Just checking about EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

[george_kuldhardhis]

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - Is this lens good for Landscape

photography. There are so many good reviews about this lens for

portrait and indoor shots. Is anybody using this for Landscape?

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

I own this lens, and like many others, use it almost exclusively for portraits. If your lens is a fast telephoto, it's begging to be used at wider apertures on subjects that need to be isolated.

 

There is no reason why the lens would not do well at f/8 for a typical landscape. At that aperture though, you are probably better off with the more versatile 70-200mm f/2.8L (IS) - if you can cough up the coin.

[the_macman]

Not really. It's wasted money. You pay for its exquisite sharpness to be used

where it's not critical. Usually, let's just say that you care much less for

sharpness in landscape than in portraiture (unless you make big

enlargments). In a portrait, the unsharp details are easily noticeable. As they

eye composes a landscape image from the ensemble, the unsharp little rocks

on a mountain matter much less.

 

Also, it's a bit too long. 24-50 is very useful in landscaping, plus.. you need a

zoom for composition. Unlike portraiture, the ability to compose becomes

kinda important in landscape. Primes are often inconveninent and limitating,

unless they're WAs. IMHO, any consumer zoom 24-85, 28-105, 28-135 is

plenty enough for landscape. They're all fast enough for landscape as well, in

most of the situations.

[the_macman]

70-200/4 definitely... and not /2.8 IS... Well, /2.8 IS if you want do it, they're

both equally amazing lens, I'm just saying that the faster aperture and IS are

features designed for elsewhere and they're about useless for landscape.

 

Why? First off, landscapes don't move that fast :) You can do w/o IS. Secondly,

I suppose some hiking may be involved. Believe me... you want the 70-200/4

on your shoulders rather than its sister.

[the_macman]

Landscaping with L glass and Velvia... I don't know if it's a self-suggestive

fetish, but it's certainly hard to beat. That being said, while the lower half of the

70-200 can often be very useful in landscape, the lens becomes less

interesting for that purpose if you own a DSLR with a crop factor, for obvious

reasons.

[markci]

The idea that sharpness matters more in portraits than landscapes is one of the funnier things I've heard on photo.net in a while. People will actually complain if their portraits are too sharp. Landscapes on the other hand, often only work when they're blown up large.

 

It's fine for landscapes.

[chris_ferebee]

George, that's kind of a strange question.

 

The 85/1.8 is excellent in every way. If you want 85 mm than there is hardly anything better. Except the 85/1.2L, but that's a whole different story that certainly doesn't involve landscapes much. :-)

 

Maybe the question is whether you want to shoot landscapes with an 85 mm prime? If that's what you're wondering, you could buy a cheap, used hyperzoom (something like 28-200) and try using it with the zoom taped down at different focal lengths until you decide what you like. Then sell the zoom and buy something that fits your style.

[the_macman]

>>>> Landscapes on the other hand, often only work when they're blown up

large.

 

Exactly. I said the provisional UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS you make big

enlargement. UNLESS. Again? I don't know what the guy does, so I go by the

usual average. Most people DO NOT enlarge. Most people ask for 4x6 at wal-

mart & co.

[yakim_peled1]

I have it but when I want to take landscape shots I switch to the 35/2 or 24/2.8. I use it for portraits. I guess I'm an old fashion guy.....

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[johann_fuller]

If you are only going for walmart 4x6's get a compact P&S.

I use this lens for landscape and it's superb - center to corner sharpness is near identical - most cheap zooms go soft in the corners and have other problems when it comes to resolving fine detail. On the other hand portraits rarley need any kind of corner sharpness and skin can look more flattering with less sharpness overall. It's often a myth that you need wide angles for landscape - yes you get more in but everything gets pushed back and made smaller - mountains get transformed into molehills.

[jim_larson1]

No.

 

A SLR, with it's superior control of depth of field and features such as mirror lockup are useful even for 4x6 prints.

 

On the subject of lenses, most "landscapes" call for F8 or smaller apertures. At F8, most lenses are very good. What you pay for with primes and "L" zooms is performance at large apertures. And build quality.

 

As for focal length: 85 is a bit on the long side for my personal tastes, but this is an ideal portrait length for film. In fact, the 85/1.8 is hailed a premo portrait lens for it's wide open image quality.

 

***

But the most important factor resides behind the viewfinder (ie, the photographer).

 

I was fiddling with evening cityscape shots the other day, using a tripod and the camera's timer. My friend, said "oh, let me take some shots too". Out comes the P&S: "Should I use flash"? "Umm, Buildings are about 750ft away. Probably not."

 

Click. Hmmm. Without flash, the P&S went for what seemed like a full second shutter time. "Hey, I think you should mount that camera on my tripod for the next shot". The immediate response: "Why? Seems like a hassle".

[iain_west]

Yes, I use it for landscape. Often if the wide view isn't all that interesting, there are some details that are, and a long lens picks them out. You don't need to be using f8, since you may be focusing on a foreground element against a blurred background, or else everything in the view may be distant. Here are a couple of shots I took this weekend with the 85/1.8 that illustrate this.

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/27921947

http://www.pbase.com/image/27921963

 

Iain West