This is the best discussion of lens choices for landscape photography I have ever heard. In my opinion, you have concisely and clearly presented all the relevant considerations to our choices and trimmed off all needless verbiage. Just excellent, including the sidebars for astrophotography. I especially found your information about zoom lenses as opposed to "zooming with one's feet" enlightening. Enjoying your channel very much.
Wow! You basically cover everything in 15 minutes; I wish I had this several years ago, as I have come to basically the same conclusions through the school of hard (and expensive) knocks. Another other thing to consider is the overall weather seal of the camera and lens. As you mention in this mega-tutorial, the right zoom can save you from dust on the sensor by decreasing the need to change lenses in the field.
Zooms (particularly medium to long tele zooms) can let you compress the scene too, something you can't usually do by just getting closer. True, that it is better to get "closer" if all you want to do is crop (and not be lazy) and this works for some things (including some things in landscape) but you want to use the compression to your advantage on your longer lenses, and by doing that you need to zoom with the lens, not your feet. Ideally when it comes to pick your "trinity" I like to find lenses that overlap a bit. So that might be (For me being a Nikon Z shooter) the 14-30, the 24-120 and the 70-200 or 100-400, all of which overlap by at lease some amount. I could use the higher-end Z 14-24 and whiel that lens is perhaps a bit sharper in the corners and a stop faster, I do lose the overlap of 6mm, which at wider focal lengths below 35mm can mean a reasonable change in perspective and could also mean that I wouldn't have t ochange a lens if I was on the edge of 24mm as I would have some room to work, whereas with the 14-24, if I needed to go in slightly tigher, I would have to change lenses. (5:45 There are some 14-15mm wide angle zooms now that can take screw-in filters.. one example is the Z 14-30).
I've been following your Instagram for years and you're one of the most incredible photographers on there, the fact that you upload onto RUclips is also amazing!
The Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 S has a filter thread of 82mm. I believe it's the only ultrawide zoom where you can use normal screw in filters or square filter systems. I use the NISI 100mm system without any vignetting at all.
I roll with the 17-28mm f2.8 Tamron, 28-75mm f2.8 Tamron, and ordered the new 100-400mm f2.8 Sigma. I like the f2.8 options as I do a lot of family and travel portraits, low light, and some astro photography.
Love the video. As an Olympus shooter i use the e-m1 mkii and 12-100 f4 lens. Basically 24-200 mm f4 for light and f8 depth of field. A 12mm f2 for astro and simple but great 9-18mm f4-5.6 for wide. A compact light very capable system for adventure photography. Thanks for the inspiration.
Thanks for this whole series of videos. I've been shooting landscapes in the Mid Atlantic area of the US for some time, mostly as a hobby, but am beginning to really take it seriously. Interesting that my composition methods are very similar to yours. It's just the way I 'see things'. This video and the others on lens selection have been very very helpful. I just recently switched to Micro 4/3 format and have a super zoom (14-140) that has been my main lens, and an older Olympus 11-22 with an adapter that have been my primary lenses for a while. the 14-140 is a great range (28-280 in full frame terms), but it's soft. The 11-22 (22-44) is razor sharp, but manual focus only. I've been trying to decide what I can replace them with. I'm leaning with keeping the 11-22 for my wide end at the moment , and switching out the 14-140 for a sharper combination. Because of your video on lens selection, I've decided to go with the Panasonic 12-35, and 35-100 lenses as my main pair; will add an 8-18 later after my wallet recovers. That will give me in full frame terms - 16-36, 24-70, 70-200 range. I think that should cover it! All of those lenses are f2.8, but are the sharpest of the Panasonic line. My intent is having a setup that will last me a very long time. Thanks for the tips. Extremely helpful, and very clearly presented. I'm subscribed, looking forward to future videos.
Personally I'd rather have 3 primes. They're sharper, faster aperture (which I like for landscapes!), and much lighter and smaller. I don't find them limiting at all.
Agree. I carry 4 primes 15, 35, 55, 90 and one telephoto zoom, no issues, find the speed , weight and sharpness does make a difference and gave up wide, medium zooms years ago.
Gary P Hayes me too. I have 21, 35, 55, 85, 135 primes and a two zooms. Tbh I could do everything wirh the 21 and 85. Everytime I use the zooms I’m disappointed - they’re good lenses but not nearly on the level of the primes I have - zeiss distagon for example
@@NickGranville The other big advantage of primes when you are really used to them, is that you 'see' the composition in your minds eye, click into view as you pass a scene, vs the endless possibilities of infinite zoom from 16-400 :)
Thanks, Mads! You advice make perfect sense! I find that 24-105 G intriguing. Back in my days of using Minolta cameras like the Dynax 7, my 24-105 D was my most used lens. I haven't been using my 24-70 f4 ZA as much these days as maybe I should, because it lacks the extra reach so maybe I should be considering that f4 G lens. I have the 100-400 GM and so I find myself using my 40mm Batis and 85mm f1.8 to fill the gap between my 16-35m f4 ZA. I've used the 70-200 f4 that German friends own while visiting and traveling in Europe and like it. I've read some complaints about performance on the long end, but I haven't used it enough to have noticed any problem. Thanks again!
Great explanation, thanks Mads! My setup is the 16-35 f/4, the 24-105 f/4G - yes they overlap a lot but often I can only carry one lens so more range per lens is better - and for a tele I am still making do with an adapted Tamron 70-300 for A-mount, mostly because I don't have an extra grand or two lying around for anything more fancy ;).
Good commonsense information from a master! I have the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 f2.8 zooms plus the Sony 70-200 f.4 lens. For astro, I bought the Sony 24 f1.4 lens. Thanks for this tutorial Mads!
Interesting. So far i have 14mm samyang for aurora 16 35m f4 , just bought 24mm f1.4 for astro , 28 75mm tamron (90 %of the time on my camera) and 85mm 1.8 sony. And the telephoto I have the beercan 70 210mm but i want to change because focus sucks and its not manual. I guess a 70 - 180mm from tamron would be great as the holy Trinity. And maybe replace my 16 35 to 17-28 from tamron as I do a lot of night photo
Thank you, Mads, for a clearly articulated choice of lenses. Your choice between F4 and F2.8 is spot on. my WA choice is TBD, mid range is Sigma 24-105 F4 +MC-11 adapter , and Sigma 100-400 C series with an aftermarket tripod collar. So far, I'm loving the sharpness, images, and coverage. Certainly, cost was a factor, but I'm finding the sharpness of both lenses to be as good as the Sony equivalents. 😊So here is my WA question. Will the Sigma 14-24 F2.8 be good enough to use for both wide angle landscape photography AND a bit of simple, camera based astro-photography? Or will 20mm F1.4 work for both WA and Astro?😊
Mads, your work is one of the best. Have one question for u if u find time to answer. I was using APSC cameras before, and had holy trinity. Now i switched to Nikon z7 and have 24-70 f4 native and using tamron 70-200mm f2.8 g2. For a wide i have tokina 11-20mm f2,8 but is only 20mpx and corner sharpnes isnt good as 24-70 f4. So i avoid that wide focal lenght as much as posible and using 24mm on native nikon lens for my wide shots. All the time I am in dilemma to go for Nikor 14-30 f4 or I dont need that focal range so much. My style of photos are similar to yours. Can't make decision couse i watch many videos in wich landscape photographers talks about that wide isn't used so much, including yours about mid range focal range.... I lost objectivity couse I am biased to 24-70 and used it all the time couse of superor image quality that i get i over tokina which works in crop sensor mode... Don't know what is question here...:) I will try one. Is wide angle essential for u? that range from 14-24, its 10mm but does is make enought diference to reinvest? thanks man for sharing knowledge and keep with this high quality of your work. Videos and photos. Sry for bad english :D
Hey Mads! Great video once again. I know you focused mostly on Canon EF and Sony E gear but Nikon now has an interesting 14-30 F4 for the Z mount that it's really compact and takes 82mm filters. Definitely something I'd consider if I had a Z camera.
Thank you very much for an excellent video . You just made my day! I have all three Sony lenses you mentioned; 24-105, 70-200, and 100-400. I use the later for wildlife. I also used it during my Antarctica trip last December, which I believe your are going on next year. I also have a canon lens 16-35 f2.8 which I use with a converter on my Sony @7RIII.
Nice round up. If I was going zooms only (Sony e-mount) and shooting only landscapes, I would get the 16-35 f2.8 and 70-300G. With 70-300G you are not really losing sharpness compared to 70-200 f4 but you are gaining 50% more reach and it's a lot lighter than the 100-400GM. However, I'm not doing only landscapes. I'm doing travel photography that includes landscapes, street, portraits, events, wildlife (some times) and everything in between. So I desided that having 3 primes and the 70-300G works better for me. My primes are Batis 18, 25 and 40mm. That way if I shoot street for example, I can have a small "discreet" prime on my camera that doesn't weigh a lot and another one in my small shoulder bag. For landscapes I have also light'ish panorama kit that allows for multirow panoramas, if the primes are not suitable for the situation or I just crop a little. I'm currently saving for the 100-400GM and 1.4x TC (and APS-C body) because I have plans to go to safari some day and I will also bring it with me to my other travels if I'm expecting to see some intresting wildlife. I'm not a professional though, so this is only my two cents :)
The 70-300mm is also a strong candidate for regular landscape photography for sure! It is often overseen, and not one I decided to include, but it really seems like a strong lens :)
This video is coming at the right time as I am planning to reconsider my focal range. *today I own 15f2.0, 28-70f2.8, 55f1.8* *My plan: 15f2.0, 24-105f4.0, 55f1.8, 70-200f4.0* I need more versatility in my gear for travel and the Tamron is for me a bit tricky.
Yeah, when I went to Gran Canaria I brought my 15 f/2, 20 f/1.4, 24-105 and 70-200. I had to leave one lens behind, but I could probably have brought the 12-24 instead of the 15 f/2.
Hi Mads. Just getting into photography myself with a Sony A7C, a Sony 20 f/1.8 G and in the near future a Sony 24-105 G lens that you recommended. For a beginner that should be more than enough. I have gotten the Sony 20 f/1.8 at a great price, basically half of what a Sony 24 GM lens would have cost (because of the 2 cashback campaigns that gave me back 200 euros). Cheers from Romania!
I have the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 which i liked very much from my recent trip. I also kind of liked their 35-150 f2.8-4 which i believe is a great option considering that it covers most of focal lengths of 24-70 and 70-200 and that its relatively a cheaper one instead of (24-70 + 70-200). Ofcourse it lets the 150-200 range to be missed out but its a very tempting choice in all honesty. Your views ?
I have 3 zooms 16-35 24-105 and 70-300. If possible, and I work to make it possible, I shoot with prime lenses. For me, the quality of their results surpasses any zoom lense.
Primes are usually better optically, I just find them to be very impractical and I would hate to hike to the top of a mountain and not have the focal length I need ;)
There is so much thing that are included in quality of photo that difference in optical quality of top zooms and primes are negligible... and u need to crop on primes much more.
Even tho I favor primes, I have the 10-18mm (for my a6400), 24-70GM, 16-35 f/4, 70-200mm f/4, and thinking about the 100-400mm. BTW I could listen to you read the phone book. That's how good your presentation is to me.
Hi Mads. Great videos firstly. I’m a big fan. Question for you. I’ve just switched form a crop Canon to Sony A7R4A and also new lenses. I’ve gone Sony GM 16-35 and (as you later recommended) Tamron 28-200. As I’ve now literally spent all my money! Haha if I need to go further than 200mm which I know I will at some point as I’m also party to some wildlife and motorsport photography too will a 2x extender work in place of buying another lens (such as a Sigma 150-600) which I had on my canon? Many thanks. PS the photoshop course was great too.
I use the 16 to 35 and 70 to 200. I've never needed the middle zoom for landscape. I use the 2.8 versions as I also use them for other types of photography. Good video.
@@MadsPeterIversen - Well, it's always last on my list. As you say 16 to 35 first then the long zoom. Then for me an 85 prime is a staple and I just got the Sony 24 1.4 for Astro and its awesome for video. For me, I've never shot 50mm, I either want to be wider or closer. However, I think if you were to have only one lens or needed to travel where you could only take one, then the mid zoom makes the most sense. But for me, my minimum kit is the 16-35 and the 85mm. However, the new Cannon 70-200 which slides, but stores much shorter than an internal slide, has me reconsidering the whole Sony system. If the R5 is a real winner, I'll probably be switching to Canon.
Hey Mad's I have noticed that your bodies have L Brackets which is great for Landscape. Quick question re this, why then stick a mount plate on the base that looks to be ARCA compatible? Great video though
Hi Mads; Great discussion and video. I have recently a moved from a Nikon D810 over to Olympus OMD M1Markii and the main factor with the transition was the weight of both the camera and the lens. When I purchased my new Olympus lens I wanted to make sure that these lens were all weather sealed to match the body and this meant going to the 'Pro' versions of the lens. I have a variety of lens to fit all of my shooting requirements within landscapes, portraits and night pictures. I didn't mind spending a little more for the F2.8 glass as this actually save money and gear weight in the long run. As well, I suffer from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) like most photographers. LoL. Cheers, Keith Pinn (Barrie, Ontario Canada)
Hehe, nice choices Keith. I've actually been looking towards Olympus too for their weather sealing. If they decide to go FF, they might have a new fan ;)
Just a note on primes. You can widen their effective focal length by about 1.5x by doing 3 shot panos. So a 50mm lens will give you about 35mm field of view
Thanks for a clear and accurate review. But I can't help but think, that it would be much easier to explain, if the lens' angle of view are used, instead of the millimeter. For us old people, it will surely be a "steep learning curve" to think in other numbers, but practically not to depend on sensor size. Who takes the first step in that direction? Cheers
Hi Mads I’m shooting Olympus mostly these days and I’ve found that I can shrink down to 2 lenses - 12-100mm f4 and 7-14mm f2.8. Of course I do actually take more... just in case.
I appreciate that the traditional view is to have the ability to cover all ranges and understand why but I have bought a lot of lenses in my life and I have fallen back on primes because no matter how good the zoom glass is it is never as good at the edge of the frame as a prime lens. I shot a view of my city combining 10 shots in a panorama with an 85 mm prime that I then printed as a 22 x96 inch print and you can see all the details including inside the windows of the office buildings edge to edge. I just can't achieve that kind of detail with any of the zooms I've tried. I've owned L glass from Canon, old and new glass from Nikon and GM lenses from Sony as well as Fuji's primes and zooms and I still came back to the primes. Since you are talking just about landscape and have to often pack them into a location when you add up the weight and size of 3 big zooms you can put 21mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm Loxia manual focus zeiss lenses (for sony in this case) for the same or less money than what you are proposing and size and weight is less than the zooms. If that is too much money because you can't own both zooms for certain shots and primes for distortion free images, there are a lot of ways to slice it so that you can get a nice balance. Your video is great and I gave it a thumbs up but I know that amateurs like me bought into these big zooms and found our images lacked the pop and excitement we were looking for. I suppose it depends on what kind of landscape you are shooting and how important the detail is.
Great video as always. Just one thing: you did not take RF lenses from Canon into the equation. Especially the RF 24-105 F4 is said to stand out compared to all other equivalent lenses. The mentioned EF version on the other hand can’t compete.
Thanks Mads for this interesting video ...... beside the holly trinity in my collection i bought recently a prime super wide the " Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D" for narrow spaces.
Currently covered from 16mm through to 200mm and was considering a prime for astro but then the recent announcement about Canon's EOS R5 has now got me holding off and wondering if its time for a step change from full frame to mirrorless. Informative as always Mads and also great to see your images as examples to compliment your discussion
Using the Lee Foundation filter system, it is very easy to remove the filter frame to insert the filters. Since I use ND grads, screw in filters would be redundant most of the time. The problem I have now with the Lee system is vignetting at 15mm with the RF-35mm 𝑓/2.8L.
@@MadsPeterIversen I've been mixing stacking for some shots with grads for others. I like working with grads and single exposures, but it really is a personal thing, I am going to have to find a different filter holder if I want to use the 15mm with filters, though. I might just have to get another Lee and not put the CP mount on it.
One of the most valuable videos i've seen Mads, congratulations! btw i think you forgot the 14-30 f4 for nikon Z: wonderful range, compact, lightweight & takes regular 100x100 filters as screw-on ones :)
Have you tested 16-35mm f4 Mads? Cause the f2.8 version is indeed magnificent but truly expensive and im wondering if its better to invest in f4 version. The 12-24mm disadvantage for me is the fact that you can not use screw in filters.
Sorry. It‘s than, not then. I think I need some vacation. Too many mistakes. 😬🤧 Being a landscape photographer my Sony 70-200 f4 is my longest zoom lens. I don‘t shoot wildlife, so I don‘t need 300 or 400 mm. I never shoot landscape photos with more than 200 mm.
@@wallystellmacher6794 Wally, just use the "edit" button after you have posted to fix any mistakes ( no need to apologize, ha,ha!) That is the three dots you will see to the right of your posted comment.Cheers!
Just got my 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor lens today! I feel like a kid on Christmas morning! I now have the hole trinity in f2.8, Oh by the way....One bad thing about photography is you wind up with GAS.
Point of order. Zooming does not change perspective. Zooming changes the angle of view and increases, or decreases the size of the image projected into the camera. Perspective does not change with any lens. Perspective is the natural order of things, making close and far objects of the same size, appear larger or smaller in the view.
@@322Iceke I agree that a super wide brings something unusual to an image, but I don't have (and going to have) a super wide filter system. I can live without ND, but a polarizer is a must
Hay there from Australia just discovered your channel and I love everything you have posted interesting and informative and great pictures and vids love and light from a new fan
I agree with most of your points in this video and currently own the Holy Trinity in EF mount. But if I go to the Canon RF system, I'll likely get the RF 24-105 F/4L. It's reputed to be much sharper than the EF version, and at least as good as the Sony.
Very nice explanation. Thank you. I have a few questions and it will be great if you can clarify my mind on these issues. Firstly, Tamron has taken out the 28-200 for Sony - Does it overcome the need to have two lenses for this focal range for landscape photography, especially as one shoots at around F 8 or higher? (Exclude low light situations) Secondly, is it better to buy a 16 or 14 mm prime rather than a wide angle zoom, because majority of the shots will either be at the widest end or going into the 28-200mm territory?
I haven't tried the Tamron, so it's hard to say. With modern sharpening software it'll likely be very, very powerful. That being said I find 28mm to be too narrow for most of my landscape photography. You could potentially combine it with a 16-35mm.
I did a comparison between Sony 24-70 GM and 24-105 G. One retailer kindly gave me both and I tested them with my A7R2. Sony 24-70 GM simply blows 24-105 G out of the water! They can be comparable when shooting a plain surface, but in real world when you shoot landscape photography you need a good DOF. 24-105 G just doesn't have that deep depth which 24-70 GM is capable of. That is why I had to spend another $1000 on G-master glass. I admit that shorter and more expensive glass is less preferable, but I care about image quality
That's interesting, I hear mixed opinions about the 24-70GM, seems there might be some bad apples among them. Not sure what you mean by the deep DOF either? Is there a difference between the DOF at 50mm f/8 at both lenses?
MADS, I purchased the Sony R7iv last year. I was given the 24-240mm lens for my over seas trip last year. I also bought a 35mm lens and a 24-105mm. I do a lot of landscape and wildlife and will soon do some astro with friends. I am looking to purchase the sony 200-600 with the converters and a 20mm lens. I have been a Nikon D800 shooter and love the camera but for traveling it is a very heavy camera with the lenses. What would you suggest for the sony for me to purchase and still keep the weight down and excellent photo lenes.
Sounds to me you only need a wide angle zoom. Dependent on your budget the 16-35 f/2.8 is the best option, but the f/4 version is supposed to be decent too, unless you like me, wanna go really wide and get the 12-24. Neither of these are super heavy as far as I know.
I have a Sony a7iii and going to Scotland in 2 weeks. Only have the budget for ONE lens. Currently all I have is the stock 28-70mm lens, but I kinda hate it, so that’s mostly irrelevant. What one lens would you recommend for mountain ranges and beautiful Scottish/Irish landscapes??
Mads, I laughed out loud when you spoke of the hazards of "zooming with your feet" while shooting with a prime lens on the edge of a cliff. Do you know of such an incident happening where a photographer inadvertently stepped off a cliff while framing his shot? It's had to have happened. I bet a lot of cameras and tripods have accidentally lept off cliffs as well. I'd love to hear some stories!
Will have to watch this one a couple more times. That was a ton of useful information. Certainly can get confusing when converting FF back to APSC. The big question is, Are the Canon L series FF lenses really worth the price if mounting to a crop sensor camera ? As always, Thanks for sharing Mads.
For what it's worth: My first DSLR was APS-C and the $$ I saved helped me to invest mostly in FF "L" glass, which is generally better quality than EF-S. I now have a FF camera body; so if I had started with EF-S, those lenses would have become redundant - like my Sigma 10-20mm EF-S type.
Thanks Mads, managed to find the video you mentioned. Glad your vlog was far more understandable without getting all technical. And Tony seemed to talk more about Sony gear than Canon in particular. May just have to get hold of one to try out and see the results myself. Thanks again Mads,
Oh my goodness... I really needed this video! I am shooting hears of buffaloes and if to walk closer, it is like falling off the cliff scenario; death. Thank you ! )))
Mads, Thank you for a great video. You didn't mention the laowa 12mm lens which works with 100mm filters. Would you say that you prefer to take 100-400 or the 70-200 to Iceland? I have the 24-105 sony. I also have both 70-200 F4 and 100-400, so it's not a money issue, but I would like to reduce some weight..
GREAT INFO, The Manual EPISODE earlier, get me at last to LERN FOCUS... THX a lot for sharing your info to us "DUMMIES" out there in the BIG Photo World (ME) /// IMcR... ;)
Does someone use the 24-105? Kind of divided about its performance from reviews..do we give a lot of attention to sharpness while we shouldn’t? I though of taking a 24-70 2.8 instead
Hey Mads this is a really clear and well articulated video - I was just wondering, with a range of wide angle prime focal length options available, why did you choose 20mm?
When it came out in 2015 or16? it was one of the only with f/1.4. maybe there were one other, but this was praised for what it did. Since then I've got myself a 15mm f/2 and I still prefer the 20mm for night photography :)
That's interesting - so, maybe 20mm is the sweet spot for you in terms of field of view for night/astro photography? Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Thanks much for this video, Mads. I'll be participating in your October Torridon workshop with Nigel Danson. I'm shooting on a Nikon Z6 and D500 and I'm looking to purchase the z-mount 70-200 f2.8 when it's available. But after watching your video, I'm wondering about their (also not yet available) 24-200 f4-6.3 as a cheaper alternative for landscape and general use. The latter is 1/3 the price of the 70-200. I already have the z 24-70 f4, the z 14-30 and two of the z primes. Any thoughts or recommendations?
It all depends on the image quality which we do not know much about yet. If the 24-200 holds up, I'd say go for that one, but usually, those superzooms lack a bit on the image quality.
This is the best discussion of lens choices for landscape photography I have ever heard. In my opinion, you have concisely and clearly presented all the relevant considerations to our choices and trimmed off all needless verbiage. Just excellent, including the sidebars for astrophotography. I especially found your information about zoom lenses as opposed to "zooming with one's feet" enlightening. Enjoying your channel very much.
Wow! You basically cover everything in 15 minutes; I wish I had this several years ago, as I have come to basically the same conclusions through the school of hard (and expensive) knocks. Another other thing to consider is the overall weather seal of the camera and lens. As you mention in this mega-tutorial, the right zoom can save you from dust on the sensor by decreasing the need to change lenses in the field.
Thank you very much, Kemer! Yes, weather sealing is yet another thing to have in mind. Happy you liked the video :)
I got the Tamron 17-28 f2.8. Great combination of size, weight, performance, price. Albeit a more restricted focal length.
The Tamron 17-28 + the Sony 24-105 G is a great combination.
Zooms (particularly medium to long tele zooms) can let you compress the scene too, something you can't usually do by just getting closer. True, that it is better to get "closer" if all you want to do is crop (and not be lazy) and this works for some things (including some things in landscape) but you want to use the compression to your advantage on your longer lenses, and by doing that you need to zoom with the lens, not your feet.
Ideally when it comes to pick your "trinity" I like to find lenses that overlap a bit. So that might be (For me being a Nikon Z shooter) the 14-30, the 24-120 and the 70-200 or 100-400, all of which overlap by at lease some amount. I could use the higher-end Z 14-24 and whiel that lens is perhaps a bit sharper in the corners and a stop faster, I do lose the overlap of 6mm, which at wider focal lengths below 35mm can mean a reasonable change in perspective and could also mean that I wouldn't have t ochange a lens if I was on the edge of 24mm as I would have some room to work, whereas with the 14-24, if I needed to go in slightly tigher, I would have to change lenses.
(5:45 There are some 14-15mm wide angle zooms now that can take screw-in filters.. one example is the Z 14-30).
Really great video. Attempting to understand which lenses for landscape photography is mind boggling. So thank you for truly breaking it down.
I've been following your Instagram for years and you're one of the most incredible photographers on there, the fact that you upload onto RUclips is also amazing!
Thank you so much, Sam! 🙏
The Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 S has a filter thread of 82mm. I believe it's the only ultrawide zoom where you can use normal screw in filters or square filter systems. I use the NISI 100mm system without any vignetting at all.
Pretty good summary. As a Nikon shooter there isn’t a 16-30 f2.8 for screw on filters in f mount so you need wider and faster it’s more to consider.
To sum it up: Landscape photography will rip apart your bank account.
I roll with the 17-28mm f2.8 Tamron, 28-75mm f2.8 Tamron, and ordered the new 100-400mm f2.8 Sigma. I like the f2.8 options as I do a lot of family and travel portraits, low light, and some astro photography.
Love the video. As an Olympus shooter i use the e-m1 mkii and 12-100 f4 lens. Basically 24-200 mm f4 for light and f8 depth of field. A 12mm f2 for astro and simple but great 9-18mm f4-5.6 for wide. A compact light very capable system for adventure photography. Thanks for the inspiration.
Thanks for this whole series of videos. I've been shooting landscapes in the Mid Atlantic area of the US for some time, mostly as a hobby, but am beginning to really take it seriously. Interesting that my composition methods are very similar to yours. It's just the way I 'see things'. This video and the others on lens selection have been very very helpful. I just recently switched to Micro 4/3 format and have a super zoom (14-140) that has been my main lens, and an older Olympus 11-22 with an adapter that have been my primary lenses for a while.
the 14-140 is a great range (28-280 in full frame terms), but it's soft. The 11-22 (22-44) is razor sharp, but manual focus only. I've been trying to decide what I can replace them with. I'm leaning with keeping the 11-22 for my wide end at the moment , and switching out the 14-140 for a sharper combination. Because of your video on lens selection, I've decided to go with the Panasonic 12-35, and 35-100 lenses as my main pair; will add an 8-18 later after my wallet recovers. That will give me in full frame terms - 16-36, 24-70, 70-200 range. I think that should cover it! All of those lenses are f2.8, but are the sharpest of the Panasonic line. My intent is having a setup that will last me a very long time.
Thanks for the tips. Extremely helpful, and very clearly presented. I'm subscribed, looking forward to future videos.
Personally I'd rather have 3 primes. They're sharper, faster aperture (which I like for landscapes!), and much lighter and smaller. I don't find them limiting at all.
Agree. I carry 4 primes 15, 35, 55, 90 and one telephoto zoom, no issues, find the speed , weight and sharpness does make a difference and gave up wide, medium zooms years ago.
Gary P Hayes me too. I have 21, 35, 55, 85, 135 primes and a two zooms. Tbh I could do everything wirh the 21 and 85. Everytime I use the zooms I’m disappointed - they’re good lenses but not nearly on the level of the primes I have - zeiss distagon for example
@@NickGranville The other big advantage of primes when you are really used to them, is that you 'see' the composition in your minds eye, click into view as you pass a scene, vs the endless possibilities of infinite zoom from 16-400 :)
Thanks, Mads! You advice make perfect sense! I find that 24-105 G intriguing. Back in my days of using Minolta cameras like the Dynax 7, my 24-105 D was my most used lens. I haven't been using my 24-70 f4 ZA as much these days as maybe I should, because it lacks the extra reach so maybe I should be considering that f4 G lens. I have the 100-400 GM and so I find myself using my 40mm Batis and 85mm f1.8 to fill the gap between my 16-35m f4 ZA. I've used the 70-200 f4 that German friends own while visiting and traveling in Europe and like it. I've read some complaints about performance on the long end, but I haven't used it enough to have noticed any problem. Thanks again!
Thx for your great advice. I’m saving for my last zoom the Sony 200-600. Right now I have Sony 16-35 2.8 and Tamron 35-150 2.8-4.
Great explanation, thanks Mads!
My setup is the 16-35 f/4, the 24-105 f/4G - yes they overlap a lot but often I can only carry one lens so more range per lens is better - and for a tele I am still making do with an adapted Tamron 70-300 for A-mount, mostly because I don't have an extra grand or two lying around for anything more fancy ;).
Good commonsense information from a master! I have the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 f2.8 zooms plus the Sony 70-200 f.4 lens. For astro, I bought the Sony 24 f1.4 lens. Thanks for this tutorial Mads!
Sounds like a strong and all-round usable combination :)
Interesting. So far i have 14mm samyang for aurora 16 35m f4 , just bought 24mm f1.4 for astro , 28 75mm tamron (90 %of the time on my camera) and 85mm 1.8 sony. And the telephoto I have the beercan 70 210mm but i want to change because focus sucks and its not manual. I guess a 70 - 180mm from tamron would be great as the holy Trinity. And maybe replace my 16 35 to 17-28 from tamron as I do a lot of night photo
Mads, This is the best explanation I've seen or read about lens choices. Keep up the great work.
Thank you so much, Richard! Means a lot :)
I recently bought Sony DT 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 SAM (SAL-18135 ). Love it so far!
Sweet, sounds like a nice all-around focal length :)
I have the Sigma 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lenses, they both serve my landscape photography needs.
Thank you, Mads, for a clearly articulated choice of lenses. Your choice between F4 and F2.8 is spot on. my WA choice is TBD, mid range is Sigma 24-105 F4 +MC-11 adapter , and Sigma 100-400 C series with an aftermarket tripod collar. So far, I'm loving the sharpness, images, and coverage. Certainly, cost was a factor, but I'm finding the sharpness of both lenses to be as good as the Sony equivalents. 😊So here is my WA question. Will the Sigma 14-24 F2.8 be good enough to use for both wide angle landscape photography AND a bit of simple, camera based astro-photography? Or will 20mm F1.4 work for both WA and Astro?😊
Mads, your work is one of the best. Have one question for u if u find time to answer. I was using APSC cameras before, and had holy trinity. Now i switched to Nikon z7 and have 24-70 f4 native and using tamron 70-200mm f2.8 g2. For a wide i have tokina 11-20mm f2,8 but is only 20mpx and corner sharpnes isnt good as 24-70 f4. So i avoid that wide focal lenght as much as posible and using 24mm on native nikon lens for my wide shots. All the time I am in dilemma to go for Nikor 14-30 f4 or I dont need that focal range so much. My style of photos are similar to yours. Can't make decision couse i watch many videos in wich landscape photographers talks about that wide isn't used so much, including yours about mid range focal range.... I lost objectivity couse I am biased to 24-70 and used it all the time couse of superor image quality that i get i over tokina which works in crop sensor mode... Don't know what is question here...:) I will try one. Is wide angle essential for u? that range from 14-24, its 10mm but does is make enought diference to reinvest? thanks man for sharing knowledge and keep with this high quality of your work. Videos and photos. Sry for bad english :D
Hey Mads! Great video once again. I know you focused mostly on Canon EF and Sony E gear but Nikon now has an interesting 14-30 F4 for the Z mount that it's really compact and takes 82mm filters. Definitely something I'd consider if I had a Z camera.
Sounds very interesting. Those extra two mm in the wide end could make a significant difference :)
Superb presentation! Everything is fantastic from content to background music!
Thank you very much for an excellent video . You just made my day! I have all three Sony lenses you mentioned; 24-105, 70-200, and 100-400. I use the later for wildlife. I also used it during my Antarctica trip last December, which I believe your are going on next year. I also have a canon lens 16-35 f2.8 which I use with a converter on my Sony @7RIII.
Nice round up. If I was going zooms only (Sony e-mount) and shooting only landscapes, I would get the 16-35 f2.8 and 70-300G. With 70-300G you are not really losing sharpness compared to 70-200 f4 but you are gaining 50% more reach and it's a lot lighter than the 100-400GM.
However, I'm not doing only landscapes. I'm doing travel photography that includes landscapes, street, portraits, events, wildlife (some times) and everything in between. So I desided that having 3 primes and the 70-300G works better for me. My primes are Batis 18, 25 and 40mm. That way if I shoot street for example, I can have a small "discreet" prime on my camera that doesn't weigh a lot and another one in my small shoulder bag. For landscapes I have also light'ish panorama kit that allows for multirow panoramas, if the primes are not suitable for the situation or I just crop a little.
I'm currently saving for the 100-400GM and 1.4x TC (and APS-C body) because I have plans to go to safari some day and I will also bring it with me to my other travels if I'm expecting to see some intresting wildlife.
I'm not a professional though, so this is only my two cents :)
The 70-300mm is also a strong candidate for regular landscape photography for sure! It is often overseen, and not one I decided to include, but it really seems like a strong lens :)
This video is coming at the right time as I am planning to reconsider my focal range.
*today I own 15f2.0, 28-70f2.8, 55f1.8*
*My plan: 15f2.0, 24-105f4.0, 55f1.8, 70-200f4.0*
I need more versatility in my gear for travel and the Tamron is for me a bit tricky.
Yeah, when I went to Gran Canaria I brought my 15 f/2, 20 f/1.4, 24-105 and 70-200. I had to leave one lens behind, but I could probably have brought the 12-24 instead of the 15 f/2.
Hi Mads. Just getting into photography myself with a Sony A7C, a Sony 20 f/1.8 G and in the near future a Sony 24-105 G lens that you recommended. For a beginner that should be more than enough. I have gotten the Sony 20 f/1.8 at a great price, basically half of what a Sony 24 GM lens would have cost (because of the 2 cashback campaigns that gave me back 200 euros). Cheers from Romania!
I have the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 which i liked very much from my recent trip. I also kind of liked their 35-150 f2.8-4 which i believe is a great option considering that it covers most of focal lengths of 24-70 and 70-200 and that its relatively a cheaper one instead of (24-70 + 70-200). Ofcourse it lets the 150-200 range to be missed out but its a very tempting choice in all honesty. Your views ?
please make a video on basic camera settings for landscape photography. it would be much helpful for the beginners :)
I have 3 zooms 16-35 24-105 and 70-300. If possible, and I work to make it possible, I shoot with prime lenses. For me, the quality of their results surpasses any zoom lense.
Primes are usually better optically, I just find them to be very impractical and I would hate to hike to the top of a mountain and not have the focal length I need ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen I definitely understand that.
There is so much thing that are included in quality of photo that difference in optical quality of top zooms and primes are negligible... and u need to crop on primes much more.
Even tho I favor primes, I have the 10-18mm (for my a6400), 24-70GM, 16-35 f/4, 70-200mm f/4, and thinking about the 100-400mm. BTW I could listen to you read the phone book. That's how good your presentation is to me.
Hi Mads. Great videos firstly. I’m a big fan. Question for you. I’ve just switched form a crop Canon to Sony A7R4A and also new lenses. I’ve gone Sony GM 16-35 and (as you later recommended) Tamron 28-200. As I’ve now literally spent all my money! Haha if I need to go further than 200mm which I know I will at some point as I’m also party to some wildlife and motorsport photography too will a 2x extender work in place of buying another lens (such as a Sigma 150-600) which I had on my canon? Many thanks. PS the photoshop course was great too.
I use the 16 to 35 and 70 to 200. I've never needed the middle zoom for landscape. I use the 2.8 versions as I also use them for other types of photography. Good video.
I have moved to this combination recently and agree ... I have Fuji 10-24 and 55-200 ... I do have an 18-55 but never use for landscape
@@grantnewton5705 Same here, except, I got the 50-140 instead of the 55-200.
Yeah, it is quite interesting with people's opinions about that middle range zoom. Seems to be an either hate or love relationship ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen - Well, it's always last on my list. As you say 16 to 35 first then the long zoom. Then for me an 85 prime is a staple and I just got the Sony 24 1.4 for Astro and its awesome for video. For me, I've never shot 50mm, I either want to be wider or closer. However, I think if you were to have only one lens or needed to travel where you could only take one, then the mid zoom makes the most sense. But for me, my minimum kit is the 16-35 and the 85mm. However, the new Cannon 70-200 which slides, but stores much shorter than an internal slide, has me reconsidering the whole Sony system. If the R5 is a real winner, I'll probably be switching to Canon.
Hey Mad's I have noticed that your bodies have L Brackets which is great for Landscape. Quick question re this, why then stick a mount plate on the base that looks to be ARCA compatible?
Great video though
The new Tamron 28-200 looks really appealing too. Heard the sharpness is pretty decent!
Hi Mads; Great discussion and video. I have recently a moved from a Nikon D810 over to Olympus OMD M1Markii and the main factor with the transition was the weight of both the camera and the lens. When I purchased my new Olympus lens I wanted to make sure that these lens were all weather sealed to match the body and this meant going to the 'Pro' versions of the lens. I have a variety of lens to fit all of my shooting requirements within landscapes, portraits and night pictures. I didn't mind spending a little more for the F2.8 glass as this actually save money and gear weight in the long run. As well, I suffer from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) like most photographers. LoL. Cheers, Keith Pinn (Barrie, Ontario Canada)
Hehe, nice choices Keith. I've actually been looking towards Olympus too for their weather sealing. If they decide to go FF, they might have a new fan ;)
2:22 that shot!🙏🏼 my god!
Just a note on primes. You can widen their effective focal length by about 1.5x by doing 3 shot panos. So a 50mm lens will give you about 35mm field of view
No no no, it's not the same! walking towards a cliff on the Faroes makes this abundantly clear :) :)
I do just a bit diffrent. I do the first ultrawide range in zoom, then the telephoto in zoom also. But for the midle I just get a 50mm.
Thanks for a clear and accurate review.
But I can't help but think, that it would be much easier to explain, if the lens' angle of view are used, instead of the millimeter.
For us old people, it will surely be a "steep learning curve" to think in other numbers, but practically not to depend on sensor size.
Who takes the first step in that direction?
Cheers
Yeah you're right, I'd prefer to use something else than mm, but degrees seems not really catch on.
Thanks for the Video! I currently have the 14mm Samyang MF, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Sony 70-200 F4, as my "holy Trinity".
Hi Mads I’m shooting Olympus mostly these days and I’ve found that I can shrink down to 2 lenses - 12-100mm f4 and 7-14mm f2.8. Of course I do actually take more... just in case.
Yeah, I've heard good things about Fuji and Olympus lenses. And cameras. I'm just doing too much night photography to skip the FF format ;)
Mads Peter Iversen I’m still keeping my Canon 5D 3 ... the reason? I love the macro lens 😍
I appreciate that the traditional view is to have the ability to cover all ranges and understand why but I have bought a lot of lenses in my life and I have fallen back on primes because no matter how good the zoom glass is it is never as good at the edge of the frame as a prime lens. I shot a view of my city combining 10 shots in a panorama with an 85 mm prime that I then printed as a 22 x96 inch print and you can see all the details including inside the windows of the office buildings edge to edge. I just can't achieve that kind of detail with any of the zooms I've tried. I've owned L glass from Canon, old and new glass from Nikon and GM lenses from Sony as well as Fuji's primes and zooms and I still came back to the primes. Since you are talking just about landscape and have to often pack them into a location when you add up the weight and size of 3 big zooms you can put 21mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm Loxia manual focus zeiss lenses (for sony in this case) for the same or less money than what you are proposing and size and weight is less than the zooms. If that is too much money because you can't own both zooms for certain shots and primes for distortion free images, there are a lot of ways to slice it so that you can get a nice balance. Your video is great and I gave it a thumbs up but I know that amateurs like me bought into these big zooms and found our images lacked the pop and excitement we were looking for. I suppose it depends on what kind of landscape you are shooting and how important the detail is.
Great video as always. Just one thing: you did not take RF lenses from Canon into the equation. Especially the RF 24-105 F4 is said to stand out compared to all other equivalent lenses. The mentioned EF version on the other hand can’t compete.
I actually partly did in the end ;)
But I couldn't cover all lenses available. Just give some pointers of what to look for and be aware of :)
Thanks Mads for this interesting video ...... beside the holly trinity in my collection i bought recently a prime super wide the " Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D" for narrow spaces.
Currently covered from 16mm through to 200mm and was considering a prime for astro but then the recent announcement about Canon's EOS R5 has now got me holding off and wondering if its time for a step change from full frame to mirrorless. Informative as always Mads and also great to see your images as examples to compliment your discussion
Using the Lee Foundation filter system, it is very easy to remove the filter frame to insert the filters. Since I use ND grads, screw in filters would be redundant most of the time.
The problem I have now with the Lee system is vignetting at 15mm with the RF-35mm 𝑓/2.8L.
Yeah, that's another thing to consider whether you use grads or not. Personally, I am not a big fan of them, so I prefer to not have a filter with me.
@@MadsPeterIversen I've been mixing stacking for some shots with grads for others. I like working with grads and single exposures, but it really is a personal thing,
I am going to have to find a different filter holder if I want to use the 15mm with filters, though. I might just have to get another Lee and not put the CP mount on it.
One of the most valuable videos i've seen Mads, congratulations! btw i think you forgot the 14-30 f4 for nikon Z: wonderful range, compact, lightweight & takes regular 100x100 filters as screw-on ones :)
Seems I have all the right focal lengths so now I just need to learn how to use them.. Thanks for taking the time to make the videos!!
You're very welcome, Bryan! Out and practice :)
Have you tested 16-35mm f4 Mads? Cause the f2.8 version is indeed magnificent but truly expensive and im wondering if its better to invest in f4 version. The 12-24mm disadvantage for me is the fact that you can not use screw in filters.
Haven't tried it for Sony no, sadly. I have had my eyes on it for long though :p
Perfect summery as always. Especially for beginners. I personally prefer screwed filters. Thus I don‘t use ultra-ultra wide lenses.
Sorry. It‘s summary. You‘re right. The Sony 24-105 is sharper than then GM 24-70. Besides, the Lumix 24-105 f4 shows a similar performance.
Sorry. It‘s than, not then. I think I need some vacation. Too many mistakes. 😬🤧 Being a landscape photographer my Sony 70-200 f4 is my longest zoom lens. I don‘t shoot wildlife, so I don‘t need 300 or 400 mm. I never shoot landscape photos with more than 200 mm.
@@wallystellmacher6794 Wally, just use the "edit" button after you have posted to fix any mistakes ( no need to apologize, ha,ha!) That is the three dots you will see to the right of your posted comment.Cheers!
Chryseas S. Thanks a lot. I‘ ve just corrected another mistake. From photography to photographer. 😁😁
@@wallystellmacher6794 You are very welcome, Wally!
I love the Sony 14mm 1.8, a beautiful lens which is a brilliant performer for landastrophotography :)
Just got my 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor lens today! I feel like a kid on Christmas morning! I now have the hole trinity in f2.8, Oh
by the way....One bad thing about photography is you wind up with GAS.
Lol, yeah, the good old GAS syndrome. I seem to be cured by now ;)
Point of order. Zooming does not change perspective. Zooming changes the angle of view and increases, or decreases the size of the image projected into the camera. Perspective does not change with any lens. Perspective is the natural order of things, making close and far objects of the same size, appear larger or smaller in the view.
Hello sir. I wonder what you think about the new 12-24gm in sted of the f4g version? Thank you!!!!!
Love mine: Sigma 14-24 F/2.8 ART DN DG, Sony 24-70 F/2.8 GM, and Canon L 70-200 F/4.
That sounds like a very strong combination too :)
I also adapt Canon on a longer end. For wide and normal I use GM glass
@@MaximPodbereznyy , I need sometimes that extra 2 mm wide, so the 16-35 gm was not a option. And this ( new ) Sigma is even sharper in the corners.
@@322Iceke I agree that a super wide brings something unusual to an image, but I don't have (and going to have) a super wide filter system. I can live without ND, but a polarizer is a must
@@MaximPodbereznyy , for ND and Cpol, I use Haida 150mm filters. Because I love LO ;-)
Hay there from Australia just discovered your channel and I love everything you have posted interesting and informative and great pictures and vids love and light from a new fan
Thank you so much for those kind words, Mark! :)
Great job on this video ! Informative and educational!
You are very welcome, happy to hear that! :)
You can also get a Tamron 35-150, and the Canon RF 24-105 is as sharp as the SONY.
Hey, what a fantastic video. Keep up the good work! I look forward to your next video.
I am saving up for a 10-24mm f4 but until then i am doing ok with the 16mm f2.8. For astro i want to pick up a 12mm f2.
I agree with most of your points in this video and currently own the Holy Trinity in EF mount. But if I go to the Canon RF system, I'll likely get the RF 24-105 F/4L. It's reputed to be much sharper than the EF version, and at least as good as the Sony.
That's another great reason to go Canon mirrorless then :)
Very nice explanation. Thank you. I have a few questions and it will be great if you can clarify my mind on these issues. Firstly, Tamron has taken out the 28-200 for Sony - Does it overcome the need to have two lenses for this focal range for landscape photography, especially as one shoots at around F 8 or higher? (Exclude low light situations)
Secondly, is it better to buy a 16 or 14 mm prime rather than a wide angle zoom, because majority of the shots will either be at the widest end or going into the 28-200mm territory?
I haven't tried the Tamron, so it's hard to say. With modern sharpening software it'll likely be very, very powerful. That being said I find 28mm to be too narrow for most of my landscape photography. You could potentially combine it with a 16-35mm.
A lot of questions answered, thanks. 😉
which is a better lens to get between Sony 16-35 f2.8 vs 12-24 sony f4 is both are at same cost for Landscape and Astro. Use A7R3 too btw.
On EOS R and RP you can have ND filter for any EF lens if you adapt it with drop-in filter adapter) Even 8-15mm.
Oh yes, that is such a useful system! I hope that will be a standard in the future :)
@@MadsPeterIversen Unfortunately can't be applied to RF lenses.
I did a comparison between Sony 24-70 GM and 24-105 G. One retailer kindly gave me both and I tested them with my A7R2. Sony 24-70 GM simply blows 24-105 G out of the water! They can be comparable when shooting a plain surface, but in real world when you shoot landscape photography you need a good DOF. 24-105 G just doesn't have that deep depth which 24-70 GM is capable of. That is why I had to spend another $1000 on G-master glass. I admit that shorter and more expensive glass is less preferable, but I care about image quality
That's interesting, I hear mixed opinions about the 24-70GM, seems there might be some bad apples among them. Not sure what you mean by the deep DOF either? Is there a difference between the DOF at 50mm f/8 at both lenses?
@@MadsPeterIversen exactly! Same focal length, same aperture and G has thinner DOF.
Thanks for an excellent video brother.
MADS, I purchased the Sony R7iv last year. I was given the 24-240mm lens for my over seas trip last year. I also bought a 35mm lens and a 24-105mm. I do a lot of landscape and wildlife and will soon do some astro with friends. I am looking to purchase the sony 200-600 with the converters and a 20mm lens. I have been a Nikon D800 shooter and love the camera but for traveling it is a very heavy camera with the lenses. What would you suggest for the sony for me to purchase and still keep the weight down and excellent photo lenes.
Sounds to me you only need a wide angle zoom. Dependent on your budget the 16-35 f/2.8 is the best option, but the f/4 version is supposed to be decent too, unless you like me, wanna go really wide and get the 12-24. Neither of these are super heavy as far as I know.
Thank you, Mads, for another informative video. Since there is so much information to consider, maybe another E-Book?!
Thanks a lot, Linda and thanks for the interest. I am collecting ideas for a second eBook, but I'll be very hasitant to put anything about gear ;)
Straight to the point and super informative :)
I have a Sony a7iii and going to Scotland in 2 weeks. Only have the budget for ONE lens. Currently all I have is the stock 28-70mm lens, but I kinda hate it, so that’s mostly irrelevant. What one lens would you recommend for mountain ranges and beautiful Scottish/Irish landscapes??
Only one lens? Either the Sony 24-105 or Tamron 28-200
@@MadsPeterIversen I bought the 24-105! Thanks!
Mads, I laughed out loud when you spoke of the hazards of "zooming with your feet" while shooting with a prime lens on the edge of a cliff. Do you know of such an incident happening where a photographer inadvertently stepped off a cliff while framing his shot? It's had to have happened. I bet a lot of cameras and tripods have accidentally lept off cliffs as well. I'd love to hear some stories!
Hey Mads, Great video. What are your thoughts on the Sony 70-300mm full frame lens as an option for a medium telephoto lens?
Will have to watch this one a couple more times. That was a ton of useful information.
Certainly can get confusing when converting FF back to APSC.
The big question is, Are the Canon L series FF lenses really worth the price if mounting to a crop sensor camera ?
As always, Thanks for sharing Mads.
Hi John, from what I have learned no, not necessarily. Tony Northrup had a good video on that a few months back, try see if you can find that :)
For what it's worth: My first DSLR was APS-C and the $$ I saved helped me to invest mostly in FF "L" glass, which is generally better quality than EF-S. I now have a FF camera body; so if I had started with EF-S, those lenses would have become redundant - like my Sigma 10-20mm EF-S type.
Thanks Mads, managed to find the video you mentioned. Glad your vlog was far more understandable without getting all technical.
And Tony seemed to talk more about Sony gear than Canon in particular.
May just have to get hold of one to try out and see the results myself.
Thanks again Mads,
Another brilliant video! Thank you.
You're welcome :)
Oh my goodness... I really needed this video! I am shooting hears of buffaloes and if to walk closer, it is like falling off the cliff scenario; death. Thank you ! )))
Very informative video, yet again! Thanks! I 'd like a follow up on the 70-200/100-400 debate, when you 've used the later more. Thanks again!
I'll make sure to make a 100-400 video at some point :)
@@MadsPeterIversen Glad to know. I am very interested in your thoughts!
Hey so I have a Panasonic Lumix G7, i want to get the trinity lenses but i don't know which one is compatible with my camera.
Thanks a lot Mads. Really helpful, have my canon's holy trinity with me so i don't have to change anything after watching your video :-)
Great! Yes, I remember the eagerness to update my gear, but I am quite happy I don't have that expense anymore ;)
Is canon 17mm to 55mm f2.8 great lenses for landscape?
Nikon has a 200-500mm constant f5.6 for about $1200 U.S..
That sounds like a real canon! *bu dum tssss...* :D
One lens is all one needs if they got the strength. 28-300 lens. I got a 70-300L shoulda got the 28-300.
How is 16-35 ,24-105,70-300 combo?
Mads, Thank you for a great video. You didn't mention the laowa 12mm lens which works with 100mm filters. Would you say that you prefer to take 100-400 or the 70-200 to Iceland? I have the 24-105 sony. I also have both 70-200 F4 and 100-400, so it's not a money issue, but I would like to reduce some weight..
I have yet to use the 100-400mm in Iceland, so hard to say. I'll know more in half a year's time ;)
GREAT INFO, The Manual EPISODE earlier, get me at last to LERN FOCUS... THX a lot for sharing your info to us "DUMMIES" out there in the BIG Photo World (ME) /// IMcR... ;)
Great job. Keep it going.
Does someone use the 24-105? Kind of divided about its performance from reviews..do we give a lot of attention to sharpness while we shouldn’t? I though of taking a 24-70 2.8 instead
Excellent video. Thanks
so buying a prime could cause me to walk off a cliff, handy tip indeed sir thank you.
Mads good video. What do you think about using a teleconverter?
I've only just got my 2X, I'll share my thoughts on that later :)
Hey Mads this is a really clear and well articulated video - I was just wondering, with a range of wide angle prime focal length options available, why did you choose 20mm?
When it came out in 2015 or16? it was one of the only with f/1.4. maybe there were one other, but this was praised for what it did. Since then I've got myself a 15mm f/2 and I still prefer the 20mm for night photography :)
That's interesting - so, maybe 20mm is the sweet spot for you in terms of field of view for night/astro photography? Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Thank you
Wow! Very comprehensive!
Hi Mads, hope I find you well.
Which is your go to lens or which one lens range could you not be without.
Hey man , what’s the best Tripod for about £250 .
Loving your videos I’ll definitely see you on one of your workshops one day . Iceland hopefully :)
Thanks much for this video, Mads. I'll be participating in your October Torridon workshop with Nigel Danson. I'm shooting on a Nikon Z6 and D500 and I'm looking to purchase the z-mount 70-200 f2.8 when it's available. But after watching your video, I'm wondering about their (also not yet available) 24-200 f4-6.3 as a cheaper alternative for landscape and general use. The latter is 1/3 the price of the 70-200. I already have the z 24-70 f4, the z 14-30 and two of the z primes. Any thoughts or recommendations?
It all depends on the image quality which we do not know much about yet. If the 24-200 holds up, I'd say go for that one, but usually, those superzooms lack a bit on the image quality.
Thanks, Mads. Looks like I'll wait for the reviews. Hope Nikon releases these two lenses in March as currently anticipated.
Waiting for some f4 RF glass