Dyxum website
Filter posts
TP: What's the optimal wide angle for landscapes? |
Page <12345> |
| Author | |
vitor 
Senior Member 
Joined: 10 August 2006 Country: Portugal Location: Lisbon Status: Offline Posts: 2046 |
 Post Options
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 22 December 2008 at 19:30 |
|
I would say 20mm-24mm is wide enough for landscapes if we are talking 35mm.
|
|
 |
|
|
utcreeper
Senior Member
Joined: 22 October 2008 Country: United Kingdom Location: United States Status: Offline Posts: 1222 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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.
Darren White and 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) Edited by utcreeper - 22 December 2008 at 19:45 |
|
|
|
|
LECHER
Senior Member
Joined: 27 May 2008 Country: United States Location: Pittsburgh, PA Status: Offline Posts: 1592 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 December 2008 at 19:47 |
|
What ever the Landscape asks for , is my final answer.
Jack |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DavidB
Senior Member
Joined: 26 March 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Posts: 2469 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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. |
|
|
|
|
Wētāpunga
Senior Member
Joined: 02 September 2007 Country: New Zealand Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Posts: 6827 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
|
Andy B
Senior Member
Joined: 31 March 2008 Country: United States Location: Michigan Status: Offline Posts: 882 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
almassengale
Senior Member
Joined: 26 December 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Posts: 1944 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
travelshots
Senior Member
Joined: 08 December 2007 Country: Germany Location: Germany Status: Offline Posts: 1075 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
richard42
Senior Member
Joined: 07 September 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Posts: 190 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 January 2009 at 02:56 |
|
my favorite landscape lens is a minolta 70-210mm but i think we have our answer with.
|
|
|
a55 18-55mm more lenses soon i hope :)
|
|
|
|
|
almassengale
Senior Member
Joined: 26 December 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Posts: 1944 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Alphamale
Newbie 
Joined: 28 November 2008 Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Alpha2008
Groupie 
Joined: 21 March 2009 Location: Germany Status: Offline Posts: 92 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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?
|
|
|
|
|
alpha_in_exile
Senior Member
Joined: 26 September 2007 Country: United States Location: United States Status: Offline Posts: 3211 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
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, Tam 70-200/2.8 my web gallery |
|
|
|
|
Alpha2008
Groupie
Joined: 21 March 2009 Location: Germany Status: Offline Posts: 92 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 March 2009 at 00:17 |
|
Thanks for that interesting perspective.
Isn't the 15mm Sigma a fisheye? The discontinued 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  . Edited by Alpha2008 - 26 March 2009 at 15:24 |
|
|
|
Topic Options
LECHER wrote:
 > Forum Home > Dyxum Community > Knowledge Base
|
Page <12345> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania
Feel free to contact us if needed.
Dyxum recommendations
(not commercial banners)
Our officially recommended books
(not commercial banners)
Our officially recommended books