 Aiden C |
What lenses should I get for landscape I'm currently trying to find some lenses for landscape photography. I've heard the 24mm is pretty much the standard lens. I would like a few lenses that cover a range and was thinking of getting a 20mm and a 28mm (using a Canon 5D). Or would anyone recommend something else? Also, I know there is a 15mm fisheye (canon) but is a 14mm a fisheye lens too? It doesn't state as such on the canon website. I've also been told that Canon are far superior than Sigma and Tamron. I am looking for the cheapest price but I don't mind spending more if the quality justifies the increased price. At the moment I have a canon 50mm, Tamron 200-500mm, canon 100-300 (which I would like to get rid off). Any help would be great.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jon Close |
If you're not afraid of spending money, and time on composition, I'd recommend the either (both) the TS-E 24 f/3.5L or TS-E 45 f/2.8. They are tilt-shift lenses that give lens movements like a large format camera. The tilt-shift allows greater control over the depth of field (narrower or deeper hyperfocal than standard lenses) and the shift allows perspective control to keep buildings or trees from "keystoning". The EF 14 f/2.8L USM is a rectilinear lens, not a fisheye. Fisheye v. rectilinear are equivalent to azimuthal v. Mercator map projections, with similar distortions. Each is a different way of representing 3 dimensional space as a 2 dimensional image. The EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye gives 180° view in the diagonal, and while the fisheye design keeps size and distance relationships true, it'll bend straight lines to do it. The rectilinear EF 14 f/2.8L USM gives 114° diagonal view, and while it keeps straight lines straight, to do so it unnaturally stretches the appearance of objects near the edges of the frame. The Sigma 14 f/2.8 EX HSM and 15 f/2.8 EX DG Fisheye are very close to the corresponding Canon lenses in image and build quality.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Glenn E. Urquhart |
Good Morning Aiden. I own a Canon 5D and most of my work is landscape and architecture. My work horse of a lens, is a Canon 24-105mm L IS USM lens. Extraordinary piece of glass!!!! Quality is just beyond perfect!! This is not a cheap lens, however I strongly recomend to save the money to purchase this and you will not be disapointed!! Best wishes and good luck in your purchase. Glenn.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Aiden, When it comes to choosing a lens our first concerns are about optical quality. For the most part I think that’s overrated. It is my belief that most lenses will never be challenged as most images will be viewed on low resolution monitor and hardcopies will be 8x12.or less. These are not particularly optically challenging conditions. However, I believe the mounting hardware, the mechanical and electrical interconnections, are most important. Otherwise, the best optical quality will be negated. Further, I think this mounting business is probably best handled by the original camera manufacturer. Everyone will agree that the focal length chosen should be based on need. Most judgments are made based on comparisons to the esteemed 35mm film camera. The 35mm stems from the Leitz Company, makers of the Leica camera, the brain child of Oskar Barnack who in 1913 devised this format around plentiful movie film. The film is a strip 35mm wide with sprocket holes down both edges to mechanically drive the film through camera and projector. The image between the holes, measures 24mm x 36mm. This is a 1.5 format ratio meaning height times 1.5 equals length. This is slighting longer than the “Golden Rectangle” copiousness in art which is about 1.4. The camera’s angle of view is dependent on format and the focal length. Mount the same lens on different format cameras and the angles change. Because most experienced photographers got their know-how using a 35mm film camera, they tend to teach and write using this background. So when they try to relate lens functionality between two formats a conversion factor is neat. They hurled around a conversion factor of 1.5. This works because the sensor most often used is smaller than the 35mm format by about 66% (not the full frame models). No standard yet but typical is 15mm x 22.5mm. No standard yet and future sensors will be smaller thus the conversion factor will change. What you want to know is this lens a wide-angle – a normal – a telephoto? Old-timers think 35mm so they need this conversion factor. I would prefer tables in the camera manual. How to use this factor: Now for the meat of the subject: What to mount on your typical non-full size digital: 50 mm normal for a 35mm thus: 50x0.6= 30mm normal to mount on your digital. Sorry this is so confusing. Luck to all, Alan Marcus
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jon Close |
Uh, Alan? Aiden and Glenn both mentioned they are using EOS 5D. No one's concerned with "35mm equivalent" lenses on this thread. ;-) >>"At the moment I have a ... canon 100-300 (which I would like to get rid off)."<< Aiden, which EF 100-300 is this? EF 100-300 f/5.6, Ef 100-300 f/5.6L, or EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Jon, Thanks for snapping me back to reality. Must have been a senior moment. Alan Marcus
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Aiden C |
Thanks for the feedback guys. My 100-300 is the 5.6. I has done a good job for me over the years but when using the auto focus it makes more noise than jet engine on take off. I've scared many subjects away with this lens (including people) :-) My passion is landscape but my work career will be around property development/architecture so that line of photography also is a posibility. So the tilt shift lenses would be great but at this stage I think it is a dream :) I'm leaning towards a 20mm, canon have it at f2.8 and sigma at 1.8. I have heard several problems ppl have had with sigma not working at all on the 5D so at the moment I am reluctant to look at sigma even though the 1.8 is cheaper than the canon 2.8. Any thoughts?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
There are many scenics that benefit from the compressed perspective of distant land features when a long lens is used. A good wide-angle in the 20-24 mm range will round out your current arsenal nicely. (Those 15-18 mm super-wides have too much distortion for my taste.) "When it comes to choosing a lens our first concerns are about optical quality. For the most part I think that’s overrated. It is my belief that most lenses will never be challenged as most images will be viewed on low resolution monitor and hardcopies will be 8x12.or less." I have to respectfully disagree with Alan M. on this one. If someone wants a large print, you'll wish you had spent that extra cash for good glass. Bob
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
