Best Lenses for Landscape Photography
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Have you been wondering what the best lenses are for landscape photography or curious as to which lens to buy next? Professional landscape photographer Tom Mackie shares his tips on which lenses he uses and recommends.
Whether you own a Canon, Nikon, Sony camera or another manufacturer, knowing what is the best focal length for landscape photography and what lens to buy can be a challenge.
We hope you enjoy this video and it helps guide your thinking.
FREE NEWSLETTER:
www.landscapep...
The lenses Tom personally uses with his Nikon D850 are as follows:
CAMERA AND LENSES
Nikon D850 Camera - geni.us/vhrne
Nikon 24 - 70 mm Lens - geni.us/EHh3A
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED - geni.us/mpT6
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm - geni.us/RDGn
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70 - 200 mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens - geni.us/d7Eorm
In the spirit of complete transparency, some of the above links are affiliate links. #landscapephotography
Very good summary. My daughter last year was taking pics with the D810 and the 70-200 f4 VR of far away things while I was driving 60-70 mph. All of them were as if they were taken on a tripod even at 200% magnification, while the shutter speed, as I saw later, was even as low as 250 in some cases. That lens is best in VR in its class for photos, and it has proven very durable as well, fantastically sharp, and easy to carry.
The 14-24 has the best rendering in its class, but also focus shifting that can be annoying with the D850 - I only use it in live view and manual focus. The 24-70 is more of an event lens, no focus shifting, but for serious landscape I use either the Zeiss 25 f2 or the newer Zeiss 25 1.4, depending on how much I can carry, and alternatively for more "artistic" look the Zeiss 28 f2. Both 25s almost out-resolve the sensor and have excellent dimensional "3D" rendering, with the top being the 28 in this category (by far the most 3D dimensional lens available for Nikon F mount).
When I shoot landscapes and scenic images, the best lens for me is one that delivers a nice wide 65-degree horizontal angle-of-view.
The 65mm lens on a 6x9cm medium format camera gives me 65-degree horizontal angle-of-view. I usually pair my 65mm lens with a 103mm normal lens.
The 28mm lens, on a 35mm film camera or a full-frame digital camera, gives me a 65.5-degree horizontal angle-of- view. I usually use a 28mm in a 16/28/55/105mm prime lens combo. The 55 and 105 are macro lenses that allow me to capture close-up nature shots while I am shooting landscapes. For a zoom lens combo, I use a 20-35mm f/2.8, a 28-70mm f/2.8, and an 80-200mm f/2.8.
An 18mm lens on an APS-C size digital camera gives me a 66.5 degree horizontal angle-of-view. For landscape shooting, I usually use a weather resistant Fujinon 16-55mm f/2.8 and a weather resistant Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 zoom lenses on a weather resistant Fujinon digital body. I add a 12mm f/2.8 Zeiss Touit prime lens if I need something wider.
A14mm lens on a micro 4/3 digital mirrorless camera gives me a 63.4-degree horizontal angle-of-view. I usually use my 14mm lens in a 14/20/45mm prime lens kit. I use an Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 and a Panasonic 45-200mm f/4 - f/5.6 in a zoom lens kit.
The best landscape lens is the Nikon 20mm 1.8 lens hands down.
Thanks for sharing Todd
shouldn't overlook the more colorful older manual focus lenses. i recently converted a Nikkor-UD 20mm f/3.5 and have been really pleased. yes the newer lenses with almost double the elements are sharp, but the cost is less color and microcontrast
I FULLY agree with you. The 20mm is so AWESOME that most of the pictures I have sold so far or where otherwise used as book covers etc. were shot with it. It's light, sharp, produces excellent colors, has awesome sunbursts, and is the lens to go for whenever tripods are not allowed. :D
You can use any PRIME lens for landscape from ultra wide angle to super tele, most of the time I use a 24mm, but I also use 55mm and 135mm a lot (24x36mm/fullformat).
The Nikon 18-35mm F/3.5~4.5 G lens is very sharp and amazingly lightweight. Plus 77mm filter size allows easy use of 100mm square filters. Perfect for trekking and landscapes. Yes, you can buy after market filter holders and 150mm filters for the Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 but that is so much more bulk, weight and $$$$!
I have both lenses, the 18-35, ostensibly, for hiking. In reality, I almost never use it because, while it isn't a bad lens, I've never thought, "Wow!" looking at the results. With the 14-24, it's an almost common reaction.
Thanks. I shoot w Canon. I’m heading to Iceland in May and will take my 17-35, 28-70 & rent a 70-200. Can’t wait!
Sounds great, enjoy!
I'm a new fan who is really impressed with both your work and your presentations. Please keep 'em coming.
Will do!
Hi Tom , Good video on lenses for Landscapes, however really surprised that you didn't even give a mention to the 16-35F4 VR which is a wonderful lens for Landscape Photography, and you can use standard filters with it as well which you obviously can't do with the 14-24, to that end I think the 16-35 is a more versatile lens than the 14-24 and lighter too, I also use it with the Nikon D850 and get great results with it, keep up the vlogs, enjoy them immensely.
Thanks Stuart for sharing.
Yes, 16-35, 70-200 f4. Thats all u need.
Landscape Photography iQ: How about DX camera users.....any recommendations for lenses?
My setup for landscape I find is the best are zoom range: 16-35 F4 VR ( great for wide angle and B Roll handheld ), 28 - 300 f3.5-5.6 supertelephoto ( the swiss army knife -- has great range (x10 + ), great bokeh, great sun burst, VR is GREAT ( i can take street shots at night handheld at 1/8 sec at the 28mm end )
Primes: 20mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8g and tokina 100mm f2.8 ( How can you be a landscape photographer without a Macro lens? comes in handy when compositions are not available.. macro subjects are always available... ( don't forget a speedlight though depending on the time of the day
Great to hear your thoughts about lenses. The 14-24 is too expensive and heavy for me. Since I like hiking weight is important. I use Nikkor 18-35 mm instead combined with Samyang 14 mm 2.8 for the really wide shots and milky way/astro. Very good value for money and light weight. I also like the possibility to use 100 mm filters on the 18-35. My 24-70 mm 2.8 is often left at home due to its weight. The same for my new 70-200 mm 2.8. I therefore also recently bought the latest Tamron 70-300 mm - great value for money and really good image quality when used at 70-270 mm stopped down. Perfect for landscape if you are on a budget, care about weight and still are picky on image quality. This setup works great on my Nikon D810. Would although prefer if my wide angle zoom covered 16-35.
Thanks for feedback and sharing Alex.
I would have a look at the website lenstip for reviews on both lenses. I didn't get my 14-24mm for the f2.8, I got it for the sharpness at f5.6 - f8. Lenstip are a great resource, they do detailed and far more comprehensible tests.
Nice, Tom. I use the 24-70 most of the time also and I have the 14-24, but I have been using the 18-35 lately and it is a very sharp, lighter weight lens.
The 18-35 is nice and I use mine for hiking, but my 14-24 is better when I'm not weight constrained, especially from 14-17mm. ;-)
@@Patto2276 The 14-24 is awesome but a beast.
I think if you’re on a budget then the second lens to buy after the 24-70 is the telephoto zoom 70-200 instead of the ultra-wide. You can sort of replicate the effect of the ultra wide with a panorama using the 24-70 lens but both of these lenses cannot replicate the effect of a 200 mm zoom. What is your thought on this?
Get the logic of what you are saying, but if landscapes are going to be your primary subject matter I would go ultra wide ahead of telephoto, based on the frequency of what I use personally. Creating stitched pans every time will increase your workflow and ultimately there will be situations where even shooting at 24mm vertical you will still be constrained by how much subject matter you can get in the frame. If budget is an issue, do explore used lenses, there is a lot of equipment at reasonable prices and unlike dslr bodies, the technology does not change massively every year. Hope this helps!
totally agree
Another very nice video. On my D810, I use the 16-35 f4, the 24-120 f4, and the 70-200 f4. I recently added a used 105 2.8 vr and love that lens for macro and some landscapes. I would really like to swap my 24-120 for the 24-70 2.8g, and then add a 20 1.8 for low-light and better starbursts.
Noting beats a prime. I'd prefer to have the Nikkor 24 mm lens, 60 mm macro and the 70-200 zoom but that 300 is a great lens. But if you go with the two primes and the zoom you will carry less weight, it won't cost you as much and you will get great pics
See what you are saying Michael, but personally feel the focal lenses that are missing would be too much of a disadvantage for my needs, but you make some interesting points. Many thanks!
Nice video, thanks for sharing! I shoot mostly Japanese garden landscapes in Kyoto and went full frame about 5 years ago. Unfortunately, tripods are not allowed in 80% of the locations here, but thanks to the D750/780, that isn't really an issue. I use a very similar set-up to yours, so it was nice to see how you think about it. The 24-70 f/2.8 is quite versatile and I personally like the vignetting at wide-open. The 70-200 f/4 has an absolutely amazing image quality, I am surprised again and again when I edit my pics on the PC how much of the pictures that initially catch my eye were shot with this lens. The 14-24 f/2.8 is so good that enough has been said about it. What I personally do love, and use about 30% of my time, is the 20mm f/1.8 prime lens. Its quality is so good that, esp. in cases where I need an ultra wide but tripods are a no-go, that the 20mm covers it for me. :) Besides that, I always have the 85mm f/1.8 with me in case some detail catches my eye that calls for a little bit of Bokeh.
I know what you mean about tripods in the Kyoto gardens, fantastic place, I can't wait to go back.
You should have stayed on the muddy dude,that was a classic.
Nice vlog and accompanying images.
I have the filter kit for my 14-24 and it is a must have.
Thanks for your video.
Thanks David - we aim to educate and entertain all at the same time!
David, I have that lens, and a filter kit too, do you have the Wonderpana or the Lee or something else? I love the Wonderpana, it is so secure and it can stay ON the lens even with no filter, which is easier than removing it each time etc. There are reviews that say the Tamron 15-30 is better but quite honestly, how can anything be better, and even if it is, the margin of 'better' must be tiny. I too chuckled at that poor workshop attendee getting down and dirty, We do tend to take ourselves too seriously sometimes, it is nice to see that kind of thing, as long as precious cameras and lenses don't end up in the mire too!
THANK YOU
You're very welcome.
My 24-70 is my main lens but my cheap 50 1.8g is a better lens at mid apertures.
Thanks
I went for the 16-35mm f/4 so I can use it with standard filters. Appart from that, I'm the same lenses as you. 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4 & a 300mm f/4 on the wish list. I also have a few primes, which mostly get used for other things. The exception being the IRIX 15mm f/2.4 Firefly. A brilliant rectilinear lens, that distorts so much less than the Nikon 16-35.
Thanks Chris for sharing and your feedback.
I take 2-3 week long landscape trips several times per year. I shoot landscapes very, very frequently.
I agree 110% about the 24-70 being the "go to" lens for landscapes. I have a 14-24 f2.8 and the brand new 70-200 f2.8 E FL lens.....but by far they stay in the bag in favor of the 24-70. It's on my D850 95% of the time, with the 14-24 on 4%, and the 70-200 1% of the time.
Also....save some money and get the older 24-70 without VR. You turn VR off anyway when shooting on a tripod.....so why pay more for it ??
While I use my 24-70 more often than my 14-24 or 70-200, that's more a personal choice than any objective rationale. As for the 24-70 E, it's sharper at the edges. For landscape photography THAT is the reason to pay more for it.
Your images are stunning. Thanks for the very informative video.
Thanks!
A very well balanced and useful presentation of the right lenses to get - I found your video too late, already completed my line-up. My favourite lens is the Nikkor 14-24mm - and I forked out for the wonderpana filter holder (similar to Lee) and gained a 145mm ND16 and a 145mm Polariser, together with a huge rectangular 3 stop soft grad. On the camera mounted on the tripod, it looks like I'm shooting star wars rather than a landscape, but the results are great. Obviously, I don't use the polariser if there is sky involved, as the imbalance over such a wide view, in the sky, is all wrong. My next lens choice was the Nikkor FX lens, the 24-120mm. I know the 24-70mm is the 'trinity' choice, but I have to say, this one is every bit as sharp as the 14-24mm. As it is more in the realm of kit FX lens rather than pro, I don't have weather seals on it - but I seldom shoot in the actual rain anyway. That extra reach out to 120mm is well worth having, and if things go wrong, I can replace the lens for half the cost of a 24-70mm, so I was very pleased to find MY copy is definitely as good or better than the reviews. Used with care, and sensible post processing produces images to die for. My choice at the longer end was the new Tamron SP 100-400 Di VC. I had a sigma macro lens, and a Tamron 70-300 Di VC, both were fabulous lenses, but I found the macro was very rarely being used, and the Tamron didn't have the reach I wanted for coastal photography. I sold them both for my new Tamron 100-400 and got the tripod ring with it (vital). I knew how good the 70-300 Di VC was, so I was confident in the brand, and have been repaid. It is weather-sealed, it allows close focus, and has no focus breathing, and when handled correctly, the images are superb. I have a 1/3 frame filling shot of a helicopter hovering over Mumbles Lighthouse approx two weeks ago, and it was a good 1/3 of a mile away. You can read the small lettering on the fuel intake door, and see the face of the pilot and a crew member clearly. That was handheld @ 400mm @ iso200 with VC on, and the contrast, colour and sharpness are great. More-so when post processing, a little clarity and sharpening makes them pop.
So I am a happy bunny. My kit is still a bit heavy to carry far - so I have to pre-choose my lenses for the day, rarely taking all three along unless the walk from the car is under a mile away. I know I would be equally happy with the lenses you are using in the video. I think the trick is, to get to know your lenses, what they can (and can't quite) do, and then make the most of them. At the moment, the 100-400 is my new toy, and I am really enjoying using it, and discovering the best way to use it, settings, speeds etc.
A very inspiring video though, thank you Tom, if I were watching it two years ago, it would have saved me a lot of time and money - a few lenses have been bought and sold in the strive to have the right kit, which, I think at long last, I have managed to do.
Thanks - glad you liked it - sorry we didn't make 2 years ago!
People think I'm kidding but I genuinely love my 300mm f4, even for landscapes
I'm gettiing it later! I want the extra reach for the bird photography.
@@mechineylee the Nikon 300/4 is incredible and not super expensive
Tom, I'd like to have your opinion about a step down ring. For example I have 77 mm ND filters and wish to purchase a lens with a 82 mm filter size . I hear that vignetting might be an issue ?? Love to hear your answer.
24-120 if you're just starting out or if you're a seasoned pro ..... much lighter ... more flexible. 14-24 .. hmmm try putting filters on it and carrying around all day in a backpack .. go with the 16-35 instead
I do love the 14-24 for aurora shots, but you will be pleased to hear I have just bought a new 16-35 and will be doing a video on it soon!
Great video, and lovely photos. With landscape photography in mind, I have the D750, and the older f/2.8G zooms, and am looking to add a prime or two. Thank you for pointing me towards the 24mm f/1.8G. When funds permit, I'd also like to add the 300mm f/4E PF. Would the TC-14E III, giving me 420mm at f/5.6, be worth the money, or should I think about the cheaper, but much heavier, 200-500mm f/5.6E as an alternative? Many thanks...
Glad you liked the video Kevin. As a landscape photographer, I would always lean towards the lightest equipment. For the amount of times you would need the extra long focal length, I would go with the teleconverter and I would recommend the 1.7 converter.
What abbot prime lenses? I sold all my zooms 12 years ago when going digital with D300. I will get a 24-70mm/2.8 VR Zoom when I upgrade to D850. But I'm thinking about getting Zeiss Milvus 25mm/1.4 and. Zeiss Milvus 85mm/1.4 and if I can find a 2nd hand Zeiss Milvus 15mm/2.8. I have Zeiss 18mm/3.5 and 50mm, 1.4 both not so good on FF and I need to upgrade them when I can afford it , Zeiss 100mm/2.0 Macro, Nikkor 60mm/2.8 macro, Nikkor TC 24mm, 45mm and 85mm, Nikkor 200mm Vr and Nikkor 300mm/2.8 IF-ED (screw drive. I’m into lowlight, forest and landscape photo. I'm using Lee 10mm filter system mostly for Grad and big stopper. I have a Sing Ray filters system but I switched to Lee.
The quality and performance of zoom lenses have improved greatly over the years, but I also use certain prime lenses for a particular feature. The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 lens is small, inexpensive and produces a great sunburst when shooting into the sun as opposed to the 24-70mm lens. I also have the 300mm f/4 because of the compactness, lightweight and image quality it produces. Combined with the 1.7x teleconverter I have a formidable lightweight focal length. Enoy the D850.
@@LandscapePhotographyiQ I have been recomend the 20mm/1.8 instead of 18mm but I think its to plastic. I will check the 24mm/1.4. I often use a small aperture as 11 to 16 but my new project will use a larger aperture in low light. I use 1.4 or 2 teleconverter with the 300mm and 200mm. The 300 mm /2.8 may be replaced with a 400mm/2.8 when I can aford a 2nd hand AF-s lens.
the Tamrons render better and are less expensive. they also have better image stabilization. even if they were the same price, I would still go for the Tamrons
Fair enough Douglas, enjoy!
Superb video thanks a lot
Hi, i wanted to ask what would be good options for landscape fx lens for a d750, thanks for answering.
Nikon 16-35 f/4 & Nikon 70-200 f/4. Both superb + light.
Tom, I loved this video. Thank you.
Thanks Jose, really appreciate your feedback.
I recognize the Shuksan shot!!! Good video Tom.
Thanks
I just sold the 24-70, latest edition, of all the lenses I have it was my least used for landscapes.
OK - thats a surprise!
Why is that So.?
Why is that So if you Don't mind Telling me please?+
Good lens for landscape photography!👍 Tom.
Thanks!
Hi Tom,
What a great photo that is of the trees.... excellent! And as always a great video, thank you.
Do you use uv filters as protection on your lenses or not. I did because I was told to by a friend but I have since stopped doing so, am I committing a sin?
Also lens hoods just seem to get in the way for landscape photography and take up space in my bag or am I missing something?
Russell, I always have a good quality UV filter on my lenses for protection. It's much cheaper to replace one of those than to get a front element replaced. I have had a few filters damaged by things hitting or scratching them for various reasons. As for hoods, I just turn them around and put them on backwards for storage, they hardly take up very much room unless you have a very small camera bag. I always shoot with the hood on unless I have a 105mm filter holder on the front of the lens.
Chris Waddell
Hi Chris, Thank you for your response. I was doing the same as you in regard to filters and hoods but a good friend of mine says that he has never used filters as protection on his lenses. According to him, after years of use his lenses are still just fine.
Obviously I am not 100% convinced, hence my original question.😉
Hi Russell,
It depends a lot on the environment you ous your equipment in. I've had filters damaged photographing mountain biking from about 20 feet away. I've also had damage shooting cars powering up the Hill Climb at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, with molten rubber off a slick racing tyre flicked at me about 50 feet from the track. That rubber burned my hand, damaged a lens hood & stuck to the coating on the front of the filter, making it useless. I've also had a filter shattered by a bit of gravel thrown up by a lawn mower while visiting the grounds of a British stately home. Somewhere you wouldn't expect you or your gear to be in any danger. A good stable hood is also a convenient way to lay a lens on a table while you swap it for another one in your bag. They don't roll off the table that way. Once the new lens is on, I put the lens cap on & put the hood back on the lens facing backwards & securely locked in place, before returning it to my camera bag, zipping it closed & putting the bag in a safe place where I can still see it & no one is likely to fall over it or stand on it. Decent lenses & camera bodies cost thousands & I take every effort to take care of them. It doesn't always work out that way. Just today, I had a small accident with my camera where I somehow managed to get the viewfinder of my D800 caught in my shirt & it ripped the finder & it's mounting plate right off the back of the camera. It's now on its way back to Nikon for repair. I won't be putting another larger eyepiece rubber on any of my cameras ever again. It puts too much strain on what turns out to be quite a delicate part of the camera. It was never designed to take that kind of stress. When I got the camera to the Nikon dealer's, under a strong light you could see where the viewfinder mounting plate had cracked under the stress. Which explains why the tiny screw that holds the plate in place was still done up tight, yet the plate was detached from the camera body. I hope not too much dust got into the camera in the few seconds it was exposed to the outside world. Oh the joys of photography!
Hi Russell, thanks for your feedback and question. I am not using UV filters and the only lens shades I use are for the 70-200 and on the 300mm as they easily fit on the lens and do not take up space. I just shield the lens with my hand for other lenses. Check out this video if you want to see this technique in action: ruclips.net/video/mns8xXIdcXU/видео.html
Landscape Photography iQ
Tom, Thank you for the tips and the link.
Tom hi, great Video , thank you.
Thanks David
i enjoyed seeing this video footage. keep going ☺
Thanks
Hi I want to start my path on landscape photography can you recommend a first camera and lens to start out with ?
Hi Tom - we are going to do a video on this in the new year as we keep being asked, so stay tuned! In the meantime, short answer is, it depends..on budget, how serious you want to get, whether weight is an issue etc. My big tip at the moment is to check out used gear. There is so much new gear out this year and lots of people of upgrading, but if you are just starting out why not get a better spec used camera for the same value as a new one? The other thing I would suggest thinking about is which manufacturer and system you want to buy into, as switching later on can be expensive if you have bought lenses at that stage. I have shot Canon and Nikon over the years. Sony have cracked mirrorless, but lenses can be more expensive and less used ones around. Hope this all helps and good luck!
I have tamron 15-30 G2, but find it a bit heavy and i feel uncomfortable using it , i was thinking of getting the nikon 20mm 1.8g, could you give me your thought on that , thanks
Good lens, but hinges on what you want to use it for really.
Nikon 20mm 1.8g and the 180mm 2.8ed
What is the one in the hot shoe of the camera? Looking weird.
I always wondered who went on workshops. lol
For the same money are prime lenses and telephoto lenses the same sharpness?
Not always - all lenses are not made equal and it really depends on what you plan to use it for to help you weigh up which is the best fit for your needs. Thanks for watching.
Literally 5 seconds in and I feel like I've detected a Nikon bias :P So I'm hoping it turns out to be presented as the kinds of lenses rather than those particular lenses.
Keep watching - its about focal ranges rather than manufacturer, albeit Nikkor are thumping good lenses! Thanks for watching and feedback.
Am I the only one who got hyped by the Counter Strike Scene ? :D
Counter strike scene?
Hi
I am using nikon 18-300 kens with nikon d7200 camera during travelling with my familly
Do you recommend me to buy other lens ?
BR
Hi Dany - personally if i had to choose one lens 24-70 wins every time for me. Hope this helps and thanks for feedback.
How are you going to recommend a $2.5k lens for people “just starting out” ?
None of the lenses mentioned cost this much, so slightly confused by the feedback. Put simply, just sharing what a professional uses to get top images, not suggesting everyone has to rush out and buy one. If you let us know what budget you have in mind happy to try and point you in the right direction.
I use tokina 11-20 f2.8 whats your thoughts on this for landscapes?
Never used one so tricky to say I am afraid. Not sure you need the f2.8 for landscapes normally though, and may be paying extra for the luxury unless you need it for other types of images.
That lens is good for astro photography since its f2.8 and too wide
I always love your videos, have learned a lot from you so far. I too agree, you should have "Stuck" with the poor soul who was "Stuck" in the mud. I thought I was watching a British Comedy.
Thanks rayblg. Couldn't not put that bit in, but didn't want to reveal said poor photographers face! Glad you enjoy our videos, lots more coming!
Just starting out? Spend £7,000 :D
The problems is when you need that 2,8 you don't have it. I bought the f4 it's a great for landscape but went to a museum and said dam wish I would have gotten the 2.8. but starting out the f4 is great.
Seems like you just recommend all the lenses you have.. At first you said 70% of your picture taken by 24-70 mm, then you said about your 14-24 mm, "you buy this once, that's all you should need to do".
👍🏼🗣tks
So basically, you have everything from 12mm to 200mm.
14mm to 300mm, but I am a professional using these as tools to do a paying job. That focal range is not necessarily needed for an amateur.
oh he is falling in the mud.
For rich people only having their % from Amazon affiliate program . Wish once see something about skills on affordable to non-pro lenses
The idea of the video was to share the focal length ranges I use for landscape photography and why. It wasn't a video to say you have to buy the same lenses and have provided links as you will see from other videos we have done I have been asked hundreds of times exactly what kit I use - hence I share the details. Happy to do a video covering the different price points options if you think this would be helpful? Please feel free to share what questions you would like covering and happy to help further.
@@LandscapePhotographyiQ I wish to get some similar lenses as you show but can't find 'affordable' to me. Thanks for reply
Never understand why any landscape photographer carries f/2.8 lenses. Are you expecting to do a wedding shoot during a 15km hike? Only need two lenses: 16-35mm an 70-200mm. Mid range just gives so so compositions mostly.
Thats the beauty of photography; there is no wrong or right answer, just opinions and you are of course entitled to yours. Personally if I could only have one lens it would be my 24-70. As for fast glass, I agree you rarely need 2.8, but again I use this for astro, macro, aurora's etc where it is needed. Thanks for your feedback.
Cant afford any of that gear. If you go for the most expensive, there isnt much recommending to do :)
Not always the case. There is plenty of equipment at higher values then this. Its all about finding the balance between budget and what you need it for.
Best lenses are the Canon
This is the holly trinity - it is good for anything. But who has 6-7000 for all 3 + 4000 for the body = 10000. In addition these l are very fragile
Thanks