Lens for enlarge-printable landscapes.

[Sunny Alan]

Hi friends,
I am into art reprinting with my Epson 9900.
While landscape photos enlarge printing on canvas, I found it is more on the side of art, if printed converting to 'painting' with help of Photoshop or other, rather than a sharp photo enlarge-print.

As such, a Zeiss 21 will be 'enough' for this or I go for a Canon 24Tse? (My camera 5D2 with no specific landscape lens, except kit lens 24-105, 50/1.4 and a Tokina 17mm.)

My reasoning for Zeiss 21: Slightly more wide, much better micro contrast, very sharp and famous for quality of glass and as a great landscape lens, over all.

The Canon 24 Tse is much more costly. With more sharpness and TSE speciality Canon is much superior though.
Question is, are those specialties crucial necessity for my purpose: mostly smoothed, brush-painted looking landscape 'Paintings' ?
And if I need very sharp images, the Zeiss is no inferior, if I take care observing hyper-focal distance for max. Dof and all.

Please help with your insights.......
Thanks in advance.

[Manfred M]

Sunny; I suspect you are going in the wrong direction here. Shooting with a fairly wide angle lens is going to give you images that are going to be mostly foreground and sky. I shoot most of my landscapes with a f/2.8 24-70mm lens; usually in the middle range of that lens.

From a sharpness standpoint; your kit 24-105 stopped down to f/8 or f/11 should perform admirably. You are certainly not looking for super sharpness if you are going for the "painterly" look in post-processing. If you need the perspective adjustment, then the Canon is obviously the way to go, but at 24mm, the DoF is so deep that stopping down into the lenses "sweet spot" will mean you have pretty well everything in focus already. If you are already using Photoshop; just adjust the perspective there.

[Sunny Alan]

Sunny; I suspect you are going in the wrong direction here. Shooting with a fairly wide angle lens is going to give you images that are going to be mostly foreground and sky. I shoot most of my landscapes with a f/2.8 24-70mm lens; usually in the middle range of that lens.

From a sharpness standpoint; your kit 24-105 stopped down to f/8 or f/11 should perform admirably. You are certainly not looking for super sharpness if you are going for the "painterly" look in post-processing. If you need the perspective adjustment, then the Canon is obviously the way to go, but at 24mm, the DoF is so deep that stopping down into the lenses "sweet spot" will mean you have pretty well everything in focus already. If you are already using Photoshop; just adjust the perspective there.

I too thought at such a far away view of 21 and 24; the subject and it's components on a 30x20 wall hanging landscape won't make sense to the onlooker. He expect something he can discern well by a close look. He need more foreground to admire. A 50mm nearby width make sense.
If you meant the above, I join you.


I found many of my shots with the 'lousy kit lens' 24-105, if giving care for sharp image are really good. I agree.

But what other special features makes the 24-70 superior from a stopped down 24-105 upto '24-70' space?

[Manfred M]

But what other special features makes the 24-70 superior from a stopped down 24-105 upto '24-70' space?

Nothing specifically make it "superior"; I just find that it is the lens I tend to use for landscapes, base on the ones that I own. I have a f/2.8 14-24mm and in general it is too wide (I generally use it for indoor work) and the f/2.8 70-200mm is too long (but is great for portraits).

The issue with any image is determining the "proper" viewing distance. People should not be looking at the work with their nose right up to it, but should be back at a reasonable viewing distance to take in the scene.