The best way to spend $1000 for lenses for landscapes?

[Frank F.]

It is a common misunderstanding that wide angle lenses are better for landscapes that tele lenses.

With a tele you can compress the most interesting features of a landscape into a frame.

A wide angle means that your compositional skill has to be much greater, because you have to fill a frame, tell a story, that does not only consist of distant lines.

Here is one of my most popular landscape shots, shot with 50mm:


Havin said that I think a 2.8/24-70 would be a great choice. You can get these barely used for sub 1000 Euros, or even new for cheap if you look around: Search - E-Infinity Camera Store

 

[Frank F.]

canon 24-70 2.8 | eBay

 

[TimmyD11]

I went with the Canon 16-24 f4 L as my landscape lens. I think it will be very good. Perhaps once or twice a year I will buy a new lens. Maybe the next one will be for astrophotography. But I understand the sharpest lenses don't automatically make good astrophotography lenses...something about "coma", which I still have to learn about.

 

[STR8SHOOTR]

I also use the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II and love it. I don't think you can go wrong with that lense its very versatile.

Well I was looking at the F4 version of that lens, which is $300 cheaper, and supposedly sharper.

Not sure on what you're going to be shooting with the 16-35mm F4. Outdoor photos,with relatively close subject matter, that lense will shine. The 2.8 is great at capturing light and is a whole nother beast. Just something to think about. Don't let the $300 make the decision on what lense your going to buy.

 

[TimmyD11]

Not sure on what you're going to be shooting with the 16-35mm F4. Outdoor photos,with relatively close subject matter, that lense will shine. The 2.8 is great at capturing light and is a whole nother beast. Just something to think about. Don't let the $300 make the decision on what lense your going to buy.

Gonna shoot mountain / wilderness / forest scenery. Doesn't need to be f2.8 fast, although I know there may be times I wish it were.

 

[STR8SHOOTR]

Not sure on what you're going to be shooting with the 16-35mm F4. Outdoor photos,with relatively close subject matter, that lense will shine. The 2.8 is great at capturing light and is a whole nother beast. Just something to think about. Don't let the $300 make the decision on what lense your going to buy.

Gonna shoot mountain / wilderness / forest scenery. Doesn't need to be f2.8 fast, although I know there may be times I wish it were.

Perfect, I used mine on a snowboard trip. It takes great mt. shots. Really wide angle.I forget what I was going to post, It really doesn't matter its a great lense. To be honest I don't shoot at 2.8 to much. I'm usually 1 0r 2 stops away

 

[beagle100]

Not sure on what you're going to be shooting with the 16-35mm F4. Outdoor photos,with relatively close subject matter, that lense will shine. The 2.8 is great at capturing light and is a whole nother beast. Just something to think about. Don't let the $300 make the decision on what lense your going to buy.

Gonna shoot mountain / wilderness / forest scenery. Doesn't need to be f2.8 fast, although I know there may be times I wish it were.

Perfect, I used mine on a snowboard trip. It takes great mt. shots. Really wide angle.I forget what I was going to post, It really doesn't matter its a great lense. To be honest I don't shoot at 2.8 to much. I'm usually 1 0r 2 stops away

I also shoot at higher (smaller) apertures with landscape shots unless it's in low light
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[TimmyD11]

I also shoot at higher (smaller) apertures with landscape shots unless it's in low light
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I reckon that's rare, and can be made up for with a tripod and leaving the shutter open longer?

 

[Designer]

It is a common misunderstanding that wide angle lenses are better for landscapes that tele lenses.

Worth repeating.

 

[Designer]

I also shoot at higher (smaller) apertures with landscape shots unless it's in low light
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I reckon that's rare, and can be made up for with a tripod and leaving the shutter open longer?

Not at all rare. Study up on Depth of Field (DOF).

 

[TimmyD11]

Not at all rare. Study up on Depth of Field (DOF).

I know how aperture effects depth of field. I'm just trying to think of a landscape photography situation in which you would want a f2.8 aperture for really shallow depth of field or allowing a lot of light in. Most of the time you would want deep depth of field (f8/f11/f16) and you can get the right exposure with a longer shutter speed.

But I am rusty since I haven't been deeply involved in photography in 20 years so you can enlighten me if I'm wrong or overlooking something.

 

[Derrel]

It is a common misunderstanding that wide angle lenses are better for landscapes that tele lenses.

Worth repeating.

And repeating once more.

A simple 35mm semi-wide at f/8, or an 85mm at f/8, or a 70-200 zoom--all of those are good landscape lenses.

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many BORING, everything-looks-so-far-away-and-insignificant shots coming from wide-angle and wide zoom users, all the time. Wide-angle lenses demand skilled, thoughtful, and scene-dependent deployment. MANY actual landscapes are far,far,farrrrrrrr better shot with a longer than normal focal length; 16,17,18,20,24mm lenses are fine for interior landscapes (caves, groves, small scenes) but really poor choices for grand vistas. My favorite landscape lenses are 70-200,135,105,300mm.

 

[TimmyD11]

I can see a need for both. I took a few pretty nice pictures with my Galaxy S6 with a focal range of about 28mm.

Maybe I'd be better off with 24, 35 and 50mm prime lenses. I have the 85mm keeper from years ago.

I'll see how things go. Right now the 16-35 lens was the most logical choice for first purchased lens, for what I like to do.

 

[benhasajeep]

Right now the 16-35 lens for what I like to do.

Doesn't matter what we say or do in our pictures. It's what you want to do. We can give suggestions based on our own knowledge. But what and where we shoot helps to formulate our answers. So, yes ask questions and comments on what lenses you might be interested in. And take our comments into consideration. But in the end, buy the one that YOU want or can get. Not what others have!

 

[beagle100]

Not at all rare. Study up on Depth of Field (DOF).

I know how aperture effects depth of field. I'm just trying to think of a landscape photography situation in which you would want a f2.8 aperture for really shallow depth of field or allowing a lot of light in. Most of the time you would want deep depth of field (f8/f11/f16) and you can get the right exposure with a longer shutter speed.

But I am rusty since I haven't been deeply involved in photography in 20 years so you can enlighten me if I'm wrong or overlooking something.

not much but I occasionally shoot wide 'landscape' shots at f 2.8 .... however not for "DOF"
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless