Lens for Landscape

[digmo]

I hope this is the correct forum for this question. I am looking at upgrading my 15-85 EF 3.5-5 lens to the 24-70 EF 2.8 lens for more speed. My question is, is the 24-70 good for landscape photography ?

I have been taking more and more landscape photos (FlixelPix/) any many are around the 17-20mm mark so am perhaps looking reassurance than the 24-70 isn't going to disappoint in this area ?

David

[Nicole]

You're in the right place. I like my landscapes wide... I use a 10-20mm lens for most of my landscapes. So my opinion would be that 24mm isn't quite wide enough for me, especially since I spend a lot of time at 10mm. The other thing to consider is that landscapes don't often use really wide apertures, so the f/2.8 may not be necessary for that unless you're doing other things with the lens as well. I'm a Nikon user, but I use a Sigma 10-20mm. Just another lens to consider.

[digmo]

I am really trying establish if the 24-70 will still be reasonably for landscapes ? or is that not how people use it ?

David

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by digmo

I am really trying establish if the 24-70 will still be reasonably for landscapes ? or is that not how people use it ?

David

The 24-70 is designed for full-frame, where 24mm is rather wide. On the crop-sensor bodies it's a bit on the long side. You can still use it for landscapes, but you'll get a smaller view.

As Nicole said, most people use ultra-wide lenses for their landscapes. I personally shoot Nikon and use a 10-24, usually at the 10-15 range.

Roadtrip To Nowhere 1 by ~OsmosisStudios on deviantART

That's shot at 10mm.

Most people that use the 24-70 f/2.8 use it for low-light situations (like small concerts) where they need the f/2.8 over that range.

[digmo]

Thanks,

I was hoping for the 24-70 to be my working everyday lens (the 15-85 is my current) but am just worried it my limit me from taking landscape photos and I will miss the 15-85 ?

I took this photo with the 15-85 and it was at 17mm Lough Neagh Fog | FlixelPix I really can't afford the 10mm lens although for landscapes it would be perfect.

Do you think I will be left wishing I had the 15mm back if I upgrade ?

David

[Elmo]

Best solution is to look at your EXIF data and see where (FL) you generally shoot landscapes. For my use I find I use between 17 and 30 the most used for landscapes. I do on occassion go wider but seldom longer unless it is really long 125 to 200 for fine details.

My 28 to 70 is my least used lens for all my photogrphy (reduced sensor). In order of usefulness for me:

17-50 f2.8
10-22 variable
70-200 f2.8

but that is based on my style

[inkista]

Yes, if you're shooting on a crop body. I have the 24-105 and occasionally feel it doesn't go wide enough.

The crop-body lens you probably really want instead of the EF-S 15-85 is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

[LeeR]

I have looked at your images and am thoroughly impressed. You have quite an eye for great design and I would encourage you to continue to pursue this passion.
As for your lens choice; I understand your wish for a faster midrange lens, but I wouldn't give up the wider range for all the tea in China. For those of us who do a lot of landscapes wide is the word. I am always looking to go wider and wider and the thought of losing that option is not one I would want to entertain.

[rediguana]

Another vote for wide, and 24mm on a crop sensor is not going to be wide enough! Either the EFS 10-22mm or the EFS17-55f2.8 as Inkista suggests will probably be your best bet on crop. If you're looking at sometime upgrading to full frame, then you may be able to compromise with a 17-40L but it won't start to really shine until on full frame.

[BCampbell]

Sorry, I'm going to go against the grain here.

You do say that most of your landscape shots are taken wide, so by all means seriously consider a wide lens. The Canon 10-22mm is pretty good. Obviously having L-glass is a big bonus though. And if you plan on going up to full frame, where you can mroe easily go really wide, that 10-22 won't follow since it's EF-S.

Anyway, most people say go wide for landscapes. This is not necessarily true. It depends on what you want to shoot and what you want your result to be. In fact, shooting longer focal lengths for landscape is often preferable; when you shoot wide, if you don't have a focal point in the foreground, you can lose a lot of the impact of the image. Shooting wide tends to "draw out" the depth of land features, so if you don't very carefully compose to have something of interest in at least three zones -- foreground, middle, and background -- your shot is going to lose impact.

Many landscape shooters do shoot long. Even into the telephoto end, 100mm+. Remember that telephoto lengths compress the image, seeming to put the various ranges of the land into the "same" space. This can create amazingly dramatic compositions, especially when you want to highlight a distant feature.

Try this: take your 15-85, and go to a good vantage point for a landscape shoot. Keep the lens at a longer focal length, say 50mm, the entire time. Get a feel for how this changes your positioning and composition. On another day, lock it at 85, 70, 35, 15, whatever. Shoot excluively at specific focal length for a day or two each to really figure out how that length impacts your shots. Then see if any of these work for your style, or if you came up with some unexpected results. Shooting the same scene at different lengths can be ideal, to give you a clear idea of the difference it makes.

A final thought: getting an ultrawide lens like the 10-22 will give you more range than you already have, since you can pair it with the 15-85, while the 24-70 only covers a range you already have. Conversely, the L glass, especially the quality build of the f/2.8, will return image quality that will blow both of those lenses out of the water, combined, and even if they weren't in the water it would put them there and then blow them out of it.