Comparing zoom lenses for landscape photography

[ajax]

As an amateur when it comes to photography I’m looking for a little insight from those with more expertise. My experience using real cameras (i.e., dslr capable of producing raw files) is exclusively with zoom lenses shooting outdoor scenes. With respect to this inquiry I think that means what would be called landscape photography. My curiosity was piqued when looking at alternative lenses that might fit this objective. For example, various manufacturers make lenses with similar specifications that, I think, would be candidates for my kind of photography. I’ve done some research on lenses made by Canon, Sigma, and Tamron that would fit my full-frame Canon camera.

When it comes to obtaining the best quality images, I think, that starts with lenses. In that, the optics of the lens used to shoot a scene is a necessary starting point when it comes to creating quality photographs. Zoom lenses appear to be pretty complicated designs which suggests the obtaining good optical quality at all focal lengths is challenging. I’m thinking this has the affect of increasing cost/price. This same logic implies that the wider the range of focal lengths the more challenging it becomes. This would suggest that wider range lenses are going to be more expensive. However, at least in the case I’ve been researching, this does NOT seem to be the case.

There appear to be 2 common designs that fit my situation. The first would be 24-70mm lenses. The other 24-105mm. From what I’ve found both Canon and Sigma make both kinds and Tamron appears to be limited to the 24-70mm. What surprises me is that the 24-70mm designs are significantly more expensive than the 24-105mm in all cases. From a usage point of view I cannot think of any reason why more range would be a problem so there must be some good reason why some people, maybe knowledgeable photographers, would want to pay more money for less range. This presents me with a bit of a dilemma since in my somewhat limited experience I have seldom used more than 70mm for such photos. If there is a reason for spending more for less range I’d like to know what it might be. Maybe superior optical quality? Why? How much better?

[DanK]

In the case of Canon, all but one of the 24-70 lenses are f/2.8, while the L 24-105 is f/4. That explains the difference in price. Also in the case of Canon, the 24-70 is optically superior, but I use the 24-105 because I almost never need f/2.8, and I find that I use the 70-105 range a great deal. YMMV.

In general--there are always exceptions--the best optical quality is accompanied by a small zoom factor, usually about 3 but sometimes 4. An example is the several superb Canon 70-200 L lenses. I have one of those and two with zoom factors of 4, but none greater than 4. Often, zooms with ranges larger than 4 or so are less expensive because they are lower-quality lenses.

What makes most sense for you depends on what you shoot. My standard package if I am willing to carry the weight is a 24-105 and a 70-200, both f/4 L lenses, and often a 100mm macro. This is for full frame; the lenses would be shorter if I were shooting APS-C or MFT. I only carry my 100-400 when I think I will need it, as it weighs 3.61 lb / 1640 g.

[Geoff F]

I purchased a Canon 24-105 lens some time ago but I wasn't overly keen on some of the results and it had to be repaired twice. In the meantime, I got a Tamron 24-70 (the older version) and that performed well. Eventually, I returned to my 24-105 in order to get that extra bit of length, which Dan mentioned, and it now performs as well as the Tamron. Perhaps a bit of a rest did it some good.

One thing to consider is whether all the lenses in you list have image stabilisation. Also known as Vibration Control etc. Not a problem when photographing landscapes with a tripod but it can be handy for other uses.

[pschlute]

When it comes to obtaining the best quality images, I think, that starts with lenses. In that, the optics of the lens used to shoot a scene is a necessary starting point when it comes to creating quality photographs. Zoom lenses appear to be pretty complicated designs which suggests the obtaining good optical quality at all focal lengths is challenging.

What you state here would be certainly true 30 years ago. Today, things have changed considerably.

i often shoot landscape on FF with a 15-30 f2.8 zoom and it is the best optic I have ever owned in that focal range. That is reflected in the price of course.... about $2000. Zooms, like primes generally have a higher price tag the faster they are.

The "best quality" images in my experience are usually created by the photographer, not the equipment used. If you are having specific issues, post some images here for critique. It may actually end up saving you money on a new lens.

[Stagecoach]

As an amateur when it comes to photography I’m looking for a little insight from those with more expertise. My experience using real cameras (i.e., dslr capable of producing raw files) is exclusively with zoom lenses shooting outdoor scenes. With respect to this inquiry I think that means what would be called landscape photography. My curiosity was piqued when looking at alternative lenses that might fit this objective. For example, various manufacturers make lenses with similar specifications that, I think, would be candidates for my kind of photography. I’ve done some research on lenses made by Canon, Sigma, and Tamron that would fit my full-frame Canon camera.

When it comes to obtaining the best quality images, I think, that starts with lenses. In that, the optics of the lens used to shoot a scene is a necessary starting point when it comes to creating quality photographs. Zoom lenses appear to be pretty complicated designs which suggests the obtaining good optical quality at all focal lengths is challenging. I’m thinking this has the affect of increasing cost/price. This same logic implies that the wider the range of focal lengths the more challenging it becomes. This would suggest that wider range lenses are going to be more expensive. However, at least in the case I’ve been researching, this does NOT seem to be the case.

There appear to be 2 common designs that fit my situation. The first would be 24-70mm lenses. The other 24-105mm. From what I’ve found both Canon and Sigma make both kinds and Tamron appears to be limited to the 24-70mm. What surprises me is that the 24-70mm designs are significantly more expensive than the 24-105mm in all cases. From a usage point of view I cannot think of any reason why more range would be a problem so there must be some good reason why some people, maybe knowledgeable photographers, would want to pay more money for less range. This presents me with a bit of a dilemma since in my somewhat limited experience I have seldom used more than 70mm for such photos. If there is a reason for spending more for less range I’d like to know what it might be. Maybe superior optical quality? Why? How much better?

Have you ever undertaken any 'landscape' photography for which the results were not acceptable to you with respect to IQ and you are sure this was due to the lens being used?

[Manfred M]

I am someone who is quite skeptical when people write about image quality and modern lenses. The easiest way to ruin a strong image, even with stabilized lenses is to miss focus or to have camera movement. These are things I see all the time.

Unless you are willing to drag around a heavy-duty tripod and a heavy duty head, sharpness cannot be guaranteed, regardless of the lens used. I've won awards taken with my 28 - 300mm lens; one that is not known for being brilliantly sharp (I have done tests with the lens to confirm that this is the case against a 105mm prime). I've made a couple of 3ft x 4 ft prints with captures from that lens that were at a show in a gallery and was complimented as to how sharp the images were.

For landscape work, you will likely be shooting at apertures between f/8 and f/11; most lenses perform very well stopped down 2 or 3 stops. You don't need high end glass when shooting landscapes; but you need to use excellent technique. Modern zoom lenses can be excellent; the introduction of low dispersion glass and aspherical elements will give far better performance that the lenses you used in the film days.

Unless you are planning to make large prints, the downsampling process for images posted on the internet will cover a lot of sins. The average computer screen with a 1920 x 1080 resolution will hide a lot of minor sins. Viewing the images on a tablet or phone will hide even more...

[William W]

Hiya,

I'd like to guide you on how to spend your money, but first:
What lens(es) do you already have, which fit your "FF" Canon Camera?
Have you used any Ultra Wide Lens (on any camera)?
What camera do you have?
Do you have a tripod and head - if yes - what?

Thanks.

***

Dan's answered re the (Canon) 24 to 70's are F/2.8, you pay for that.

I also have the (first) 24-70/2.8 and the (first) 24 to 105/4L IS - expanding on Dan's point my 24 to 70 has better I/Q at the wide end than the 24 to 105 - that said, I use the 24 to 105 much more for "landscape work": noted that my "landscape work" is 99% hand held and for pleasure/record keeping, not for competition.

Manfred has covered the 'quality' of modern zoom lenses: pay a reasonable price and you get very good quality.

(for competition especially), To achieve very good quality I cannot emphasis enough: technique; technique; technique.

The very simple (mis)understanding of necessary Shutter Speed requirements for Landscape work lets Photographers down, time and again. (just one example).

WW

[ajax]

In the case of Canon, all but one of the 24-70 lenses are f/2.8, while the L 24-105 is f/4. That explains the difference in price. Also in the case of Canon, the 24-70 is optically superior, but I use the 24-105 because I almost never need f/2.8, and I find that I use the 70-105 range a great deal. YMMV.
...

I did notice the difference in minimum F Stop and would expect that to be more challenging to design and build (i.e., more expensive). In my case, I've been choosing to use "Aperture Priority" mostly for Landscape scenes and try to set the F Stop as high as possible to still get a reasonable shutter speed which for these scenes can be relatively slow. My concern has been that the f/22 found on most if NOT all of the mentioned lenses is pretty low for a maximum value. My thinking, maybe mistakenly, being that usually getting the best depth of field is what I should be trying for.

...
In general--there are always exceptions--the best optical quality is accompanied by a small zoom factor, usually about 3 but sometimes 4.
...

Intuitively I'd expect the wider the range the more difficult it is to get good optical quality. I've never heard of 3 or 4 times being target values. I have the Canon 70-300mm which would come to a bit more the 4 that I thought was considered to have pretty good optics but NOT the best while priced good.

[ajax]

...
One thing to consider is whether all the lenses in you list have image stabilisation.

Image stabilization was NOT something I was paying much attention to and I'm afraid I do NOT have a good appreciation for what is actually happening when using it. I have noticed that the User Manual suggests turning it off when using a tripod which is something I've tended to overlook on those few occasions when I use a tripod. Is this important? If so, why?

[ajax]

...
The "best quality" images in my experience are usually created by the photographer, not the equipment used. If you are having specific issues, post some images here for critique. It may actually end up saving you money on a new lens.

For me, photography has become a hobby that I spend an awful lot of time on largely because the results, to date, have been what I'd call remarkable. To date, the emphasis has been on post processing which is something I'm more knowledgeable about than how to properly use a camera.

My interest in camera/lens quality comes from thinking that given the amount of time I spend producing pictures (i.e., shoot, develop, print, and frame) it makes sense NOT to be sacrificing the quality of the original image (raw) files that are consuming all this time.

Actually, to date, I've been very pleased with the results most of which came from very inexpensive (e.g., entry level) camera equipment.

[ajax]

Have you ever undertaken any 'landscape' photography for which the results were not acceptable to you with respect to IQ and you are sure this was due to the lens being used?

When it comes to bad results from the camera I've pretty much been able to figure out my mistakes. When it comes to camera equipment, I think, my experience is sufficiently limited that I'm really NOT able to offer opinions about differences in equipment based on actual results.

[ajax]

I am someone who is quite skeptical when people write about image quality and modern lenses. The easiest way to ruin a strong image, even with stabilized lenses is to miss focus or to have camera movement. These are things I see all the time.

Unless you are willing to drag around a heavy-duty tripod and a heavy duty head, sharpness cannot be guaranteed, regardless of the lens used. I've won awards taken with my 28 - 300mm lens; one that is not known for being brilliantly sharp (I have done tests with the lens to confirm that this is the case against a 105mm prime). I've made a couple of 3ft x 4 ft prints with captures from that lens that were at a show in a gallery and was complimented as to how sharp the images were.

For landscape work, you will likely be shooting at apertures between f/8 and f/11; most lenses perform very well stopped down 2 or 3 stops. You don't need high end glass when shooting landscapes; but you need to use excellent technique. Modern zoom lenses can be excellent; the introduction of low dispersion glass and aspherical elements will give far better performance that the lenses you used in the film days.

Unless you are planning to make large prints, the downsampling process for images posted on the internet will cover a lot of sins. The average computer screen with a 1920 x 1080 resolution will hide a lot of minor sins. Viewing the images on a tablet or phone will hide even more...

This all makes perfect sense to me and by NO means am I complaining about the equipment I've been using. My renewed interest in photography all got started when deciding I should start carrying a camera with me on my bike rides. I had a Canon Powershot A1300, at the time, that would fit in my pocket. It was very easy to use. Didn't need to know much on anything about how cameras work. I was able to take some pretty unimpressive camera developed jpg files and convert them into what I considered to be very nice pictures worth printing and framing.

Printing and framing is still the ultimate goal and my interest both in getting some better equipment and learning how to use it is predicated on the idea that it is possible to produce what might be considered better material to put into the pipeline at the beginning. At the same time cost does matter and I'd like to have some basis for thinking better quality finished product might be the result of taking the initial shots with somewhat better equipment.

What surprises me in this reply is where it says "For landscape work, you will likely be shooting at apertures between f/8 and f/11". My method has been to maximize F Stop which typically would be greater than f18 thinking that produces the best depth of field. I've been thinking that the f22 maximum for the lenses referenced herein is a bit on the low side and this could be a problem. In that, possibly a reason for NOT using zoom lenses. However, I completely agree with statements made herein that these zoom lenses provide easy to use flexibility that is very desirable when simply roaming around and wanting to be ready to shoot when the special scenes present themselves. Based on NO personal experience I'm inclined to think that prime lenses might be good in studio but that's it.

[ajax]

Hiya,

I'd like to guide you on how to spend your money, but first:
What lens(es) do you already have, which fit your "FF" Canon Camera?
Have you used any Ultra Wide Lens (on any camera)?
What camera do you have?
Do you have a tripod and head - if yes - what?

Thanks.

***

WW

In addition to Landscape I also find opportunities to shoot wildlife (mostly birds to date). Based on other discussions herein I was persuaded that crop sensor was good for that and now have a Canon Rebel T8i with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens. When it comes to full frame I've fairly well decided to buy a Canon EOS 5Ds R which according to research of mine is especially good for landscape photography. I think this is a pretty old model presently selling at a much lower price than previously with especially high resolution (50+mp) but the unique feature is a neutralized low pass filter which is what makes it special for landscape shots even if potentially problematic for some other scenarios.

Not sure what ultra wide refers to but most of my raw files were shot with a Canon Rebel T6 (also known as EOS 1300D). The bundle I bought included a EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II which I think is comparable to the 24-70mm range of some lenses inquired about herein. I'm guessing that is NOT ultra wide.

Yes I do have a tripod but I'm NOT familiar with what a "Head" might be.

[Manfred M]

What surprises me in this reply is where it says "For landscape work, you will likely be shooting at apertures between f/8 and f/11". My method has been to maximize F Stop which typically would be greater than f18 thinking that produces the best depth of field. I've been thinking that the f22 maximum for the lenses referenced herein is a bit on the low side and this could be a problem. In that, possibly a reason for NOT using zoom lenses. However, I completely agree with statements made herein that these zoom lenses provide easy to use flexibility that is very desirable when simply roaming around and wanting to be ready to shoot when the special scenes present themselves. Based on NO personal experience I'm inclined to think that prime lenses might be good in studio but that's it.

The reason I mentioned that range of apertures is that is generally the optimal setting for sharpness. If you use a wider aperture, you will get too much of the image out of focus. If you get too small an aperture, you will introduced diffraction softening into the capture. You will have to find out what works out best for you. At f/16 and smaller, this effect can be quite noticable.

A lot of advanced photographers will use a technique called "focus stacking" to ensure that the image is as sharp as possible from the nearest to the farthest point in the image.

in terms of prime lenses being for the studio only, that is not true. It depends on the type of photography you are doing. Prime lenses tend to weigh less than zoom lenses. There are special purpose primes, like perspective correcting (shift tilt) lenses that are often used in architecture or landscape work.

[Geoff F]

Image stabilization was NOT something I was paying much attention to and I'm afraid I do NOT have a good appreciation for what is actually happening when using it. I have noticed that the User Manual suggests turning it off when using a tripod which is something I've tended to overlook on those few occasions when I use a tripod. Is this important? If so, why?

Image stabilization isn't required for tripod use. It is most useful for those quick hand held shots, such as street photography or hand held wildlife photography, etc. In theory, you can still get sharp images and gain a couple of aperture stops where camera shake would otherwise be a problem. But in reality this depends on a lot of other factors.

With some lenses you are advised to turn stabilization off when using a tripod. Other lenses are supposed to work equally well with a tripod. From my experience, I have found little difference either way. Except for the occasional slight change in composition as the lens attempts to stabilise a scene. Particularly noticeable in movie shooting where a noticeable jump may occur, but still better than hand held movie shooting.

Whether stabilization would be of benefit to you will depend on your subjects, but I do find it handy sometimes when I feel an urge to quickly turn away from tripod photography to a completely different subject.

[DanK]

faster lenses are more expensive in part because the elements have to be larger.

In addition to Landscape I also find opportunities to shoot wildlife (mostly birds to date). Based on other discussions herein I was persuaded that crop sensor was good for that and now have a Canon Rebel T8i with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens. When it comes to full frame I've fairly well decided to buy a Canon EOS 5Ds R which according to research of mine is especially good for landscape photography.

Unfortunately, what's optimal for landscapes and what's optimal for wildlife are very different.

First, a comment about megapixels. You haven't discussed how you will display your images. If you are displaying online, you don't need high resolution. If you are printing very large, it helps, but often very little. For example, suppose that you want to print 17 x 22 inches, the largest my Canon Prograf will print. At its native resolution of 300 dpi, this requires 33.7 MPX, roughly what I have with my Canon 5D IV. However, that's without any upsizing at all, and modern software can upsize quite a bit while still providing excellent prints.

For example, consider this image:



This is a highly cropped image from a 12 MPX micro-four-thirds sensor. I don't have the file with me, so I can't confirm, but I would guess that the cropped raw file was probably 8 MPS or less. I've successfully printed and shown this print on 13 x 19 inch stock. Is it as high-quality as a similar image from my 5 D IV would be? No. Has anyone at all commented on flaws in the print? Also no.

For wildlife, two factors I would give very serious weight to are autofocus capabilities and reach. The 5DS wasn't considered particularly good in terms of AF even when it was new--that wasn't its target market--and it isn't remotely in the league of modern SLRs. And the FF gives you less reach than an APS-C camera. (This is a longer discussion.) It's not an accident that back in the day, a favorite camera of series birders was the APS-C Canon 7D Mark II. So if you want to keep two bodies, the 5DS would be great for landscapes, just not for wildlife.

Manfred beat me to the punch in explaining why one doesn't get maximum sharpness with a very small aperture. The aperture at which diffraction starts is a function of pixel density: the smaller the pixels, the wider the aperture (lower f/stop number) at which diffraction begins. So for any given sensor size, more megapixels means a wider aperture at which diffraction begins. In my experience, one can go several stops above the diffraction limit without problems, but I would not shoot at f/22 except in emergencies. If you need greater depth of field than you get at an aperture like f/13, the thing to do is focus stacking, where you take a number of images focused at different points and combine them.

[William W]

I like your approach: collecting information - supplying information - asking questions - providing feedback: the last point is very much appreciated, thank you.

I shall limit my contribution below to discussing only Canon gear. Here are several points which might assist, these are NOT in any order of priority, I have simply numbered the headings for clarity of content:

1. Buying Strategy –
I like the idea of buying superseded or older model cameras, when their price drops. I have bought many cameras and can’t remember any one which was bought when it was first released.

2. Dual Format Kit and the Development of it –
If you buy the EOS 5Ds R, then seriously consider keeping the 850D (Rebel T8i).

I have had Canon Dual Format Kits since 2004. In my opinion having such at the Photographers’ disposal is the second most valuable, real world useable asset of Digital Cameras: the first being selective ISO.

If you choose to move forward keeping both camera bodies, then consider buying only EF mount lenses in the future (i.e. not buying any EF-S mount lenses); EF mount lenses will mount to all EOS Series Bodies.

Two key advantages of a Dual Format Kit are the range of FoV with very few lenses and system redundancy. Consider as a simple example that you carry two bodies, one APS-C and one 135 Format, (aka “Full Frame”). And you have only these two zoom lenses: 16 to 35 and 70 to 300. Swapping lenses on the two cameras you can attain the following FoV combinations (“FF" Equivalent): 16 to 35, 25 to 56, 70 to 300 and 112 to 480. Plus you have the system redundancy of a back-up camera.

Obviously different cameras have different strengths and weaknesses (Dan points to some), but in general terms and for the real world of enjoyment – if you have reasonable gear, 99% of the “Image Quality” which is discussed, mostly comes down to technique.

3. An Exercise to a Suitable FoV for the typical “Landscape” images you (think) that you want to investigate -
I assume you no longer have the 1300D. If you have the kit lens (18 to 55), I suggest you plonk it on the 850D and get out now and shoot some “Landscape” images which interest you. The main reason for this exercise is to ascertain (today and not a while ago) the appropriateness of the FL range of lenses that you are considering.

Yes: the 18 to 55 on an APS-C Format Camera is about 28 to 88 on a 135 Format Camera and that is approx. the same FoV (Field of View) as a 24 to 70.

4. How wide do you go? Part A
I think that you will find value in the wider 24 to 28 range – if you do this exercise then think about this when you are looking through the viewfinder. On the www there are several pictorial examples of FoV comparison between 28 and 24 which can assist you visualizing how much wider your capture will be if you had 24mm available.

I suggest you also use this exercise to ponder if you might want wider than 24mm. In this case the EF 17 to 40/4L represents great value for money. Obviously, going down the path of buying a 17 to 40 leaves a big gap in 40 to 70 range. On the other hand this arguably can be filled, in many instances, by cropping in Post-production.

5. How wide do you go? Part B
24mm is wide, LINK https://www.photo.net/photo/18392206/

Ultra-Wide, (my loose definition meaning wider than 24mm equivalent on “FF” Format), allows not only extra width but also the capacity to use foreground/background juxtaposition as a strong compositional element.

This is a 14mm Prime, on a 5D Camera: LINK https://www.photo.net/photo/18358337...Cronulla-Beach

Please don’t buy a 14mm Prime tomorrow, or even the 11 to 24 zoom, these points are mentioned to create a big picture of how you might want to develop (or not) your kit.

6. Point of view which argues AGAINST considering anything OTHER THAN a 24 to 70 or 24 to 105 for your new 5D Series Camera –
Simply put, the 24 to 70 FoV range is arguably the most versatile and most used for all “general photography”: you’re starting to build a system and this next step seems (only) predicated on the interest in “landscape photography” – my understanding is you are not dedicating these purchases solely to be used for “Landscape Photography” and if you are, then that might be limiting.

It makes sense to ere toward the more flexible and general zoom lens range, in the first instance.

As such a lens like the 24 to 70 or 24 to 105 will serve you well for many years and for many different situations. You can always get wider, later, possibly go nuts and buy the 11 to 24/4L IS – which would be a cream partner for the 24 to 70/2.8L or 24 to 105/4L IS.

7. Tripods, Heads, IS, Av Priority and Shutter Speeds –
7a A “Head” is the thing you plonk on top of the Tripod; IS is Image Stabilization; and consideration of the Shutter Speed is very important for Landscape work; landscapes are NOT always stationary.

Alternatively (long) Shutter Speed can be used to control Landscape Subject Movement. (e.g. calming waters – see example LINK https://www.photo.net/photo/18392680/

If you (seriously) get into both knife edge crisp “landscape” and silky smooth “landscape”, you’ll be thinking deeply about stability of the camera and also movements in the landscape. Both of these image components are primarily controlled by: Shutter Speed and your Tripod and Head (or a block of concrete and sandbags).

Tripods are wonderful inventions, and very easy to test out, especially if you’re buying second hand from a Photographer who is impatient or from a junk or loan merchant. Don’t skimp. Buying a new tripod is not an inexpensive undertaking; second hand can save hundreds of dollars. You mention that you have a tripod: if you don’t know what the Head is, then I am guessing that your tripod is light weight.

To support a 5D and a 24 to 70 (or 24 to 105) for ‘impeccable and detailed’ Landscape work, you’re consideration of: payload security around 10 to 12 kgs, including the head; centre column counterweight facility and generally all-round being gorilla-proof will pay dividends.

Then you buy The Head. I like a three-way Geared Head. If you come to like them too, then save up.

Also don’t fret, it is only money and you certainly do NOT need to buy another tripod and a head … yet, maybe you never will.

7b. Considering IS, I believe that you will find this feature useful, especially for, but not limited to, hand held situations photographing static scenes. For example building-scapes under moderate to low light levels, and/or scenes requiring small(er) apertures.

On the other hand, if you always carry around a stable tripod and head and always use these tools, then IS will be of limited, or no value to you.

With my 24 to105/4L IS, I can pull shots around 1 second shutter speed, hand held with the camera braced. (I really don’t like using tripods all that much, I’m too impatient). LINKS https://www.photo.net/photo/18502493/Basilica and https://www.photo.net/photo/18530920/Window-Shopping

From memory, Basilica is around 1/8 sec., the Watches are 1/15 sec.

Generally, you turn off IS when the Camera is solid on a Tripod or under a block of concrete or sandbags. The reason in simple terms is that IS is has no brains. IS seeks movement so it can counteract that movement.

With a friend in the USA, I did some tests with the 70 to 200/2.8 L IS, the condensed results were that when IS was left ‘on’ and the lens was stable, sandbagged and counter-weighted on a solid tripod, using a remote
release there was noticeable camera movement blur at shutter speeds slower than 1/60th second. When IS was turned ‘off’ - all was picture perfect.

8. Comments on the 24 to 70 vs. the 24 to 105 (I have both)
The extra reach from 70 to 105mm is useful for me – especially for picking out a subject inside the landscape, for example: LINK https://www.photo.net/photo/17759279...avaria-Germany

The IS is useful for me (please reference above the points on IS).

In summary my 24 to 105/4L IS is my “wonderful go everywhere lens”: my 24 to 70/2.8 started as and is always will be the key part of my F/2.8 trilogy, 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. Combined with two FF bodies and one APS-C body, theses form my basic “pro kit” used for general Sports and Events, (which I do fewer now, hence the 24 to 105 gets more use than any of those other three.)

9. Using Aperture Priority –
Always watch your Tv –Landscapes are not often static.

You mentioned

I've been choosing to use "Aperture Priority" mostly for Landscape scenes and try to set the F Stop as high as possible to still get a reasonable shutter speed which for these scenes can be relatively slow.

I think that it is important to understand that Aperture Priority is merely a “mechanism”; arguably the important question to reckon is “what Metering Mode do you choose - and why?”.

The Metering Mode drives the mechanisms of the Automatic Camera Modes, i.e. Aperture Priority – (Av); Shutter Priority – (Tv); and Program Mode – (P).

Also note that when choosing Aperture Priority, it is usually always necessary to carefully monitor the Shutter Speed (which you mention that you do, very good), however I’ll mention two other aspects that you might not have considered:

Firstly, if you are using a zoom lens such as the 18 to 55, note this lens is a Varying Aperture Zoom Lens. The practical consideration is, as the lens is zoomed to the Telephoto end, the Maximum Aperture becomes smaller.

This is markedly so for the first half of the zoom’s compass beginning at the Wide end. Explained another way – at 18mm the Maximum Aperture is F/3.5 and at 55mm the Maximum Aperture is F/5.6. Additionally, if you reckon in a ‘rule of thumb’ we can generalize and always assume that the Maximum Aperture of a Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom becomes the smallest value at the Focal Length which is at HALF the Zoom’s Compass. In the situation of the 18 to 55, that will be at about FL = 36mm.

Secondly, how really important reckoning a 'suitable' Shutter Speed in the first instance ("Landscape Photography" does not equate to "Static Subject Photography") and then accounting for/ being aware of the changes in light on the scene.

10. A scenario involving the above two points -
Let’s say we are flopping around at an early evening scene, or a daylight scene with cloud movement. We are using the 18 to 55 at 18mm. We are in Aperture Priority.

We need a reasonably large aperture because we want to keep the ISO low and there’s not that much light – let’s say we choose F/4.

We check the Shutter Speed and we are at 1/250s, which we reckon is reasonably safe to arrest the moderate movement in the tree branches caused by the mild breeze, (remember I mentioned that Landscapes are not often static).

After pulling three or four shots at 18mm, with different framing and different Camera Positions, we want to pick out a particular element of the scene, so we zoom in to 40mm, additionally, let’s say the clouds move a bit or the light dims, effectively knocking off 2 stops of light on the scene.

When we moved to FL = 40mm we can no longer use F/4, the lens can only achieve F/5.6, therefore our Tv drops to 1/125s, additionally, because of the cloud movement, our scene is 2 stops darker, often this is not noticed by the naked eye, because for the sake of Photography, it take a lot of training and practice for the human eyes to “see” stuff, because our brain is trained to default to “interpreting” stuff. Therefore we are now at F/5.6 and 1/30s – result: lots of blurry trees.

Obviously the former condition, (Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom), does not apply to the 24 to 70/2.8 or the 24 to 105/4, but the latter, (varying light on scene), does.

My Rule – when in Av - Always watch the Shutter Speed. Always.
Another Rule – “Landscapes” are rarely static. Always watch the Shutter Speed. Always.

That's all for the moment.

WW

[William W]

... I thought that was all, then I began thinking again after re-reading others' commentaries...

On the point of "How wide to go":

(Down the track), if you choose that you need really wide, then have a look at the range of the UWA Prime Lenses which could be useful to you, because you will find, compared to UWA Zooms, Primes are as usually cheap as chips, usually very sharp, usually very fast and very good quality. Being very fast lends them to be beneficial to Nightscape and Astro-Photography, which are related to Landscape Photography.

On the point of (special) Prime Lenses for Landscape work: the TS-E 17mm F/4L is simply a magic lens, though sometimes exceptionally frustrating to set up, additionally it can be used as a simple 17mm UWA Lens.

WW

[ajax]

... If you get too small an aperture, you will introduced diffraction softening into the capture.
...

I think "diffraction softening" is something about which I'm ignorant. Is it possible that someone easily knows where to find some good reference information that might help a novice like myself to learn about it?

[Manfred M]

I think "diffraction softening" is something about which I'm ignorant. Is it possible that someone easily knows where to find some good reference information that might help a novice like myself to learn about it?

There is a wonderful website call Cambridge in Colour with information on all this type of stuff....

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...hotography.htm