Wide angle zoom

My widest zoom is the Canon 24-105. I am wondering how many of you landscape photographers shoot wider than 24mm and how often. I know a lot depends on location and subject.

A question on FL is not very meaningful, unless you mention - what Camera Format?

 

If you are only using the APS-C format camera, which you mentioned a few months ago, then I expect that there are more than most "Landscape Photographers" who have access to wider than 24mm for use on an APS-C Format Camera.

 

Not that every "Landscape" shot needs wider than 24mm on APS-C: but if you only have APS-C I really do think that if "Landscape" is your passion, then sooner rather than later you'll come across a shot that screams out to you "W I D E R".

 

***

 

On "Full Frame" -

 

I do not consider myself a "Landscape Photographer" but I do carry a camera mostly everywhere I go, and (when permitted) I do like to get out to places - a 24 to 105/4L IS is my standard 'go everywhere lens' on a 5D Series Camera (aka Full Frame) and I use 24mm often -

 

 

 

and, for me, as a non landscape photographer, and who has a 16 to 35, I continued to see things which made me buy a 14mm (for use on Full Frame) -

 

and I think now, I want to buy, and to master, even wider.

 

***

UWA seems to be addictive to some people.

 

I've used 16mm for a long time, simply because I have had 16 to 35 for a long time, but the more I got fascinated with UWA for some types of landscapes, the more shots I began to see, simply fitted an UWA shot.

 

For me UWA Landscape stuff was a progression, a sideways progression and also a challenge, outside of my norm, which is Portraiture.

 

WW

Landscape is not just wide angle. The tendency is to want to get it "all in the picture" but this can just make everything too 'teeny' to see. Ultra-wide lenses can just show lots of foreground - such as in the following 'classic' example, in addition to those already posted:

Canon EOS 20D (APS-C format) at 10mm (~16mm full-frame equivalent).

 

I will confess, however, that I do like wide-angle lenses and my old Nikkor 20mm lens was always one of my favorites. Although not so extreme as a fascination with fish-eye lenses, UWA lens can be overdone.

 

For most purposes, 24mm on a 35mm-format, or 16~17mm on APS-C is wide enough, and -if shot carefully- will avoid the exaggeration of "too-wide".

I often use my 17-40 lens for landscapes on my EOS 7D. It all depends on the subject!

I forgot to mention that I would use it mainly on my 6dMKII. I am considering the 16-35 F4IS L..

Thanks for mentioning the 6DMkII.

 

I have found many uses for the 16mm to 35mm range: not necessarily for 'Landscapes'. If you also have an APS-C Camera, then, you might find as I have found, that a 16 to 35 zoom gets a lot of use, both on your 6Dii and the APS-C Format.

 

My view is any new lens purchase should accommodate its intended individual use - AND - fit in with logic to the existing lens cache, I am not that keen on duplication.

 

You've probably thought through the value, of IS against value of the extra stop of lens speed, for your intended purposes: I have the 16 to 35/2.8, but, when I bought it, there was no IS available at the Wide Angle/UWA, neither in Primes, nor Zooms. Over the last (approx) 20 years, since I/we cut over to Canon (and moved to Digital Format), I have come to appreciate that IS is usually always as useful often more useful than one extra stop of Lens Speed and this is especially so in Zooms because the (nowadays quality) Zoom, is such a flexible lens. And more so now because of the advances in quality, at High ISO speeds.

 

I have a friend (credited with wins and accolades in Landscape B&W Photography) who lives in the UK; he has had the 11 to 24/4L for a while now and he simply thinks it is the ants pants for what he does - and he does it very well. But is a big difference parting with (approx) USD $3000 compared to about $1000 for the 16 to 35/4L IS, I'd want to be sure that I'd get $2000 worth of value for money - OR - that I simply just had that extra cash as splashing about money, and I don't often splash. I mention that because it would 'fit' with your 24 to 105/4L IS nicely: but I guess you've already considered it?

 

Looking at your portfolio here, its Telephoto and animal centric: being so it's a bit difficult to give any views based upon what type of Landscape work floats your boat, but that stated, and without knowing the remainder of your existing Lens Cache - if any Photographer has in their kit nothing wider than 24mm, then as a general comment a 16 to 35 (or 17 to 40) will certainly add a new dimension to their work and their learning.

 

Good luck with your choice.

 

WW

I don't currently use a lens wider than 24mm (FF equivalent), but my Canon 5D kit was a 17-40L, 50mm, and 70-200L (plus 1.4x), and I used the 17-40mm for most of my images. Just using a super WA lens to capture a wider view, without putting something interesting in the foreground, generally results in an uninteresting photo. If you find you are looking for a wider lens than 24mm, then of course indulge yourself. My experience with the 17-40L was good, but the extreme corners where not sharp at any aperture at 17mm. Lens was better in the extreme corners at around 19-20mm. Given my experience with that lens on a 12.8mp FF camera, I would probable go for the 16-35L F4 IS.

Thanks for mentioning the 6DMkII.

 

I have found many uses for the 16mm to 35mm range: not necessarily for 'Landscapes'. If you also have an APS-C Camera, then, you might find as I have found, that a 16 to 35 zoom gets a lot of use, both on your 6Dii and the APS-C Format.

 

My view is any new lens purchase should accommodate its intended individual use - AND - fit in with logic to the existing lens cache, I am not that keen on duplication.

 

You've probably thought through the value, of IS against value of the extra stop of lens speed, for your intended purposes: I have the 16 to 35/2.8, but, when I bought it, there was no IS available at the Wide Angle/UWA, neither in Primes, nor Zooms. Over the last (approx) 20 years, since I/we cut over to Canon (and moved to Digital Format), I have come to appreciate that IS is usually always as useful often more useful than one extra stop of Lens Speed and this is especially so in Zooms because the (nowadays quality) Zoom, is such a flexible lens. And more so now because of the advances in quality, at High ISO speeds.

 

I have a friend (credited with wins and accolades in Landscape B&W Photography) who lives in the UK; he has had the 11 to 24/4L for a while now and he simply thinks it is the ants pants for what he does - and he does it very well. But is a big difference parting with (approx) USD $3000 compared to about $1000 for the 16 to 35/4L IS, I'd want to be sure that I'd get $2000 worth of value for money - OR - that I simply just had that extra cash as splashing about money, and I don't often splash. I mention that because it would 'fit' with your 24 to 105/4L IS nicely: but I guess you've already considered it?

 

Looking at your portfolio here, its Telephoto and animal centric: being so it's a bit difficult to give any views based upon what type of Landscape work floats your boat, but that stated, and without knowing the remainder of your existing Lens Cache - if any Photographer has in their kit nothing wider than 24mm, then as a general comment a 16 to 35 (or 17 to 40) will certainly add a new dimension to their work and their learning.

 

Good luck with your choice.

 

WW

Thank you for your feedback. Most of my shots have been of animals and mostly birds. I need to learn more about animal photography but I want to learn landscape as well. I am interested in the 16-35 F4 due to the price range and I have read{ watched youtube}that it is quite sharp. I definitely cannot afford the 3k for a lens.

I don't currently use a lens wider than 24mm (FF equivalent), but my Canon 5D kit was a 17-40L, 50mm, and 70-200L (plus 1.4x), and I used the 17-40mm for most of my images. Just using a super WA lens to capture a wider view, without putting something interesting in the foreground, generally results in an uninteresting photo. If you find you are looking for a wider lens than 24mm, then of course indulge yourself. My experience with the 17-40L was good, but the extreme corners where not sharp at any aperture at 17mm. Lens was better in the extreme corners at around 19-20mm. Given my experience with that lens on a 12.8mp FF camera, I would probable go for the 16-35L F4 IS.

Thanks Ken, My 24-105F4L has heavy vignetting at 24mm and wide open. I am sure other lenses may have the same issue. That is one of my reasons for interest in a wider zoom..

Landscape is not just wide angle. The tendency is to want to get it "all in the picture" but this can just make everything too 'teeny' to see. Ultra-wide lenses can just show lots of foreground - such as in the following 'classic' example, in addition to those already posted:

[ATTACH=full]1343888[/ATTACH]

Canon EOS 20D (APS-C format) at 10mm (~16mm full-frame equivalent).

 

I will confess, however, that I do like wide-angle lenses and my old Nikkor 20mm lens was always one of my favorites. Although not so extreme as a fascination with fish-eye lenses, UWA lens can be overdone.

 

For most purposes, 24mm on a 35mm-format, or 16~17mm on APS-C is wide enough, and -if shot carefully- will avoid the exaggeration of "too-wide".

Good point about landscape being more than just wide angle. I think wide angle is probably the first thing learners like me think about.

I definitely cannot afford the 3k for a lens.

 

Me neither.

 

Even when I was shooting everyday "professionally" there was only one lens which I bought outright that was in that (time adjusted) price range - and I used it almost every day to earn money.

 

Any other "big ticket" lens was better rented when it was required, than for it to be bought to sit on the shelf idle for 25 to 28 days of any month.

 

But each to his own: if it gives one pleasure and it can be afforded then that's great.

 

***

 

My 24-105F4L has heavy vignetting at 24mm and wide open.

 

Mine does too, I understand it's intrinsic to the lens's design - it doesn't bother me much as I am around F/8 nearly all the time. I think it is 'correctable' in Photoshop and other PP Programs?

 

What bugs me is the zoom creep when I am carrying the rig - that seems a common complaint, too: the rubber band idea doesn't float my boat either.

 

***

 

Good point about landscape being more than just wide angle. I think wide angle is probably the first thing learners like me think about.

 

For me becoming anywhere near OK employing UWA Lenses for any genre of Photography, has been the most Technically and Artistically challenging - and a lot of fun (and frustrating sometimes).

 

***

 

Yep - I do think you're on a good path with the 16 to 35/4L IS.

 

WW

Wide angle can be overdone, but I still love 'em. Don't forget that with many landscapes you can stitch both horizontally and vertically, giving you almost unlimited coverage on a budget of zero.

Wide angle can be overdone, but I still love 'em. Don't forget that with many landscapes you can stitch both horizontally and vertically, giving you almost unlimited coverage on a budget of zero.

Another good point.

you can stitch both horizontally and vertically, giving you almost unlimited coverage on a budget of zero

AND not only horizontally and vertically, but in every old direction

 

 

Sometimes this can get you into stitches:

A question on FL is not very meaningful, unless you mention - what Camera Format?

 

If you are only using the APS-C format camera, which you mentioned a few months ago, then I expect that there are more than most "Landscape Photographers" who have access to wider than 24mm for use on an APS-C Format Camera.

 

Not that every "Landscape" shot needs wider than 24mm on APS-C: but if you only have APS-C I really do think that if "Landscape" is your passion, then sooner rather than later you'll come across a shot that screams out to you "W I D E R".

 

***

 

On "Full Frame" -

 

I do not consider myself a "Landscape Photographer" but I do carry a camera mostly everywhere I go, and (when permitted) I do like to get out to places - a 24 to 105/4L IS is my standard 'go everywhere lens' on a 5D Series Camera (aka Full Frame) and I use 24mm often -

 

 

 

and, for me, as a non landscape photographer, and who has a 16 to 35, I continued to see things which made me buy a 14mm (for use on Full Frame) -

 

and I think now, I want to buy, and to master, even wider.

 

***

UWA seems to be addictive to some people.

 

I've used 16mm for a long time, simply because I have had 16 to 35 for a long time, but the more I got fascinated with UWA for some types of landscapes, the more shots I began to see, simply fitted an UWA shot.

 

For me UWA Landscape stuff was a progression, a sideways progression and also a challenge, outside of my norm, which is Portraiture.

 

WW

Are these at 24mm?

Are these at 24mm?

 

The text was obviously not clear enough, sorry.

The first, the view of the Buildings across the quadrangle, was made at FL = 24mm (using the 24 to 105/4L IS lens) on an EOS 5D Series Camera.

The second, the view of the Beach, was made with a 14mm Prime Lens on an EOS 5D Series Camera.

 

WW

Yes, a great deal depends on subject and effective anchor and lead-in subjects.

For many years I have used Canon's L-series 17-40mm ultrawide to "shorty" lens. The 17mm end requires careful consideration of foregound and background context because of the vast sweep it takes in. It is not a rectilinear lens and will disort straight lines when tilted up or down.

 

Most of my landscape and commercial work is now with medium format, with 35mm only occasionally used. But when I want to go wider than 45mm (Pentax 67) or 65mm (ALPA), a take a tilt at the 17-40 and go waltzing matilda looking for subject matter that will benefit from it, not just for fun.

I like to use wide angle for landscapes. For my APS-C I have the EF-S 10-22mm and I have the 16-35mm f4L, 24-70mm f2.8L II for my full frame. The 24-15mm f4L is pretty much my primary lens. All of these lens give me the capability for wide angle shooting. If you look at William Michael's beach photo above you see some distortion, most notably in the sky and I think it looks great.. Here is one I took recently with my 5DMIII and the 24-105mm f4L. I was looking to embrace the converging lines of the bridge and shot his at 24mm, f8.

 

 

 

Here is a shot I took with my EOS 40D and EF-s 10-22mm - 12 years ago.

 

 

So I think that it depends very much on what you're shooting and your goals for those that will admire your work.

I shoot with a Full Frame Canon 5D MK IV, I have a 17-40mm F/4 L and a 14mm L and on occasion use them, it depends on the shot as there is significant distortion. I find the very wide lenses can make for some interesting shots shooting vast expanses of wilderness or across lakes and sky. I captured some amazing shots of the night skies with stars , clouds and auroras over wilderness lakes.

 

The wide angles lenses can also be useful in small venues or where you have no choice but to be very close to your subject. These are good tools as long as you don't mind distortion and for me these are lenses good for a few shots at an event but then I switch to something less wide, like using a 24-70mm and 70mm-200mm.

 

You can do some amazing landscapes without a wide angle and in fact higher resolution and no noticeable distortion using zoom lenses by doing composite shots. This is a recent shot I did shot at 600 mm zooming across over a mile of beach and ocean. This is an image that could be printed very large. The image here has been greatly reduced in resolution to only 1200 pixels wide and I also had to drop the image quality for it to be allowed to upload here. So some image quality and resolution is lost posting to the web. There was a bit of haze in the air, but I did like that in the photo as it captured the day. Click on image to view larger, or copy image address and paste in a new tab on your browser. Keep in mind this was shot with a 600mm hand held lens making a composite of several shots, the detail goes beyond anything you will get with a wide angle lens. It is more work than a wide angle, but for me, the results are worth the effort.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by William Michael

Something to watch out for when using wide lenses is what happens with polarizers. Because the amount of polarization changes across the sky (angle from sun), you'll rarely find them beneficial. There's also the issue of vignetting with some filters.

I have a 16-35mm Canon and an 8-18mm for m43. I use them perhaps 15% of the time: i.e.. not much. When you need one you need it though. Personally, I would prefer to have a small, slowish good ultrawide (15-18mm FF) prime lens instead of a zoom, but manufacturers tend not to make them, or if they do, they cost the same and approach the same size as the zooms, so they are not a good business proposition and I end up getting the zoom. I think they usually really come into their own for interiors rather than landscapes.