A900, A700, Zeiss 16-35, Zeiss 24-70, 85mm f1.4G, 70-200 f2.8, 5600| http://www.micahphoto.com - micahphoto.com
|
Posted By: Maffe
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 19:46
Some of my best lanscape shots is made with takumar 50mm...
So it´s up to you what is wide enough!
------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/maffe - Flickr
|
Posted By: krusty46
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 20:16
By no means am I an authority, but the 18-70 kit lens is not wide enough for me on my Alpha.
I'm holding out for a 10-20 or an 11-18 when funds permit.
In the meantime though, the 18-70 will have to do. Kinda sorry I got this lens as I did so strictly as a wide lens. Thankfully it was only $50.
|
Posted By: Sanjuro
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 20:16
Defenetly the 10-28 range.
Sigma 10-20 is very nice <nd I have seen great panos with that lens.
A 20mm prime is also great, so I think is up to you, I even did a big pano with a beercan, so it all depends.
------------- Rgds Sanjuro
"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." --Pablo Picasso
|
Posted By: jstartin
Date Posted: 12 May 2007 at 23:44
When I first started with the 5D I thought that 24mm might be wide enough. I soon found it was not and made more use of the 18-70. Then 18mm was not enough and I bought the Tamron 11-18. Now I find that 11mm is wide enough, but certainly not too wide.
If it helps a little, compare the first shot I posted in the lens samples forum
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12204 - 11mm
with the same view at 18mm
http://www.jstartin.supanet.com/Images_Dyxum_Posts/PICT4857~1~ss~framed.jpg - 18mm
|
Posted By: NIKO
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 04:08
Really nice shots JR! Excellent examples. They really show off what these lenses can do for an APS-C sized sensor DSLR.
Niko
------------- A77II|2xA700|5D|7D|2xMaxxum7|CZ1680|1635|2470|S28|50|24105|70200G|1.4X&2XTC|2xF60M|4xF56AM|M50|2885|28135|3570|70210|KM1870|1735|2875|2x3600HSD|Σ10|50|70|85|1020|100300|1.4X&2XTC
|
Posted By: omerbey
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 04:18
landscapes doesn't have to be wide, but.. you know, the landscape shots with exaggerated foreground interests... for those, you have to go wide. I'd say go for 10-20 or if you like 6 years warranty, go for tamron.
|
Posted By: PhotoTraveler
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 06:48
Well, in the end, what you need for a landscape varies.
The widest I have is 17mm, and it's not wide enough a lot of the time. I'm really wanting to see what the Sony wide zoom will be, and those zeiss primes. The wide end is the next place I need to fix with my stuff.
The Tamron 2.8/14 is an interesting lens. Not sure I want to give up front filter threads though. I think I'd be ok with a 4/14 to get them back.
I'm not very interested in the 11-18. If they came out with a good 4/12-24 like nikon has, that could be interesting. But I want to see something that works well with both FF and APS. So have to look at a lens that works on both, and fits well with a stuff up to 70mm. So that means either a super wide that goes to 24mm, or something like a 17-40 that can then be teamed up with something like a 1.2/55.
Sony could really use a good rectilinear 14 and 18mm lens.
I have to think they have been thinking this through. they got a 2.8/24-70 coming. So it would make sense to build something that fits with that. And seeing they have APS and a FF body coming, they would be wise to be smart.
|
Posted By: infrastellar
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 08:59
turerkan:
I dont tell what is better. Everyone of us is shooting in another way. I just wanted to say, that with 10mm and a bit more, you need to include something in the foreground into the composition. I have seen lots of pictures of happy 10-20 owners, which were just mountains over there in the backround, and the lower part of the picture was just nothing. Also details many times disappear. Simply includes too many things into the picture, and make it small and far away. Shots like salto kawi is OK:) The landscape photography is very diverse, I shoot also at 200mm. So it depends. Of course 10-20 is an excellent option. It includes 20mm. So its just about me, I would choose 20mm over sigma 14mm.
------------- http://photo.infrastellar.net/home.php - Infrastellar travel photo
Slovakia, Czech republic, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Indonesia, England
|
Posted By: PhotoTraveler
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 09:21
Yeah, thats part of my feelings too. I really don't think Landscapes mean wide, and wide means landscapes.
I think a common mistake we all have done is found ourselves on some beautiful vista, we put on the widest thing we got and take the shot. It's an awe inspiring view.
Get home, look at the shot, and it's just dull. That's where you learn those big vistas really need something going on and something more than a wide lens to do them right. All you have is a shot of a lot of nothing, everything is small and boring.
Personally, I think wides are good for tight spaces, like in the woods, and urban stuff at times (though really need a TS/PC there). But a 400mm lens can be a landscape lens too.
|
Posted By: infrastellar
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 09:23
phototraveler:
thats the point.
------------- http://photo.infrastellar.net/home.php - Infrastellar travel photo
Slovakia, Czech republic, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Indonesia, England
|
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 09:49
I have to say that despite having a 20-35 in my bag during a recent trip through the most scenic areas of NZ, I mainly used the 28-75 D as there was nothing wrong with the perspectives it gave of grandiose vistas.
I still would have loved to have the 10-20, which I expect to arrive tomorrow.
------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers
|
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 11:13
Have thought about this a bit more -- the 10-20 will be useful to me if I am quite close to an area that I want to photograph which doesn't often happen with landscapes. But if you are slap-bang in front of the mountain and can't step back without falling in the lake, the widest lens will get everything in.
Makes sense?
------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers
|
Posted By: infrastellar
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 13:56
of course it makes sense. And if you have a good panorama software, you can shoot 4 pics and stich later then :)
------------- http://photo.infrastellar.net/home.php - Infrastellar travel photo
Slovakia, Czech republic, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Indonesia, England
|
Posted By: Gabriel
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 18:05
I think that very wide angle lenses might often be more usefull in urban areas than for landscapes.
|
Posted By: omerbey
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 21:45
So do we all agree that Tokina 12-24 f:4 should exist in our mount?
|
Posted By: PhotoTraveler
Date Posted: 13 May 2007 at 22:22
Was only a matter of time till someone slipped that request in :)
|
Posted By: CTYankee
Date Posted: 14 May 2007 at 15:21
I think to some people, "landscape" means "wide vista" ... I've taken to calling a lot of my photography "scenic" instead of "landscape" just to get rid of that mis-expectation that I've got a portfolio full of scenic vistas !
Landscape photography in New England is vastly different from landscape photography in, say, Utah. There aren't very many places where you can see for miles and miles, what with all the hills and trees, and when you can see for miles and miles, you've either got hazy skies or a landscape full of power lines, buildings, roads or other signs of civilization. Landscape photography in this part of the country frequently features signs of rural civilization ... covered bridges, barns, etc.
Even when travelling to places where I did occasionally find those sweeping vistas, I was always content with the WA coverage of my old Sigma 21-35 (on film). When I upgraded to the 17-35G, a found virtually no use for the extra coverage - I can remember two shots that I took at 17mm, one of which was a fair "keeper".
I shot in Utah with the 17-35D and the 7D and found 17mm on APS-C to be barely adequate and would have preferred just a tad more coverage.
So I've come to the conclusion that for me, 24mm on FF is a necessity while 20mm on FF is a luxury. If I got back into doing landscape (scenic :) photography today, I'd probably get the CZ16-80 for APS-C and live with that, and not worry about anything wider until full frame sometime down the road. As I'm not doing much nature photography, 17-35D does the trick for the moment.
------------- http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com/gallery/7916530_B3qBq#513527444_ZMQ2t - April Foolishness
CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G
|
Posted By: calpon
Date Posted: 15 May 2007 at 13:23
Thanks to all who responded.
This discussion hasn't brought me to my final decision. There seems to be 2 schools of thought. 16/17 is wide enough for some, while others think wider is better.
I think I'll plod along with thew kit for a couple of more months and concentrate on my wide angle needs.
------------- http://tkunkel.zenfolio.com/ - http://tkunkel.zenfolio.com/
NEX7,Sel CZ 16-70,CZ E24 1.8,Touit 32, Sony E50 1.8,Contax 90 2.8
|
Posted By: tmoreau
Date Posted: 15 May 2007 at 22:25
I love my sigma 10-20mm. Its tough to use. Its specialized. It has compromises. Blah blah blah. 16mm is great for landscapes, so is 20mm. So is 90mm. 10-15mm is fun, but requires you to be VERY careful and restrained (don't be that nut with a gallery full of "Look I have a 10mm! WeeEEeEee!").
I have many 10-20mm shots that look like they could have been taken with a normal lens, at least at first look. These are my favorites.
I could live with a 16mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm for landscape. I had a NICE 17mm, but eventually our relationship fell apart. I needed something... just a little.... different.
------------- http://www.pbase.com/tmoreau/fav - Gallery http://www.pbase.com/tmoreau/image/74317706 - Lineup (10-20/28/50/90/100-200)
|
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 21:43
I think I'll plod along with thew kit for a couple of more months and concentrate on my wide angle needs. |
I got the 11-18 for landscape/scenic options. But as I do a bit of travelling to various spots in the world, having options packed into one lens is handy.
Nonetheless, part of my motivation to get the 16-80, was to employ it for landscape/scenic shots that the 11-18 was 'too wide'. So I'm now using both...
I guess, a lot will depend a lot on the landscape shots you're most likely to take.
------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
|
Posted By: Dave18
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 18:27
I've got a min 28-135 which I use for almost everything, if I need wide I make a panorama with my A200, 3 shots 30MP minus the overlap of course
Dave
------------- Sony A7RII, A900, A99 x2, A77II, A580, A200, ZA 135 1.8,tam 28-75 2.8, sig 35 art Tokina 11-16mm, Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM OS, sony 16-50 2.8 ssm http://www.cornwall-wedding-photographer.co.uk
|
Posted By: vitor
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 19:30
I would say 20mm-24mm is wide enough for landscapes if we are talking 35mm.
------------- http://www.vitorfonseca.com/ - vitorfonseca.com http://tech.vitorfonseca.com/ - tech https://bit.ly/3txTVSI - instagram
|
Posted By: utcreeper
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 19:44
My favorite 2 landscape photographers both use the Sig 10-20, and both almost exclusively use it at 10.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drwhite75/sets/72157610463169215/ - Darren White and http://www.flickr.com/photos/rasone/ - Jesse aka Rasone (Jesse went FF recently, but if you go back a bit in his photostream then you'll get into the 10mm stuff more.)
I couldn't produce images like theirs with any lens (yet! .. lol) so I think it comes down to the old advice of "be there" (oh, and be there with 10mm apparently hehe)
------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreeper - Me @ flickr
Various A-mount gear
|
Posted By: LECHER
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 19:47
What ever the Landscape asks for , is my final answer.
Jack
------------- From the Mind of LECHER.
|
Posted By: DavidB
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 20:04
On full frame going back to film days, I used 20 mm quite a lot, then tended to use the 24 more as it was easier to compose with and seemed to keep a stronger relationship between foreground and background elements (13-16 0n the a700, etc).
------------- davidbannister.zenfolio.com
a900, a77, RX100 III, 16-50 2.8, 20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28-135, 50 1.7, 100 2.8M, 200 2.8G, 1.4 & 2x TC.
|
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 20:54
Interesting, I'm using 24mm a lot more now as my 'standard' landscape lens. Also on FF (film) cameras.
It seems to hit a 'sweet spot' of minimal distortion, good centre-to-edge sharpness, while still giving a good angle of view.
The 11-18 was being left behind too often on overseas trips to justify keeping it. I think most of my landcsape shots were taken at 20-35mm FL.
------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF
|
Posted By: Andy B
Date Posted: 26 December 2008 at 17:04
Most of my landscape shots are taken with focal lengths ranging from 17 to 250mm on an A700. My Tamron 11-18 is mainly used for photographing large groups, building interiors, and building exteriors on narrow streets where there is not room to step back. I only use the 11-18 for landscapes when there are interesting foreground elements (almost always vertical shots) or when I am too close to use anything else (like capturing a wide glacier from the deck of a cruise ship that has moved in close). I rarely travel without the 11-18 (or a 17-35 on my Maxxum 5), because it gets me shots I cannot take with any other lens that I have. However, I think the new Tamron 10-24 offers a much more useful focal range at the longer end. Too much lens changing with the 11-18.
|
Posted By: almassengale
Date Posted: 26 December 2008 at 17:29
I have the 16-80 and the 11-18. Very rarely use the 11-18. Its just too wide for most things I shoot especially the mountains. It just flattens those out.
|
Posted By: travelshots
Date Posted: 25 January 2009 at 02:19
I have the Sony 16-80 and the Sigma 10-20. I rarely use the 10-20 and if I do so, those are situations where even 10mm sometines are not short enough.
|
Posted By: richard42
Date Posted: 25 January 2009 at 02:56
my favorite landscape lens is a minolta 70-210mm but i think we have our answer with.
LECHER wrote:
What ever the Landscape asks for , is my final answer.
Jack |
------------- a55 18-55mm more lenses soon i hope :)
|
Posted By: almassengale
Date Posted: 25 January 2009 at 03:27
Depends on what sort of landscape. My favorite? The CZ 16-80. My 11-18 is too wide for most uses especially mountains which it flattens.
|
Posted By: Alphamale
Date Posted: 30 January 2009 at 03:16
I use the Sigma Ex 10-20 if i want the exagerate the foreground or the sky. Gererally I find my Ex 24 - 70 is sufficient for 75-80% of the Landscape shots i take. The Sigma lenses take large filters which can add L40 - L60 a go to the cost of your kit.
|
Posted By: Alpha2008
Date Posted: 25 March 2009 at 00:27
Sorry to revive this thread. Probably it really comes down to shooting technique and figuring out how to properly use any given lens (e.g. avoid seeing one's feet in a picture taken with a Sigma 10-20 ). As mentioned in the other thread, I still haven't decided whether to go for a 16-105/CZ16-80 or a combo of Sigma 17-70 and a Sigma 10-20 (in upgrading from the kit lens). I have seen several reviewers complain about barrel distortion and vignetting @ 16mm with both, the 16-105 and the CZ16-80. Did you feel this is a major issue or a reason to go with a Sigma 10-20 at that focal length?
|
Posted By: alpha_in_exile
Date Posted: 25 March 2009 at 19:02
Not just shooting technique, but subject-matter & (artistic) intent of the photographer.
Based on reviews (I don't own any but the kit lens), if I shot architecture (outdoor or indoor), I would go with the Sig 10-20 due to low distortion. Then again, you may be different; maybe you want a distorted (for artistic reasons) perspective on the buildings you photograph.
If I shot landscapes, I personally would not mind something with a little distortion for the "this was taken with a camera" (instead of hand-drawn or painted) effect -- the (slight) distortion reminds your viewer that you were using a lens to capture the image, not plotting out an elevation drawing of the landscape.
I wrote earlier in this thread that I find the UWA (e.g. 10-20mm) lenses to be so wide as to cause a very two-dimensional look to a landscape. The 2-D look is a result of rectilinear distortion, which is generally acceptable, but, when such a wide FOV is crammed onto an APS-C sensor, makes for a very fake-looking scene. Personally, if possible, I'd prefer to shoot multiple shots and stitch them together in a panorama, with distortion correction, rather than rely on a 10-20 zoom.
What would be ideal, would be a very wide prime -- something utterly lacking in the present Sony/Minolta lineup (unless you're shooting A900 with a 20/2.8 or something). I believe Sigma is selling a 15mm rectilinear that would work nicely for both architecture & landscape, and would maybe not be so wide as to create the 2-D effect that I hate so much.
------------- -- Matt A7RM4, Min 24/2.8, Min 50/1.4, FE 24/1.4 GM, FE 50/1.2 GM, FE 135/1.8 GM, FE 70-200/2.8 GM II http://mattbarber.zenfolio.com/ - my web gallery
|
Posted By: Alpha2008
Date Posted: 26 March 2009 at 00:17
Thanks for that interesting perspective.
Isn't the http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=149 - 15mm Sigma a fisheye? The discontinued http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=149 - 14mm looks like a rectilinear lens, but it seems to be pretty expensive, hard to get and not as well received as the Tam 11-18 or the Sigma 10-20. I'm still wondering, whether I should first get either of those two and use that ultrawide alongside my kit lens or first buy a replacement for the kit lens (which will most likely end up being a Sigma 17-70) .
By the way, I really like the photo of the church at sunset on that site of yours, Matt. Nice shot .
|
Posted By: marc-104
Date Posted: 16 July 2009 at 20:03
I would say the CZ 16-35 as the most versatile landscape and architecture lens of high quality
I have also the 10-20 but more for special effect
------------- Sony Ambassador for Belgium
A9, A7RII, RX1R, RX100M4 Sony FE1224, 2470GM, 70200GM, 100400GM, 28F2, 35F14, 55F18, 100STF, PZ18-105 Zeiss Batis 85
|
Posted By: almassengale
Date Posted: 16 July 2009 at 20:24
My 16-80 is my most used lens for landscape but this really is situational. In some cases my 11-18 is more useful and in some cases I need to go much longer for landscapes in order to isolate elements. I tend to shoot mostly in the mountains and below 16 I find that the mountains often get flattened.
Here is an example of a landscape with the 70-300G set to 210mm.
|
Posted By: petr08
Date Posted: 06 March 2010 at 18:11
fantastic photo ahoj Petr-Karvina-Czech
|
Posted By: ariksm
Date Posted: 31 January 2012 at 04:02
Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 the best lens for wide angle...
------------- Aphasm
|
Posted By: My December
Date Posted: 13 February 2012 at 02:10
I use my Tokina 11-16mm for landscapes (mainly because its the only ultra wide I currently have. Well.. I have the 16-35mm ZA, but my camera body is an APSC). But I seldom get to use the widest angle (11m) because the adapter & holder for my square filters (Cokin) prevent me to be able to go the widest, causing heavy vignette. The 16-35mm ZA would be my to go to lens for landscapes once I got a FF body. I might sell this Tokina.
------------- A99 | A77 | 8mm Fisheye Samyang | 16-35 ZA | Sigma 50 f/1.4 HSM | 24-70 ZA | 85 ZA | SAL 100 Macro | 70200G | Sigma 18-250 OS HSM | 70400G | 2x F58AM
|
Posted By: borjomi
Date Posted: 13 February 2012 at 06:59
My favorite (most used) are ~26 and ~40 mm (on FF).
|
Posted By: alphableed
Date Posted: 13 February 2012 at 20:21
borjomi wrote:
My favorite (most used) are ~26 and ~40 mm (on FF). |
Agreed. 40mm is fantastic, although not the easiest to use. It's a very composition dependent focal length, but unbeatable when done right.
|
Posted By: Milko
Date Posted: 24 March 2012 at 10:05
40mm does give that very "natural" look doesn't it? i use it in rangefinders a lot. I wish there was a compact prime equivalent in the Min/Sonys.
------------- cheers John http://www.flickr.com/photos/79865897@N00/" rel="nofollow - My Flickr
|
Posted By: alphableed
Date Posted: 24 March 2012 at 13:29
Milko wrote:
40mm does give that very "natural" look doesn't it? i use it in rangefinders a lot. I wish there was a compact prime equivalent in the Min/Sonys. |
You can do what I did. I bought the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 SLII in Nikon mount and then purchased a chipped Leitax mount adapter to convert the lens to A-mount. The Voigtlander 40mm is a wonderful little lens, so long as you don't mind manual focus.
|
Posted By: samyboy
Date Posted: 24 March 2012 at 13:49
My 24mm CZ f2 at 36mm in APSC and my Minolta 35mm f2 at 52mm are really good for landscapes. No distorion and no flattened mountains.
------------- SVM. Chicago.
|
Posted By: Milko
Date Posted: 09 April 2012 at 11:22
thank you for the reminder! I have the CV Ultron in AIS and it is great on the NEx 5n with adaptor. But a Leitax AF to MAF and a NEX to MAF would allow me to use it on DSLR and Nex...just not easilt on the original FM3A.. hmmn some thinking to do.
------------- cheers John http://www.flickr.com/photos/79865897@N00/" rel="nofollow - My Flickr
|
Posted By: skm.sa100
Date Posted: 09 April 2012 at 14:35
I hate to sound like one of those opinionated people with a contrarian view but most of my landscapes are composed with long zooms, typically my beercan. On the very wide end, composition is difficult and I end up with pictures with vast open spaces and the pics look flat. A very large foreground interest, such as a boulder, looks "artificial" to me and the exaggerated perspective is not quite to my taste.
------------- More Dyxumer, less photographer.
|
Posted By: boyanphotography
Date Posted: 10 April 2012 at 15:47
With seascapes I must note I do prefer the wider focal lengths, e.g. 16 to 21mm on FF.
This however all depends on your style; ultrawide shooters tend to focus more on the sky, preferably a stormy one. Or maybe this is just me.
Boyan
------------- Sony A99 | ∑ 12-24 II | ∑ 50/1.4 | ∑ 70-200/2.8 II
|
Posted By: Silver
Date Posted: 11 April 2012 at 11:28
krusty46 wrote:
By no means am I an authority, but the 18-70 kit lens is not wide enough for me on my Alpha.
I'm holding out for a 10-20 or an 11-18 when funds permit. |
Recently got a Sony 11-18 and for indoor use at a new Cinema it was well needed to get as much as possible in the picture :)
Not exactly landscapes but still very useful :)
------------- Alpha77, 11-18mm, 16-50mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, HVL-F58AM.
|
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 11 April 2012 at 17:37
I am a great fan of the Sigma 10-20 -- super wide but a "natural" look as if the camera has peripheral vision!
------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers
|
|