What to look for in lanscape lens

mrmatt

I'm thinking that with a hiking trip coming up my next lens need might something for landscape pictures. But the more I research the more confused I get as to what to look for in such a lens. I'm starting to understand the needs for low light, sports, or portrait, but what's important in a lens for the typical landscape shot?

Jeffro

mrmatt wrote:

... but what's important in a lens for the typical landscape shot?

the ability to see the forest, through the tress.....:D

i love my Canon 17-40L f4. great optics, great build, resonable price. and now, everybody else's choices.....

GraphyFotoz

Being on a budget my Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-4 works for me.

Been in Photography on and off for 20yrs and ULTRA wide glass has never excited me much. But then that's just me!

erich6

What is a "landscape lens"? Well, unfortunately there is no one lens that you can dub a "landscape lens". That's because to shoot a good series of landscape images you need a range of focal lengths.

A wide-angle lens (like the Canon 17-40L) will allow you to capture vistas and sweeping views. A long telephoto can help bring out the grandeur of a background because it allows you to bring its size up relative to foreground elements (think of a mountain and how small it would look in a wide-angle shot if it is far away...a telephoto will help you make it larger). A telephoto will also allow you to capture wildlife more effectively. A macro lens (somewhere between 60-105mm) is good to shoot flowers, plants, insects, etc.

So, what's a good lens? I say you need a range of focal lengths to capture the range of subjects you'll see in your hike.

Erich

cmason

Well, when you say 'landscape lens' I think wide-angle. My wide angle of choice is currently the Sigma 10-20mm. Great build, very sharp and nice range. The wide angle brings a dimension to my shots that is really interesting, as there is 'so much' in the view...Highly recommended.

claudermilk

I also think wide-angle. My lens of choice will be the Tokina 12-24 (funds are in the bank, I just haven't purchased yet); second would be the Canon 10-22. For a landscape lens, the fast f2.8 offerings seem a waste since they will usually be stopped down anyway. Thus, I'll be happy with the f4 max (it will be my slowest lens).

For the telephoto option, I'll end up using an overkill 70-200/2.8 IS since I need the fast aperture & stabilization for other purposes; if it were landscape only I'd go with the f4 version.

Some other fun options might be the ultrawide primes from Canon & Sigma.

mrmatt

I think part of my confusion is that the more I read the more it seems like just about any lens will do for landscape. For other subjects likes sports or portraits there are certain apsects that you need to look for in a lens. But when reading about a landscape lens I commonly see the phrase "and it works well for landscape too".

I can see where wide angle would be good, epecially with a 1.6x body. But I rarely see any reviews on a lens that praise it's ability to capture something at f/8 or beyond like you do with a portrait lens that blurs the background nicely (for example). Perhaps I'm over thinking it and should just concentral on focal length for my needs.

pathfinder

I have seem lovely landscape shots captured with 21 mm Zeiss wide angles by Andy, and 300mm telephotos by Michael Reichman.

A 17mm to 50mm to 500mm lens can be used for landscapes.

24mm T&S lenses work fine - Mark Muench was shooting all day long with that lens at Zion.

Almost any lens can be used for a landscape of some type. Not sure what you are referring to when you talk about a lens for landscapes.

cmason

mrmatt wrote:

I But I rarely see any reviews on a lens that praise it's ability to capture something at f/8 or beyond like you do with a portrait lens that blurs the background nicely (for example). Perhaps I'm over thinking it and should just concentral on focal length for my needs.

Well I think of landscape shots being typically focused at infinity anyway, so the 'blur' issue would never come into play. This is likely why most any lens will do.

In addition, since most landscape I shoot doesn't move that much (well trees swaying is about the limit), a time release from a tripod will solve any issues around whether the lens is 'bright' or not. In fact, for many landscape shots, especially those with running water, a bit of time delay is prefered....

mrmatt

pathfinder wrote:

Almost any lens can be used for a landscape of some type. Not sure what you are referring to when you talk about a lens for landscapes.

And that's actually my point.

If someone comes to you and says "I need a new lens tell me what to get" the very first thing you will ask them is "What are you going to do shoot?". If that person responds with "I'm not interested in pictures of people or sports or animals - I mostly want to take landscape pictures for all the hiking in state parks that I do." I would think that you would now have enough information to advise the person what to get.

My question still is ... how do you decide what to recommend? What goes into the decision for your recommendation in this case?

For the person taking portraits inside you maybe start in the 20-50mm range with maybe something around f/1.4 or f/1.8 and that has a nice blur effect. For the person who wants to shoot high school football games at night you start with a zoom lens and go from there. In both of these cases you can justify your recommendation based on the need. The football game photographer needs the long lens because you are on the sideline. The inside portrait photographer would benefit from something around f/1.4 to help with the low light. Your recommendation is made by the typical needs of the type of shot.

In all the recommendations I've read it's been pretty easy to see WHY the person recommends a lens for a particular shot. That information can help the buyer make his own personal "need list" when shopping (ie certain focal length, certain f stop, focusing speed, ability to blur background).

But when it comes to landscape it seems like there is no need or there is nothing to look for beyond focal length. I just seems strange to me that there isn't something I should be looking for to shoot landscape. From what I've read thus far if I walked into a store and asked the clerk to show me a good landscape lens s/he would just show me all the lenses. I'm not sure if the same could be said for any other subject.

pathfinder

I would start with a normal lens then - say 35mm for a 20D or 50mm for a 5D.

Or if you prefer avoiding the sharper images of primes ( that's a joke :), then a normal range zoom, 24-70, or 24-105 are great for a full frame camera, slightly wider maybe 17-55 for an APS sensored camera.

These ranges will cover 75-85% of your needs for landscape shooting. I would get the widest aperture you can afford in this range. Peferably f2.8. In primes, I would want at least f2.0 or larger. For landscape shooting buy a good tripod and use it. No matter what lens you use, it will be sharper when shot from a tripod. Get a tripod, before you buy a second lens for landscapes.

Learn to use the normal range lenses for landsapes - your zoom will be your feet. Once you have explored the use of normal range lenses, and know the controls of your camera completely, then you can begin to look into wide angles or telephotos. But all the rest of your lenses, will only take about 1/3 of your images. 24-105 will cover thye other 2/3 easy.