Excellent advice! The lens that lives on my Canon 5D Mk iv is the Canon 24-105mm f/4, it does most everything I want to do. The other lens is my Canon 70-200mm f/4 (just in case). I find I rarely need anything faster than f/4, and I'm on a limited budget, and as an "older gentlemen" who turns 70 years young tomorrow, I like to travel light. Keep up the good work!
Totally agree. You don’t need the 2.8; that combo is awesome and much cheaper too! I have the same camera. My second one as I lost my first when my house burnt down!
Nothing wrong with that. For my RP I went with the RF24-240. Love it. No regrets. My R50 has a RF100-400 on it. Being FF lenses they can be used on either body.
Exactly the point. I've just turned 68 and agree with you. If it works for you, that's the setup to use. I have an RP + RF24-240 (2 years ago approx $AUD2,500) and for 'in case' an R50 + RF 100-400 (this year approx $AUD1,700). Same concept. I waited for discounts and got them. All of that is not much heavier than my traded in 600D + Tamron EF-S 18-270. Got a cheap snoot bag which straps around my waist and rests on my hip. Think sharp shooter holster. Has my RP. Small backpack has my R50 and everything else. Far easier and better than my old camera bag hung on / across my shoulder.
I like how you explain it. Your experience is evident. I bought myself my dream camera last year for my 40th and just a 50mm. Taking it on trips I’ve had to make do, and I experienced exactly what you’re talking about here.
I recently moved to micro 4/3 system for most of all my shooting. Using the Olympus OM1 with the 12-100mm f4 is a dream come true landscapes simply for the size and weight savings. I have never been happier. In general I have never been a fan of any lenses of these types with super long focal length ranges. But this lens has been the one exception. It has made going out actually enjoyable again and my body definitely thanks me at the end of a few hours with no more sore arms or back from packing 3 times the weight and size that I used to. If I do need to go with faster lenses oly 12-40mm 2.8 and pany 35-100mm 2.8 is only a few more once’s as a kit than the 12-100mm f4. If I ever do need wider i have the Laowa 6mm f2 that is super small and light Enjoying photography is what it’s all about for me and it’s been an enjoyable move to m43
After several trips and several thousand landscape shots, I only took my 24-120 and 100-400 on my last hike in Rocky Mountain National Park. You are so right! 85+% with 24-120 and the rest were to zoom in on mountain or tree features with cloud formations. My 17-28 is now more for city shots to emphasize the foreground. Great video. It really helps confirm my decision. Thanks for studying the masters. It saved us all a lot of time!
I have just changed formats and gone to full frame. I have been pondering a swiss army knife lens and opted for the 24-70. I was happy to predict your 2nd GP lens as I have had some beautiful landscapes with a longer focal length and predicted your 2nd choice. This is the 1st of your videos I have seen and made so much sense, I have subscribed. Thanks.
Wonderful advice. My favorite landscape I’ve ever taken was in Iceland using a 100-400mm at 100mm to capture a valley perfectly bathed in sunlight. It was what I happened to have on the camera in that fleeting moment, and so I took the shot and it was the prize of my 10 days there.
My Olympus 12-100 f/4 (24 - 200 equiv.) is the best lens I've ever owned for exactly the reasons you state - tack-sharp across its huge range and it stays on my OM-1 for 99% of my work. I do have an 8-18 (16-36) and 40-150 (80-300) for the occasional special purpose - such extravagance!
Yes I am the same my 12-100mm f4.0 lives on my OM-1 camera, I have a 90mm macro but seldom use it, as the 12-100mm is good for most macro. The image quality is excellent across the board. I have no regrets at switching to Olympus.
I bought the 12-100mm last year, I use it so much for the reasons you have said...I am planning on getting an OM over Lumix simply because the lens is so good, the dual stabilization is so good, I want 26 Megapixels from the G9ii, but it is the lens that really matters!
I'm so glad you said this. This is what I've found as well 24-70 and 70-200. In my case, though, I use the 70-200 most of the time because I love landscape details.
When hiking I never carry more than two lenses. For landscapes that are more open I carry the RF 24-70 F2.8 and the RF 70-200 F4. For landscapes that more dense woodland or tight canyons I carry the RF 14-35 and RF 100 F2.8 macro. If I have to hike a great distance I usually just carry either the 24-70 or the 14-35 based on how open the landscape is. If the landscape varies on a long hike I usually carry just the 24-70 F2.8.
I’m a hobby photographer, and I sold everything, switched systems this spring, and now I only own a 24-70/2,8. I did this specifically to reduce the number of options and to focus on the scene. It is less to carry too. I shoot sports, travel, landscapes and portraits mostly. If I would add another lens to my system it would be the 70-200. So I couldn’t agree more. I used to have a 16-35, but the problem I struggled with was that everything got tiny. Often in composition, less is more. Great advice.
I try to convert friends into forgetting their constant use of WA lenses….but they look at me in disbelief ! I show them the awful photos of inside homes taken by realtors ! Normal size living rooms looking like mansions ! But they keep on using their Phones on the first setting that comes up !! And there we go…WA all the time ! Phones kill photography !
Well thank you! I can't believe I have not found your channel earlier. Great advice to all especially those just starting out in photography and a good reminder to those who have been there and still get the twitching, 'do I need it,' when the new gear ads arrive and get all tangled up in the must have GAS syndrome. Subscribed.
Great video, very useful info. I recently picked up a vintage lens, an Auto Chinon 55mm f1.7 on an M42 mount, I've been using it on my lumix g3 micro 4/3 camera.📸
I use a Sigma 24-70mm and a Tamron 50-400mm lenses with my Sony A7R4A. Both lenses do a great job. However in tight spots, I wish I had a wide angle lens in my back pack.
You talk my language - I take two lenses, both Sony kit items - 16mm up to 210mm, two lightweight bodies, old a6000's - so no need to change a lens, no gathering dust spots etc.. PERFECT - all I have to do is get into the countryside and enjoy myself capturing light.
As a Canon owner, I've decided to go with the 24-105 and 70-200. I do toss my 16 f2.8 in the bag as well. I love super wide shots in some instances, and the 16mm is so tiny it makes almost no impact on space or weight. I'm not a profession and have no desire to be one, but I enjoy the learning process and getting the shot I want even if it never gets shared or makes me a buck. Thank you for the great advice!
Without a 16-35 you'll miss so many great shots in an urban landscape like Amsterdam. Even in Agra, there are shots you'll be forced to crop because the space doesn't let you get far enough away to take advantage of frames or even leading lines. For some indoor settings, if you want to give a sense of the place, an ultra-wide delivers like no other. Maybe our choice of lens comes down to the kind of images we like to capture.
Without eg an RF 24-240 you'll miss a LOT more. Mirrorless is making super zooms lighter and better. A very under-rated lens. Look at the camera corrected jpegs to see what it can do.
Right on. She was talking about landscape photography, so 16 mm tends to distort that and isn't all that useful. In an urban setting you want a shorter FL, as you discovered.
@@gsmollin2 Some of the most impressive cityscapes I got earlier this week were at 11mm on a 5D mark 4. Anything narrower simply wouldn't have worked as well.
@@gsmollin2 ?? 'as I discovered'? I've been taking pictures for 60 years on all sorts of equipment, including my grandfather's folding brownie. It's about using what you have to get what you want. My RP (FF) + 24-240 gives me great flexibility. My previous 600D + (APS-C) + Tamron 18-270 also did that. Composure and subject matter determines the FL setting, not whether I'm inside or outside. It's an art and not a science. Ok, a wide angle helps with large groups in small rooms. Then again a set of shots in small groups at a longer FL can be better that one wide angle group shot! One large A4 of the whole group or a set of postcard sized prints? The set of postcards will win hands down for many reasons. Same when I took photos of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. never bothered with a 'full building' outside shot because I could buy them. I wanted to show what we had seen - close up! It does not matter whether it's landscape, buildings, iconic structures, people, inside, outside. It's a case of finding something that is interesting. A slice is usually the best. Portraits are best with something related to the person - see Time and Nat Geo. Rarely do the best ones use head only with an F1.8 portrait lens open wide. Here's something I DID discover decades ago. My cameras never seem to know I an an award winning photographer. They never guess what I want to achieve. They don't remind me what works and what does not. Funnily that's in the eye of the beholder anyway! Each and every shot I have to apply myself. It's always up to me and not whatever is in my hands. I can do many things, even with the limitations of what I'm holding. Do I need a macro lens? My 24-240 zoomed OUT at 150-200 does most of what I want. Eg rose bud. Yes, the temptation is to go wide angle and close in to minimum focus. Wrong. Otherwise, I have a kit RF-S 18-55 + extension rings. Or my phone which is great at getting into tight spots and taking shots of product labels with serial and model numbers! It's also great in shops for messaging an image to my wife at home. "Do I get it?" LOL. I could do all of them with other equipment. It's just my phone is easier in certain situations. I've no idea how many pixels or what sensor or what lens/es is on it. All I know is it is convenient and works well in certain situations. I love zooms. Been using them for 40 years. So convenient. AND you can immediately see the effect of changing focal length.
Thank you. I have often bristled at the suggestion that the lens for landscapes must be wide. I don't generally like what a very wide lens does to a landscape. I do have a 17-40L - I use it almost exclusively for shooting real estate. Since much of my work is wildlife, the lens that lives on my R6 is a 70-300L. I know it's a bit slower than your 70-200, but otherwise it has a similar function plus being useful for wildlife. Often I go out with only the 70-300. I don't have a 24-70 but I do have a 24-105 which I find useful in the same way as a 24-70. I probably should update it to the new RF 24-105. In any case, if I took one lens for landscapes, it would be my 24-105.
Good advice. I mostly use my Nikon 24-120 f4. It has incredible IQ and is very versitile. But I do love my 100-400 for landscape detail and telephoto macro. But a bit heavy to lug about. Somtimes my best shots are with my tiny APS C, Ricoh GR3x which has a fixed 40mm equivalent and is always on me. Using a prime can liberate you from the focal length dilemma and result in great outcomes.
I agree I am not a great walker and only took a 24-105 lens I don't recall if I took a longer zoom. I have to agree wide angles are a problem unless the situation is just right for it. Vignetting also but would a centre grad help in this situation? On the whole I agree with the vast majority of what you say. If I was stronger I'd get maybe three lenses and a light tripod
Wonderful advice from a seasoned lady photographer! (And vice versa!) PS. It would be nice to make a video on two lenses.... for prime lens only people like myself. What two lenses would you/we carry for landscape photography, if they would have to be two PRIME lenses, and Not two zoom lenses?
Great advice for dedicated landscapers. Not a pro here but I always keep 3 lenses handy (though I do have others), and they are the 24-105mm "one lens to rule them all" that is most often on my mount, followed by the 100-400mm for backyard wildlife photos, and finally a 100mm macro which is indispensable for razor sharp close-up and macro images, most often of insects and flowers. But you are spot on, the less gear you have to lug around the better.
This is my first visit to your channel I too use only two lenses RF 24-70 and EF 70-200 with Canon R6 and yes I have spent thousands on lenses I don't use thank you for making me feel I've done the right thing.
Thanks for your thoughts. My two lenses are the Nikon z 24-200mm and the 14-30 f4. I like to shoot wide for architecture and some night skies. Really try hard to keep the horizon level to avoid the subject from falling backwards
Oh wow, I loved this! Thank you for sharing. It just so happens I already have those lenses and was thinking about getting another prime. Looks like I have some experimenting to do with the lenses I currently have (which is half the fun). Cheers!
You're absolutely right. I use my 24-70mm for probably 90% of my landscape shots. My 70-200mm is definitely my mountains and sweeping landscape lens. I do own a 14-24mm, and tis is almost exclusively confined to astrolandscape photography. Bottom line, if I had to choose one lens only, it would certainly be the 24-70mm. Don't leave home without it :-)
Excellent video. I recently purchased a new backpack and purposely picked one that is smaller. First, I am tired of carrying a big bag with extra lenses and gear that I never seem to use (just like you said) and secondly, it has forced me to use just two lenses. I now carry a 14-30mm f4 and a 24-120 f4, since I went through my pics and discovered I rarely shoot wide open (2.8 or 1.8, depending on the lens) and the weight difference is a relief to my back. Only difference is on a paid portrait session I do switch back to my 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8. But I have a cart for all my equipment on those days. Been so happy to have run across your videos and look forward to more. It’s also a relief to hear someone here who isn’t trying to sell me on the latest and greatest. I’m a very happy subscriber to your channel.
I am a very experienced film ( over 50 years ) and digital ( over 23 years) photographer. I find wide angle lenses quite difficult to work with when shooting landscape, unless the subject of ineterst is quite close and the relationship of the aesthetics of subject to the surround ' correct ' and pleasing. I normally use a 135 mm for 4X5, this is something like a 40mm for 35mm format but not exactly, 60~100 mm with the Hasselblad, 75 ~ 150 with the 6X7 and 35~75mm with my 35mm film and digital cameras and at times I use a 70~200 or a 180 or 200 prime. I can not remember the last time that I used any of my 18, 24, or even 28mm lenses or their equivalents in other formats. The ultra wides might have some use in unrban architecture photography, or some creative portrait or artistic work for effect, but that is about it.
This is very timely for me. I am looking to upgrade my camera and lens and I will take your advice. Thank you. Plus, I love your delivery! You speak my language.
When you see a epic landscape scenario, you should be thinking “I need a foreground subject“, the wide angle lens will work perfectly. I think in general, two or more subjects is generally a good idea with any photo, it brings in a dynamic.
Hi. I'm a MFT shooter (Olympus/OM System). I agree, my 12-40mm f2.8 is my "go to" lens. It is almost welded to my camera body. My next choice is my 40-150mm f2.8, giving me a little more reach toward the telephoto end. Sometimes it is nice as well to have my 300mm f4 on hand to achieve those more intimate distant shots. I am sorry but I refuse to ditch my 7-14mm f2.8 because there is the odd occasion where it does lend itself to the situation. All these lenses are razor sharp pro lenses. I do see your point of view, but I do not agree with you entirely. I would remind though that in my favour my lenses are physically smaller and lighter, than their full frame equivalents.
This is good advice, especially for those not far into their photographic journey. I have a BFA with Honors from Art Center College of Design in Los Angeles. At one point Ansel Adams was an instructor there, it's where he and Fred Archer codified the Zone System. I also spent nearly 20 years as a commercial/industrial photographer. During my professional career, I never owned a zoom or autofocus lens. When I shot full frame digital. my go to lenses were the 24-70 and 70-200. I kept them when I went to Fuji and often use the 24-70 when shooting video. I also still have my Leica M3 with the Summicron holy trinity of 35, 50 and 90mm. I often go out with one prime lens and view the world through that FOV.
I learned the basics of photography (as a 50 year old) with a 35mm lens. A portrait lens for landscape photography. It did work though, and I learnt a lot through the limiations of this lens. The first one I bought after that was a wide angle, and true enough, it hardly gets used. My go to lens is a 18-200, I love that one :-) And as I also enjoy making photos of flowers, I got a 105mm that I use fairly often. Those 2 are my favourites.
Excellent points in your video. Let's not forget that these pros change lenses all the time. I shoot Sony and for my landscape work, I settled on a Tamron 20-40 and a Tamron 50-400. These two lenses cover 95% of what I shoot. I do want to use ultra wides for certain situations. For that I may pick up a 14mm or a 16mm prime.
I agree with your observations, although already own far too much equipment and invariably leave most of it behind when I actually go out to take pictures. The EF 24-70mm f/4 is a very underrated lens and my personal favourite universal zoom. What I will say is that the RF 14-35mm f/4 produces excellent results all over the frame after the lens profile gets rid of distortion and vignetting. It's also suprisingly lightweight, which helps my poor old lower back.
@savvyshooterf8 I haven't gone completely mirrorlesss. Far from it, because I still own a 5D2, 5D3 and 1Dx. The newer stuff feels a bit lighter, but for the most part I think it's perception because the materials look more plasticky even though most of old 'L' glass was simply a different kind of plastic on the outside. I don't like the new viewfinder experience, but it's made up for with more reliable focusing, although for static subjects I am perfectly happy with my DSLRs. My EOS R always feels well balanced and all the RF lenses I've bought have really good image stabilisation. I never use tripods and it baffles me why so many landscape photographers still take them out as a matter of routine. For a weight and space advantage, to be honest leaving it behind would probably be the best move you could make. Otherwise, I too tend to go out with two lenses, although with the 'R' there's slightly more chance I'd take either a telephoto zoom or 100mm macro as the second lens. To be honest, noticeable weight and space savings can only be made on cropped sensor systems. Unless you purchase some of Canon's low end offerings and they don't appeal to me at all.
Agreed, up to a point: I've never understood why any tog chooses to ignore 90% of what he/she comes across in the course of a day's shooting & focuses (pun alert) solely on what they came out to shoot that day. When I'm asked what I shoot, the answer's always the same 'Anything that grabs my attention'; I've lost count of the times I've sallied forth loaded for deer & ended-up shooting toadstools & flutterbys. I shoot Fuji crop sensor, so my focal lengths are skewed, but I always carry my 16-55 2.8; 50-140 2.8 & 150-600 f8; because I literally never know what's going to catch my eye.
Excellent video, I enjoy taking pictures and strictly an amateur. I have watched other professionals on UA-cam and they have recommended the same two lens combos as you. I shoot Nikon Z 7ii and use the 24-120 F4 about 80 % of the time as it is so versatile. I also use 24 - 70 F4, it's a light lens, haven't opt for the F2.8 yet. I really enjoyed your video and learned a lot of practical information . Thank you.
I thought you were going to say 15-35 and 70-200 (leaving only the 35 worth of gap). I used a 15-35 for most shots in Alberta because of so much foreground interest opportunity and mountains so close. However, my best pic of LL was taken at 200mm from the gondola as it truly shows the size of the mountains much better than I could get with my tripod on the rocks at the water’s edge. Thanks for sharing your perspective. My primary reason to buy the 15-35 was for Milky Way shots,.. and no regrets there.
It sounds like you’ve got a good set up there, lots of foreground interest. We don’t have many mountains in Australia. I still use my wise angle zoom occasionally. I’m just finding it less less now that you mention it. I’ll probably do use it more overseas.
I too use the 2 lens setup, but a little differently. One lens of either 40 or 50mm with a large aperture and a zoom lens from 24/28 up to 120mm, depending on where I’m going. I live in an urban environment but also have access to central and western Maryland, as well to the Chesapeake bay. I just found your channel and I quite like it.
I use to use a Sony RX10 IV (24-600mm equivalent) and RX100 VII (24-200mm equivalent)extensively for travel and landscape photography. I then replaced it with the Sony A7RV and Tamron 18-300 APS-C for a reduced range of 27-450mm equivalent. Thinking that I needed to add a low light wider angle lens, I added the Sony A6700 and Tamron 20-40 for a two camera travel landscape kit. In order to increase the quality and sharpness of my bird, wildlife and landscape I then added the Sony 70-200 GM II and 2x extender. Finally after much soul searching I have switched to using the Tamron 50-400mm lens together with my Tamron 20-40mm lens and both bodies for what I hope to be a complete landscape, bird, wildlife, macro kit that enables me to have a range of 20-600mm with only two lenses and two cameras weighing around 2.7 kilograms.
It's true I have seen a few great landscapers (reluctantly?) on youtube, but while I'll grant these seven in particular are "masters" of the algorithm, I would hesitate to put their finished work on some photography pedestal. Listicles, Gear talk, contrarian takes, system changeovers, clickbait titles, hiking montage, "the lake district," and now Hassleswag makes for a frothy brew (also an on-camera trope!). With the shift to video didactics so much of the give-and-take learning via forums seems to have been supplanted. Granted over the same period lenses have improved to the point where primes are optional, but I am starting to question if emerging consensus on lens choice might be an artifact of this same herding. The competing demands of being a one-man film production crew - drone/b-cam/tripods - while chasing the light... is it any wonder they have pared down to a couple of slowish zooms? The only successful landscape work I have done on camera was with a TV crew in tow - and only because in a pinch to get adequate b-roll we caught the chance sunrise breaking through extreme weather. My preferred approach has been fisheye, an UWA zoom and two (now three) tilt-shift lenses, but if that methodical work is too deliberate for my hiking companions, imagine trying to inspire a youtube audience!
I don't disagree. It's all about finding what works best for you! There are many but it was more about getting various points of difference across so people can make up their own minds.
Although I’m interested in street photography and using only my favorite perspective lens, Canon FD 35mm f/3.5 lens for my work, I might try these two lenses you’ve mentioned for landscape photography. 🎉
@ I really love 💕 your work. They’re stunning! Recently, I ditched my digital cameras and went back to shoot film 🎞️ There’s something that analog can give, but digital can’t, in my opinion.
Superb video - you’ve articulated brilliantly what I’ve felt for a long time. By the way, you have a most remarkable look - has anyone ever told you you remind them of Jeanne Moreau or Melanie Griffith (when she was younger)? I mean this as a compliment - stunning!
Excellent information. Well worthwhile. As someone who is NOT an expert? With my current camera I cannot do it your way. I simply cannot get those lenses. Maybe some day I'll upgrade my camera and be able to get those lenses but right now that's not an option. But the underlying idea is what I appreciate. Simplify and use lenses which fit the vast majority of your compositions and learn to use them well. Keep making videos like this and I'll keep watching!
Thank you so much for your comments and yes, I appreciate how much lenses cost. My Canon lenses I have are DSLR and getting up seven years old now. It’s not about the latest gear it’s about using what you have to the best of its ability. Keep practising and get out and take those shots!
Great advice. I own a 14-24, 35, 85, 100-400, and a drone. No more than two of the items mentioned ever make it into my camera bag if I go out for a hike or travel. If I shoot close to my car I bring my “everything bag”. The 100-400 and drone are used the most by far, especially for landscapes. The 85 mostly for portraits, and the 35 for general walk-around photography. With this kit I’m done purchasing lenses. I may upgrade a camera body or drone, but unless something breaks I’m not spending another dime on glass.
I've recently changed from APS-C to Full Frame, and being very aware of the weight (& cost!) factor, decided that I needed to cull my lenses from 5 to 2. If money were no object I would have chosen a 70-200 F/2.8, but like you thought that F/8 would be more than adequate & chose an F/4 version instead, which has the side advantage of allowing an almost half size macro. The 24-70mm F/2.8 zoom was more problematic; the version I wanted was both too expensive & heavy(?), so I reviewed my photo library & found most of my wide angle shots were around 25-35mm. As a stop gap I bought a compact 3rd party 35mm F/2 prime and it has almost become a permanent fixture on my camera. Will I buy the 24-70mm when funds permit, or will a lightweight 3rd party 17mm F4 be sufficient for the odd occasions when an extra wide lens is required?
when funds permit, you will get GAS and you will get the 16 35mm and 24 70mm and the 70 200mm and the 600mm and several manual focus lens and a second camera body. And then you will find that micro four thirds have some advantage in the lens weight area and you'll get about 5 M43 lens.
Great advice, thank you! I came to a similar conclusion about a year ago, when my wife and I took a vacation to England. I reviewed previous vacation pictures taken with an 18-200mm lens on a crop sensor camera and found that except for a handful of shots where I needle the extra reach, most of my shots fell within about an 18-55mm range on crop, so I took my 28-80 for my full frame body. I also took my 20mm as a security blanket and only used it on some interior shots. A couple of weeks ago, we visited Ireland for a week and the only difference was that I packed a 135for reach and because it’s small. I never mounted the 20 and only used the 135 at Dublin Zoo! Thanks for the video!!!
It sounds like you really have it figured out! I think if everyone did that exercise that many would be quite surprised at what focal lengths their favorite images have been shot at!
A huge thanks, was about to purchase another wide angle lens that I probably wouldn’t need. I have the 70-200 which makes so much sense, I’m going to follow all advice on this.
I do a lot of travel photography so I take my Sony RX10 IV. I do give up some low light capabilities with the one inch crop sensor but carrying just one lens makes up for the short comings. It's a 24-600mm zoom! For low light close in, I use my I-Phone 13 Pro. It's about the shot not the gear for me.
I have thought about ditching my A7R2 and lenses for the RX10 IV precisely because of the its focal length range. (It's just hard for me to get out of my "sunken cost fallacy" mindset and my dismay at how low resale prices are for gear I've cared for. Maybe when they come out with an RX10 V I'll take another look.)
Actually, I did many of my landscape shots with an RX100 - because that one is always in a small pocket on my backpack strap when hiking. Nowadays I use the smartphone occasionally. But both do not offer the same quality as even my very old 5D Mk II so I sometimes regret to not have taken that one on the trip. Especially the smartphone in the telephoto lenses does very bad. Distant trees look very muddy and the color rendition is on another level - which cannot be fixed in Post, even when using RAW. The latter also applies to the 1" compact. Somehow the bigger sensor seems to capture more color nuances - I noticed this immediately when I switched from APS-C to FF 15 years ago.
That was an absolutely wonderful video presentation. I learned more from you in this one video than I have in reviewing over 50 videos from other landscape photographers. Thank you so much.😊 Does it matter whether or not you use a full frame sensor versus using a cropped sensor, or a micro four thirds sensor as long as one uses the equivalent 35 mm focal length?
I don't think so, you can work out what your needs are. The best way is to do the lightroom check on your favorite work. Find the lens that yo use and love the most.
it does matter. Full frame allows shallower depth of field and dim/night scene shooting. Crop sensor allows more to be in focus for the same f stop and a lighter lens and doesn't work so well in dim/night scenes, ie. it gets more grainy at lower iso compared to full frame.
What a great video. I shoot APSC & M4/3. My go to lenses for OLY in wildlife or landscape are my zooms. The 40-150 (80-300ff) is my beast of a lens that I would take to the island. But somewhere along the line, desiring all the wide angle lenses I could get my hands on (OLY 7-14 or 14-28ff, for example) I discovered that I like shooting the wide zooms while in the vertical orientation -- to the point where I started telling people that I was a portrait style landscape photographer (because I thought it sounded cool). But hearing you talk about the compression and the "squish effect" of a wide (in landscape) and the way it might look different in portrait mode makes me wonder if my eye just liked it better. Thanks!
I need three lenses for my landscape photography: First the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L: about 70% of my forest and landscape images are shot with this lens. Second: The RF 14-35mm F4 L - because I am a wide angel- junkie: 20%. And finally the RF 100-400mm F5.6-8: 10%, when I want to zoom into a scenery. Sometimes, on a hike in our Swiss mountains, I do without the 100-400mm to save it's weight of 640 grams. By the way: You do not need f/2.8- lenses for landscape photography, because you will stop them down to f/8 or f/11 anyway in most cases.
My goodness! Your expert words on the demands that a wide-angle lens makes are so timely to save me time choosing and then money buying one, only to take a one-off shot and than let it rest on the shelf. As a fledgling amateur I knew there was some overkill in my desire to get one but for the light to shine on me I did need to hear these very words of yours. It looks like a finder's fee deducted from the cost of a Viltrox 13mm f1.4, or a Samyang AF 12mm f2 is going to you just like that! -;;
Thank you Lady for your advices👍 For Landscape photography, my Sony G 20-70mmF4 has replace my GM 24-70mm F2,8 and my new G 70-200mm F4 macro has replace my GM 70-200mm F2,8 because with that combination, IT give me more versatility for composing and less weight to carry. 😉
I primarily use my 200-600mm lens for wildlife, birds, and landscapes. However, when I need a wide-angle shot, I usually opt for my phone, even though I also have a 12-24mm lens. I mat sell that lens and replace it with 70 to 200. Wonderful episode, Savvy
Hobbyist: Landscape mainly and family. Two lenses on a Nikon Z 6ii: Nikkor Z 14-30mm F4 and Nikkor Z 28-400mm F4-8. These two lenses cover my needs - family, woodlands, seascapes, and night sky. My goal was to have everything in a small sling bag that could be with me at all times.
I'm not into landscapes but this was very helpful in that it's reinforced my recent decision to sell off all except my (full frame eq) 15-27mm zoom and my 50mm prime, I don't use the other three much anyway. Interestingly the prime is double the 27mm, about, which reminded me of film days when some advice was just two prime lenses, one double that of the other is all you need.
Good vlog. My 24-70 is my workhorse, can’t do without it. The 70-200 has been a revelation for the reasons you spoke of. And finally, whilst I still use the 16-35, it’s taken more of a backseat these days.
Because of so much that you can do in post processing, for example, controlling the depth of field, I don’t feel it’s necessary to have heavy glass and lenses that have very low F stops. I also find it not necessary to have a heavy bag so I agree with much of what you say. I have found that a Nikon 28 to 400 mm can do just about everything I need. I do have a 14 to 30 mm which I find very important when you are in narrow streets, when you are inside, and when you’re needing to have shots where there’s a big crowd and you want to be in front of the crowd to catch everything.
Guess I'm covered for landscape with two of my Olympus micro four thirds lenses: the 12-45mm f/4 and 40-150mm f/4. This provides what in full frame cameras would be 24 to 300mm. Thanks for this video.
I was going to mention that my Zuiko 12-100mm (24-200mm ff equivalent) is used in probably 90% of my photos - even though I own the 7-14mm and the 100-400mm - but you beat me to it.
yes, in terms of the focal length, the micro four thirds are very good at covering those focal lengths. But the weakness of the micro four thirds is in the shallow depth of field, dim light and lack of hardware innovation. If one is not into shooting indoors or night scenes, or shallow depth of field, then it is good system. Though Olympus seems to have stopped the sensor innovation and just focused on computational features these days.
@@veritas932 I’d argue that in landscape photography the kind of front-to-back sharpness that MFT can get you without having to drastically stop down or focus stack is more often an advantage than being able to achieve smoothly blurred backgrounds without much fuss. But that’s a decision individual photographers need to make for themselves. I grow increasingly weary, as I’m sure many do, of the gear wars in all their nonsensical technocratic splendor, particularly when there are such worthier subjects to fight over. Let everyone pick the tool that best suits their needs and leave at that.
Good advice! I find the 24-70 mm. 2.8 my favorite lens. Its versatility makes up for 80% of my shots. I also have a complimentary 70-300 mm. 3.5 - 5.6 for my telephoto needs.
I have just been on holiday in the lake District (UK),took too much gear,and ended up using a D5100 and D7200,with Nikon 18-105 and Tamron 70-300.I used a 10-20 for about 10 shots,but found the 18-105 and 70-300 combination was all I needed.Looking back at the images,the 70-300 was used a lot more than people would think for Landscape photography, especially when there is wildlife as well.I also carried a Canon SX30 IS,with a coverage of 24-840, and some of my favourite shots were taken with this little gem.
A problem for you is that the Tamron is designed for the Nikon D750 and similar cameras. There isn't a good lense designed with just enough coverage for your cameras' sensors. Even if there were, it would be bigger than strictly necessary because of the size of the mount.
I'm just a "snap shooter" for around the house and travel, and settled on the 28-70F2 and 70-200F2.8. I thought I'd be on the 70-200 most, but the 28-70 mostly wide open has become my go-to and I love the look. Tempted by the 200-800 for wildlife though!
Great advice! It explains why sooo many effective ultra wide landscapes follows the same cookie cutter recipe and background is lost. I came to the same conclusions after looking at the data for 1000s of my images and what I actually use, especially for "rated" images. On Nikon Z you can distill this down to the excellent 24-120mm f4 and the 100-400mm for amazing coverage in a reasonable package. My 24-70mm f2.8 is being left behind more and more. Sometimes I throw in the 14-30mm but honestly, it doesn't come out very often.
A great video. I use a 24-70 a lot, but much also RF50mm/1.2. And when I look the photos with that lens, those are just out of this world. What would be the 2-lens answer if I turn the question to primes? 24+50 or 35+85? Or if at least one prime? 15-35+85mm?
I’m heading to dolomites, alps, Furka Pass, toscana, garda and venice round trip next July with my 3 small kids and wife, and I have to consider what would ve the minimal setup to have marvellous photos. One is perhaps X100 35mm equiv., second 24-70 third 70200. But struggling not to take 2 heavy camera bags with me and be angry to myself.
Made me smile. At 82 I shoot "utility photography" for nonprofits. I can do almost anything with a kit similar to yours: Canon R6 and R50 with a EF 24-105/4 L and spectacular 70-200/2.8 L II. Weirdly, the R50 and 70-200 take wonderful portraits at 300mm/F2.8 equivalent. The R6 and 24-105 are fine for theater needing 1/500 and faster (with help from Adobe Denoise).
That’s great that I made you smile! What do you think of the six? I also use my 70 to 200 for portraits doing a lot of dogs at the moment for Christmas presents.
I find the R6 a little weird - I'm always bumping something or touching something that throws my settings off. But then, I'm not a full-time shooter. I assign eye-tracking to C1 and spot focus to C2; it helps. Otherwise, I love the R6 compared to any DSLR. The image is lovely but it takes a bit of work to rescue the Raw files from their rather dark and flat look.
@ thanks for that. I’m thinking of upgrading to one Mirrorless body so I think I’ll have to hire a few and check them out. Do you use the back button focus?
@@savvyshooterf8 Try everything, within reason. Assume you will be buying new lenses, though EF lenses are improved with the EF-R adaptors. Personally, I wouldn't expect to find a significant difference between Canon, Nikon and Sony. It might not matter to you, but Sony's mount is compromised and it's not suitable for my most important lenses. The 24 Mpx Lumix S5 cameras might suit you, I use a Lumix S1R with a Sigma adaptor. Fujifilm has a range of pro standard cameras and lenses, but I don't know much about them. For general photography, OM Systems 20 Mpx OM-1 II and 25 Mpx Lumix G9 II are worth considering. Both have have high res modes of 4x their native resolution, both have live ND and live composite. I think both also have a special focus modes for heavenly bodies. Lenses are interchangeable.
I shoot with a Sony a 7iii. I have taken several trips to Italy with it and used a variety of lens combinations. In 2020, we took a two week trip through Italy followed by two weeks cruising the Mediterranean for Turkey and Greece. I reviewed my photos in Lightroom from previous trips. I found that most of my photos were in the 35-70mm range. For the next trip, all I took was my Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and 28-75 f2.8 lenses. I found I almost never used anything but the 28-75. Last year for a family vacation in Sicily, all I took was my Tamron 28-200 f 2.8-5.6. So, I have to agree that the 24 to 28 short focal length to 70 to 75 is definitely that sweet spot. Plus, you can get some great lenses at reasonable prices in that range. I go back to film days when all I had was a 28, a 50, and a 200mm and learned how to zoom with my feet! You just have to adapt and overcome.
I come from the film camera days and 3 lenses. We learned a lot about shooting everything. I consider myself a photojournalist due to my job on military base newspapers. So, I love lenses, the wider the better. I even took a photo of one of our F4 fighter jets with a 16mm fisheye. I will not limit my use of lenses to just 2. Not being a one-trick-pony really allows me to experiment and have fun with many lenses. Each has its own character, and I love to explore it. Karen may be just a landscape photographer, and I can understand where she is coming from. But I am the total opposite. I love to play with different focal lengths just because I can.
I love your response. Yes Im a landscape photog but have had a few stints with portraits/weddings/real estate in my time and I also started with film in the old days and the darkroom, so I know where you're coming from. I think with subjects like you have, and your journalistic approach you've got the right setup for what you do!
@@bondgabebond4907 I have no issues with your decisions as you must have the proper tools for the job at hand. When I go out to do some birds in flight, my lens selection is a lot different than if I am doing street photography. My point was that for travel photography, I looked at what type of photos I had taken in the past and tailored what I had to carry to fit. I am in my 70s so I need to minimize the extra weight I carry around so I will be around longer! 😀
@@bondgabebond4907 well, with a zoom, you can play with all the focal lengths you want. Go with the Tamron 28 300mm. You can have the odd focal lengths like 32mm or 120mm or 222mm that's not available with any prime lens. You can play with all the focal lengths to your heart's content without ever changing a single lens. How's that for flexibility?
Amen, especially regarding the 24-70mm lens. Especially since my Get-Up-and-Go largely got up and went, it can be quite liberating to simply carry the one mid-range lens, on the camera, leaving the bag at home. (A belt pouch can be used for the tele zoom.) 24mm is almost always wide enough, and, I rarely hit the 70mm maximum. I certainly can use an ultra-wide-angle lens, for some very interesting images, but, is it worth its weight, in usefulness? My 14-24/2.8 lens quickly became a specialized night-time lens, typically used as my only lens for an evening/night shoot.
This is an argument that I always find interesting because the assertions are typically generalized, and as with most generalizations, there is plenty that is excluded. First and foremost in photography - what is The Subject and what treatment best serves The Subject? Much of this probably comes down to what interests an individual photographically. I'm interested in The Natural World, and as I amble through it i'm struck by moments of both the large and the small and everything in between. I don't see any merit in artificially restricting my respinse to The Subject based on some Orthodoxy from the Canon of 'Landscape' photography... so I carry whatever I need in order to respond to whatever I discover. I suppose that one advantage of this is that it frees me from taking the same photos as many others - I don't really have a desire to get images that are already in someone else's Calendar because there is already far too much in the natural world that is worthy but overlooked, and far too many images of the same old subjects shot in pretty much the same old ways. Obviously, one way around the problem is to carry and use lenses that others don't, creating opportunities that others deny to themselves. Yes... lenses have weight and cost money, but the value question is answered by what they enable and, in this, what they encourage us to notice and learn about in the world around us (on all scales). Lots to say on this topic, but that's enough for this post bar saying that I'm happy for anyone else who has settled on a solution that serves their needs, whatever that and those may be. Cheers.
Well this was aimed at landscape photogs, but my point was to take what you need, that suits the pictures you take, and go from there. I mentioned my chooices. The check out on lightroom of what lens you use mainly is an eye opener sometimes.
A 24-70mm and 70-200mm, along with a 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, deliver a world of fun where one can choose flexible composition with the former two, and great image quality in low light, shallow DOF with the latter pair. Use a 100-400mm in place of the 70-200mm if animals are in the plans. Just taking the primes now and then really gets you used to pre-visualizing and composing at those lengths. Super tempted to say 100mm f2.8 Macro instead of the 85mm though! Used to carry 24 f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 100 macro in a little bag, but I think a fast 24-70 would be better than the first two. A fast 35mm and a 100mm macro are an extremely versatile pair! A fast 135mm can sub for the tele zoom and be less obtrusive. I would only take a pair of these lenses out at a time, and choose depending on anticipated conditions and goals. Mixing primes and zooms is not illegal. Even the 24-70mm for outdoors and the 35mm for inside. A 24-70mm + 100mm macro or 135mm f2 works great in a little bag. You lose compositional flexibility on the tele end though. If you boil it down to two for just landscapes though, the 24-70mm and 70-200mm, both in f2.8 for flexibility, are really a great choice and most of us could stop there.
@@savvyshooterf8 Thanks. Really enjoy your videos. It's a two edged sword, isn't it: On the one side, primes spur me to make the best of the only angles of view available, and I go 'hunting' for compositions visualizing only one or two focal lengths. On the other, there's the anxiety that one simply can't get the framing desired, eg. not wide enough, or the 135 is just two tight indoors, but then you miss an amazing wildlife opportunity and wind up with a critter-dot. Especially when traveling with others I don't get the time to run around and frame everything the way I want. That said, I did enjoy being limited to only a 50mm f1.4 on one trip, but there were times during the trip that I wished for other options. The two zooms in your video resolve this perfectly. Two zooms leave me with far more 'keepers', far less cropping. A 24-70mm is so much more flexible and I have used a 24-70mm f4 with polarizer steadfastly since that 50mm trip, with a fast 35mm for indoors. But much of my best work has been with a fast 35mm and a 100mm macro. My photographic vision sees things most often around 35mm and 100mm. 135mm is often too long. I think one has to lose the anxiety and accept that one will work within the constraints of whatever winds up in the bag, and not sweat the other stuff. If Ansel Adams can move millions with a 35mm and 80mm equivalent, and HCB can change the way people see the world with a 50mm, then we are spoiled for choice.
Returned my 16mm lens; found it too hard to use. Lowest I can go comfortably is 35mm with my skill level. I normally only shoot with 35mm and 50mm primes depending on location/setting. I'll sometimes goto 85mm when I want to take some covert shots from father away. Only zoom I use on a need-to-only basis only is the 100-300 2.8 (indoor sports).
Great video here! I am a former camera/GAS person. Just sold four cameras and kept one with two lenses. It makes my photography easier just sticking to minimal body and gear. I use an old (yet still good) Olympus E-600 (four thirds) not M43 system. The kit came with 14-42 and 40-150mm lenses. Full frame equivalent lenses of 24-84 and 80--300. these lenses cover almost all of my landscape and street photography needs.
Loved this video! You are a breath of fresh air. Being a wildlife lover and shooting mainly birds I don't consider myself a photographer at all. I started with Canon, still have my 70d with a couple of lenses, had the Nikon p900, always looking for that extra reach without the weight. I now have Fuji, Sony rx10iv and recently moved to OM1, debating what lense to buy to try my hand at landscapes along with wildlife... I'm now convinced it's the 40 -150 f2.8, I've got the 12 -45... Think I need to sell all my other stuff and stick OM + the Fuji, can't sell it! not yet anyway 🫣.... But more importantly I need to stick in and learn my camera, have the patience I have while waiting for a bird to arrive... Thank you. 🙏
Returning to photography after a 22 year hiatus, I chose to purchase Pentax as I had older K mount lenses. If I go out with just one body, I carry a 10-17, 17-50, and alternate between a 55-300, or an older non AF Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 (which is quite heavy, but awesome even today!)... I'm always looking for good landscapes to shoot, but rarely get what I see. Working on it...
I agree. Started out with landscape photography thinking it must always be wide, so wide! I now just use a 28-75 and a 50-300 for landscapes. Still have my wide angle lenses but use those for night sky photography where I do want that big expanse of night sky.
I've reduced my kit two lenses, Z17-28 and Z28-400. While not the sharpest lens, the 28-400 covered almost all of my needs. Other than for milky way shots, I rarely pull out the wide angle.
Maybe it will sound out of context, but what I want to share is the pleasure I had to listen to your explanations.Your voice, diction and presentation are really convincing. Why aren't you the prime minister?
Haha You don't realise how much I'm involved locally. I've just stepped down from Deputy Mayor from Council and Mayor x 2. I need to get back to my photography.
Great point! Too many options can be jarring. I’ve personally noticed this issue before traveling. My latest kit has narrowed down to 2 to 3 lenses maximum (14-35mm, 50mm, and 100mm macro). I usually shoot with two camera bodies for portrait work, but it doubles as back up and increases the speed of lens changing. I enjoy using a wide angle lens for architecture, fashion editorials, and capturing anything from different perspective. If I only photographed people, I would probably stick with the 50mm and 100mm macro.
I've been using the eqiuvalent of these two zooms for urban photography for years as a hobbyist and have had to endure much grief from other photograpers for not using expensive primes. Modern zooms are so much better quality than they were 20 or 30 years ago and their versatility is unmatched. As with natural lanscape you can't always move closer or further from your subject easily, so a zoom makes sense.
so so very true and true again --- more gear = more confusion = more frustration = loss of interest -- just wish I learnt that so much sooner. Also, what I need and can use is very different to what I want/wanted . Olympus goes one more better x 2 with my equal to 80 - 300mm and 24 - 80mm ; both 2.8 consistent . With the convertor, 300m becomes 420 F4 but I don't used it much. Honestly, only blind pixel peepers and the few selling lots of very large photos need more IMO. Because of size/price/weight, my 2 main lenses has it's own camera body always attached. Another one liner you are welcome to freely use --- no matter how much gear and focal length I have, I can't get every photo I might see . If I could get every photo I might see what would I do with them all . Thank you for passing on your great thought provoking advice about gear.
Totally enjoyed your video and suggestions. I shoot Nikon and have found the 24-120 and 100-400 gives me the range I want. I can also do wildlife. The 50 f1.8 is always in my bag. Thanks again.
I shoot M4/3. I have the 8-18, but sometimes not wide enough, so I have the 7.5 fisheye which is fun to use. I can do panos with my 25mm, a selection if primes for street and my 40-150 for details. I dislike using the 12-35
I haven't afforded either of those 2 zooms yet - but I found the super-wide info rang a bell for me (not that I've owned one) as I can just imagine that most of the time I would also be struggling to get a perfect foreground, sidelines and main content all lined up in the shot (and they're uber exxy) - I only have an 85/1.8, so am looking for a wider, just not convinced on any of them yet (plus, err, they're not cheap - so really need to be sure). Good stuff, thx for shooting straight and telling it like it is.
Thanks for that. Yes theyre quite exxy. But there are many 2nd hand places to get good gear now which guarantee and check everything depending on where you're located.
Excellent advice! The lens that lives on my Canon 5D Mk iv is the Canon 24-105mm f/4, it does most everything I want to do. The other lens is my Canon 70-200mm f/4 (just in case). I find I rarely need anything faster than f/4, and I'm on a limited budget, and as an "older gentlemen" who turns 70 years young tomorrow, I like to travel light. Keep up the good work!
Totally agree. You don’t need the 2.8; that combo is awesome and much cheaper too! I have the same camera. My second one as I lost my first when my house burnt down!
I have the 17 55 f2. 8 and 70 200 f4 with my 7D. Works fine.
And a happy birthday to you also!
Nothing wrong with that. For my RP I went with the RF24-240. Love it. No regrets. My R50 has a RF100-400 on it. Being FF lenses they can be used on either body.
Exactly the point. I've just turned 68 and agree with you. If it works for you, that's the setup to use. I have an RP + RF24-240 (2 years ago approx $AUD2,500) and for 'in case' an R50 + RF 100-400 (this year approx $AUD1,700). Same concept. I waited for discounts and got them. All of that is not much heavier than my traded in 600D + Tamron EF-S 18-270.
Got a cheap snoot bag which straps around my waist and rests on my hip. Think sharp shooter holster. Has my RP. Small backpack has my R50 and everything else. Far easier and better than my old camera bag hung on / across my shoulder.
I like how you explain it. Your experience is evident.
I bought myself my dream camera last year for my 40th and just a 50mm.
Taking it on trips I’ve had to make do, and I experienced exactly what you’re talking about here.
I recently moved to micro 4/3 system for most of all my shooting. Using the Olympus OM1 with the 12-100mm f4 is a dream come true landscapes simply for the size and weight savings. I have never been happier. In general I have never been a fan of any lenses of these types with super long focal length ranges. But this lens has been the one exception.
It has made going out actually enjoyable again and my body definitely thanks me at the end of a few hours with no more sore arms or back from packing 3 times the weight and size that I used to. If I do need to go with faster lenses oly 12-40mm 2.8 and pany 35-100mm 2.8 is only a few more once’s as a kit than the 12-100mm f4. If I ever do need wider i have the Laowa 6mm f2 that is super small and light Enjoying photography is what it’s all about for me and it’s been an enjoyable move to m43
I’m glad you’re finding what works for you and that you are enjoying photography again.
After several trips and several thousand landscape shots, I only took my 24-120 and 100-400 on my last hike in Rocky Mountain National Park. You are so right! 85+% with 24-120 and the rest were to zoom in on mountain or tree features with cloud formations. My 17-28 is now more for city shots to emphasize the foreground. Great video. It really helps confirm my decision. Thanks for studying the masters. It saved us all a lot of time!
I'm glad my thoughts helped confirm your decision.
I have just changed formats and gone to full frame. I have been pondering a swiss army knife lens and opted for the 24-70. I was happy to predict your 2nd GP lens as I have had some beautiful landscapes with a longer focal length and predicted your 2nd choice. This is the 1st of your videos I have seen and made so much sense, I have subscribed. Thanks.
You're very welcome.
Wonderful advice. My favorite landscape I’ve ever taken was in Iceland using a 100-400mm at 100mm to capture a valley perfectly bathed in sunlight. It was what I happened to have on the camera in that fleeting moment, and so I took the shot and it was the prize of my 10 days there.
These are the two lenses I have in my bag so when I came across your video, feel better. Especially while still learning. Subscribed.....
Glad it was helpful!
My Olympus 12-100 f/4 (24 - 200 equiv.) is the best lens I've ever owned for exactly the reasons you state - tack-sharp across its huge range and it stays on my OM-1 for 99% of my work. I do have an 8-18 (16-36) and 40-150 (80-300) for the occasional special purpose - such extravagance!
The same reason I keep mine - for the occasional special purpose!
There are now three 40-150 Olympus/OM System lenses. I have the dear one.
@@oneeyedphotographer Yes, mine's the F/2.8 (with the 1.4TC) - superb lens!
Yes I am the same my 12-100mm f4.0 lives on my OM-1 camera, I have a 90mm macro but seldom use it, as the 12-100mm is good for most macro. The image quality is excellent across the board. I have no regrets at switching to Olympus.
I bought the 12-100mm last year, I use it so much for the reasons you have said...I am planning on getting an OM over Lumix simply because the lens is so good, the dual stabilization is so good, I want 26 Megapixels from the G9ii, but it is the lens that really matters!
I'm so glad you said this. This is what I've found as well 24-70 and 70-200. In my case, though, I use the 70-200 most of the time because I love landscape details.
I’m glad you are finding what works for you, I’ve had the same experience!
When hiking I never carry more than two lenses. For landscapes that are more open I carry the RF 24-70 F2.8 and the RF 70-200 F4. For landscapes that more dense woodland or tight canyons I carry the RF 14-35 and RF 100 F2.8 macro. If I have to hike a great distance I usually just carry either the 24-70 or the 14-35 based on how open the landscape is. If the landscape varies on a long hike I usually carry just the 24-70 F2.8.
Can’t agree more! You’ve saved me a lot of time in finding the perfect lenses for landscape photography!
Great to hear!
some of the best photographers in the world, not sure about that :-) Interesting video
I’m a hobby photographer, and I sold everything, switched systems this spring, and now I only own a 24-70/2,8. I did this specifically to reduce the number of options and to focus on the scene. It is less to carry too. I shoot sports, travel, landscapes and portraits mostly. If I would add another lens to my system it would be the 70-200. So I couldn’t agree more. I used to have a 16-35, but the problem I struggled with was that everything got tiny. Often in composition, less is more. Great advice.
I try to convert friends into forgetting their constant use of WA lenses….but they look at me in disbelief ! I show them the awful photos of inside homes taken by realtors ! Normal size living rooms looking like mansions ! But they keep on using their Phones on the first setting that comes up !! And there we go…WA all the time ! Phones kill photography !
@@rolandthomasset1713 Ask yourself, "Why do realtors use those photos?" They're selling buildings, not art.
Well thank you! I can't believe I have not found your channel earlier. Great advice to all especially those just starting out in photography and a good reminder to those who have been there and still get the twitching, 'do I need it,' when the new gear ads arrive and get all tangled up in the must have GAS syndrome.
Subscribed.
I'm glad I could help! It's so easy to get caught up in the hype.
Great video, very useful info.
I recently picked up a vintage lens, an Auto Chinon 55mm f1.7 on an M42 mount, I've been using it on my lumix g3 micro 4/3 camera.📸
Thanks for sharing
I use a Sigma 24-70mm and a Tamron 50-400mm lenses with my Sony A7R4A. Both lenses do a great job. However in tight spots, I wish I had a wide angle lens in my back pack.
I agree that a wide angle lens can be very useful in tight spots!
You talk my language - I take two lenses, both Sony kit items - 16mm up to 210mm, two lightweight bodies, old a6000's - so no need to change a lens, no gathering dust spots etc.. PERFECT - all I have to do is get into the countryside and enjoy myself capturing light.
Loved the absolute sense of this review. Subscribed.
Awesome, thank you!
I agree. My walking around lens is 24-105 and I also have a 70-200, but haul around a 100-400 for wildlife.
As a Canon owner, I've decided to go with the 24-105 and 70-200. I do toss my 16 f2.8 in the bag as well. I love super wide shots in some instances, and the 16mm is so tiny it makes almost no impact on space or weight. I'm not a profession and have no desire to be one, but I enjoy the learning process and getting the shot I want even if it never gets shared or makes me a buck. Thank you for the great advice!
You’re welcome!
Without a 16-35 you'll miss so many great shots in an urban landscape like Amsterdam. Even in Agra, there are shots you'll be forced to crop because the space doesn't let you get far enough away to take advantage of frames or even leading lines.
For some indoor settings, if you want to give a sense of the place, an ultra-wide delivers like no other.
Maybe our choice of lens comes down to the kind of images we like to capture.
I totally agree, we have lots of room here in Oz, and I still do use my wide occassionally, but I do prefer my other two lenses currently. 🤠
Without eg an RF 24-240 you'll miss a LOT more. Mirrorless is making super zooms lighter and better. A very under-rated lens. Look at the camera corrected jpegs to see what it can do.
Right on. She was talking about landscape photography, so 16 mm tends to distort that and isn't all that useful. In an urban setting you want a shorter FL, as you discovered.
@@gsmollin2 Some of the most impressive cityscapes I got earlier this week were at 11mm on a 5D mark 4. Anything narrower simply wouldn't have worked as well.
@@gsmollin2 ?? 'as I discovered'? I've been taking pictures for 60 years on all sorts of equipment, including my grandfather's folding brownie.
It's about using what you have to get what you want.
My RP (FF) + 24-240 gives me great flexibility. My previous 600D + (APS-C) + Tamron 18-270 also did that.
Composure and subject matter determines the FL setting, not whether I'm inside or outside. It's an art and not a science. Ok, a wide angle helps with large groups in small rooms. Then again a set of shots in small groups at a longer FL can be better that one wide angle group shot! One large A4 of the whole group or a set of postcard sized prints? The set of postcards will win hands down for many reasons. Same when I took photos of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. never bothered with a 'full building' outside shot because I could buy them. I wanted to show what we had seen - close up!
It does not matter whether it's landscape, buildings, iconic structures, people, inside, outside. It's a case of finding something that is interesting. A slice is usually the best. Portraits are best with something related to the person - see Time and Nat Geo. Rarely do the best ones use head only with an F1.8 portrait lens open wide.
Here's something I DID discover decades ago. My cameras never seem to know I an an award winning photographer. They never guess what I want to achieve. They don't remind me what works and what does not. Funnily that's in the eye of the beholder anyway!
Each and every shot I have to apply myself. It's always up to me and not whatever is in my hands. I can do many things, even with the limitations of what I'm holding.
Do I need a macro lens? My 24-240 zoomed OUT at 150-200 does most of what I want. Eg rose bud. Yes, the temptation is to go wide angle and close in to minimum focus. Wrong. Otherwise, I have a kit RF-S 18-55 + extension rings.
Or my phone which is great at getting into tight spots and taking shots of product labels with serial and model numbers! It's also great in shops for messaging an image to my wife at home. "Do I get it?" LOL. I could do all of them with other equipment. It's just my phone is easier in certain situations. I've no idea how many pixels or what sensor or what lens/es is on it. All I know is it is convenient and works well in certain situations.
I love zooms. Been using them for 40 years. So convenient. AND you can immediately see the effect of changing focal length.
Thank you. I have often bristled at the suggestion that the lens for landscapes must be wide. I don't generally like what a very wide lens does to a landscape. I do have a 17-40L - I use it almost exclusively for shooting real estate. Since much of my work is wildlife, the lens that lives on my R6 is a 70-300L. I know it's a bit slower than your 70-200, but otherwise it has a similar function plus being useful for wildlife. Often I go out with only the 70-300. I don't have a 24-70 but I do have a 24-105 which I find useful in the same way as a 24-70. I probably should update it to the new RF 24-105. In any case, if I took one lens for landscapes, it would be my 24-105.
Good advice. I mostly use my Nikon 24-120 f4. It has incredible IQ and is very versitile. But I do love my 100-400 for landscape detail and telephoto macro. But a bit heavy to lug about.
Somtimes my best shots are with my tiny APS C, Ricoh GR3x which has a fixed 40mm equivalent and is always on me. Using a prime can liberate you from the focal length dilemma and result in great outcomes.
I agree I am not a great walker and only took a 24-105 lens I don't recall if I took a longer zoom. I have to agree wide angles are a problem unless the situation is just right for it. Vignetting also but would a centre grad help in this situation? On the whole I agree with the vast majority of what you say. If I was stronger I'd get maybe three lenses and a light tripod
Wonderful advice from a seasoned lady photographer! (And vice versa!)
PS. It would be nice to make a video on two lenses.... for prime lens only people like myself.
What two lenses would you/we carry for landscape photography, if they would have to be two PRIME lenses, and Not two zoom lenses?
Great advice for dedicated landscapers. Not a pro here but I always keep 3 lenses handy (though I do have others), and they are the 24-105mm "one lens to rule them all" that is most often on my mount, followed by the 100-400mm for backyard wildlife photos, and finally a 100mm macro which is indispensable for razor sharp close-up and macro images, most often of insects and flowers. But you are spot on, the less gear you have to lug around the better.
Totally agree.
This is my first visit to your channel I too use only two lenses RF 24-70 and EF 70-200 with Canon R6 and yes I have spent thousands on lenses I don't use thank you for making me feel I've done the right thing.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for your thoughts. My two lenses are the Nikon z 24-200mm and the 14-30 f4. I like to shoot wide for architecture and some night skies. Really try hard to keep the horizon level to avoid the subject from falling backwards
Yes I know what you mean! Thanks for your comments.
Oh wow, I loved this! Thank you for sharing. It just so happens I already have those lenses and was thinking about getting another prime. Looks like I have some experimenting to do with the lenses I currently have (which is half the fun). Cheers!
You’re welcome - I’m glad this helped!
Thanks!
Welcome!
You're absolutely right. I use my 24-70mm for probably 90% of my landscape shots. My 70-200mm is definitely my mountains and sweeping landscape lens. I do own a 14-24mm, and tis is almost exclusively confined to astrolandscape photography. Bottom line, if I had to choose one lens only, it would certainly be the 24-70mm. Don't leave home without it :-)
Thanks for sharing
Excellent video. I recently purchased a new backpack and purposely picked one that is smaller. First, I am tired of carrying a big bag with extra lenses and gear that I never seem to use (just like you said) and secondly, it has forced me to use just two lenses. I now carry a 14-30mm f4 and a 24-120 f4, since I went through my pics and discovered I rarely shoot wide open (2.8 or 1.8, depending on the lens) and the weight difference is a relief to my back. Only difference is on a paid portrait session I do switch back to my 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8. But I have a cart for all my equipment on those days. Been so happy to have run across your videos and look forward to more. It’s also a relief to hear someone here who isn’t trying to sell me on the latest and greatest. I’m a very happy subscriber to your channel.
Thankyou so much for your lovely comments. Great to have you on as a subscriber!
Really good point! I won't be throwing out my 16-36, but we have come to the same conclusion about only carrying two lenses. Keep up the good work. :)
Thanks for sharing
I am a very experienced film ( over 50 years ) and digital ( over 23 years) photographer. I find wide angle lenses quite difficult to work with when shooting landscape, unless the subject of ineterst is quite close and the relationship of the aesthetics of subject to the surround ' correct ' and pleasing. I normally use a 135 mm for 4X5, this is something like a 40mm for 35mm format but not exactly, 60~100 mm with the Hasselblad, 75 ~ 150 with the 6X7 and 35~75mm with my 35mm film and digital cameras and at times I use a 70~200 or a 180 or 200 prime. I can not remember the last time that I used any of my 18, 24, or even 28mm lenses or their equivalents in other formats. The ultra wides might have some use in unrban architecture photography, or some creative portrait or artistic work for effect, but that is about it.
This is very timely for me. I am looking to upgrade my camera and lens and I will take your advice. Thank you. Plus, I love your delivery! You speak my language.
I'm glad you found it helpful!
When you see a epic landscape scenario, you should be thinking “I need a foreground subject“, the wide angle lens will work perfectly. I think in general, two or more subjects is generally a good idea with any photo, it brings in a dynamic.
Great points to someone like me. I’m still learning. I use 28 - 105 and 70 - 300 at the moment.
Hi. I'm a MFT shooter (Olympus/OM System). I agree, my 12-40mm f2.8 is my "go to" lens. It is almost welded to my camera body. My next choice is my 40-150mm f2.8, giving me a little more reach toward the telephoto end. Sometimes it is nice as well to have my 300mm f4 on hand to achieve those more intimate distant shots. I am sorry but I refuse to ditch my 7-14mm f2.8 because there is the odd occasion where it does lend itself to the situation. All these lenses are razor sharp pro lenses. I do see your point of view, but I do not agree with you entirely. I would remind though that in my favour my lenses are physically smaller and lighter, than their full frame equivalents.
Oh, I’m with you there. Are use my 16 to 35 very occasionally, but it’s not my go to at all.
This is good advice, especially for those not far into their photographic journey.
I have a BFA with Honors from Art Center College of Design in Los Angeles. At one point Ansel Adams was an instructor there, it's where he and Fred Archer codified the Zone System. I also spent nearly 20 years as a commercial/industrial photographer. During my professional career, I never owned a zoom or autofocus lens.
When I shot full frame digital. my go to lenses were the 24-70 and 70-200. I kept them when I went to Fuji and often use the 24-70 when shooting video. I also still have my Leica M3 with the Summicron holy trinity of 35, 50 and 90mm. I often go out with one prime lens and view the world through that FOV.
Of all professional advice I really appreciate the one suggesting to engage OIS when using a tripod…
I learned the basics of photography (as a 50 year old) with a 35mm lens. A portrait lens for landscape photography. It did work though, and I learnt a lot through the limiations of this lens. The first one I bought after that was a wide angle, and true enough, it hardly gets used. My go to lens is a 18-200, I love that one :-) And as I also enjoy making photos of flowers, I got a 105mm that I use fairly often. Those 2 are my favourites.
It’s funny how when youre restricted that it can help you be resourceful!
Excellent points in your video. Let's not forget that these pros change lenses all the time. I shoot Sony and for my landscape work, I settled on a Tamron 20-40 and a Tamron 50-400. These two lenses cover 95% of what I shoot. I do want to use ultra wides for certain situations. For that I may pick up a 14mm or a 16mm prime.
Yes they do, but I like to use what just comes naturally to me and use miscle memory. Then I don't have to think about it.
I agree with your observations, although already own far too much equipment and invariably leave most of it behind when I actually go out to take pictures. The EF 24-70mm f/4 is a very underrated lens and my personal favourite universal zoom. What I will say is that the RF 14-35mm f/4 produces excellent results all over the frame after the lens profile gets rid of distortion and vignetting. It's also suprisingly lightweight, which helps my poor old lower back.
HOw much of a difference has going mirrorless in terms of weight and gear done for you?
@savvyshooterf8 I haven't gone completely mirrorlesss. Far from it, because I still own a 5D2, 5D3 and 1Dx. The newer stuff feels a bit lighter, but for the most part I think it's perception because the materials look more plasticky even though most of old 'L' glass was simply a different kind of plastic on the outside. I don't like the new viewfinder experience, but it's made up for with more reliable focusing, although for static subjects I am perfectly happy with my DSLRs. My EOS R always feels well balanced and all the RF lenses I've bought have really good image stabilisation. I never use tripods and it baffles me why so many landscape photographers still take them out as a matter of routine. For a weight and space advantage, to be honest leaving it behind would probably be the best move you could make. Otherwise, I too tend to go out with two lenses, although with the 'R' there's slightly more chance I'd take either a telephoto zoom or 100mm macro as the second lens. To be honest, noticeable weight and space savings can only be made on cropped sensor systems. Unless you purchase some of Canon's low end offerings and they don't appeal to me at all.
Agreed, up to a point:
I've never understood why any tog chooses to ignore 90% of what he/she comes across in the course of a day's shooting & focuses (pun alert) solely on what they came out to shoot that day.
When I'm asked what I shoot, the answer's always the same 'Anything that grabs my attention'; I've lost count of the times I've sallied forth loaded for deer & ended-up shooting toadstools & flutterbys.
I shoot Fuji crop sensor, so my focal lengths are skewed, but I always carry my 16-55 2.8; 50-140 2.8 & 150-600 f8; because I literally never know what's going to catch my eye.
Like your attitude of surprise…
Great video! Would be interesting to hear what you'd pick if you had the option of only 3 primes?
Great question, I'll have to give that some thought Definitely the nifty 50.
Excellent video, I enjoy taking pictures and strictly an amateur. I have watched other professionals on UA-cam and they have recommended the same two lens combos as you. I shoot Nikon Z 7ii and use the 24-120 F4 about 80 % of the time as it is so versatile. I also use 24 - 70 F4, it's a light lens, haven't opt for the F2.8 yet. I really enjoyed your video and learned a lot of practical information . Thank you.
You're very welcome!
I thought you were going to say 15-35 and 70-200 (leaving only the 35 worth of gap). I used a 15-35 for most shots in Alberta because of so much foreground interest opportunity and mountains so close. However, my best pic of LL was taken at 200mm from the gondola as it truly shows the size of the mountains much better than I could get with my tripod on the rocks at the water’s edge. Thanks for sharing your perspective. My primary reason to buy the 15-35 was for Milky Way shots,.. and no regrets there.
It sounds like you’ve got a good set up there, lots of foreground interest. We don’t have many mountains in Australia. I still use my wise angle zoom occasionally. I’m just finding it less less now that you mention it. I’ll probably do use it more overseas.
I too use the 2 lens setup, but a little differently. One lens of either 40 or 50mm with a large aperture and a zoom lens from 24/28 up to 120mm, depending on where I’m going. I live in an urban environment but also have access to central and western Maryland, as well to the Chesapeake bay. I just found your channel and I quite like it.
That sounds like a great setup for your environment. Thanks for your comments.
I use to use a Sony RX10 IV (24-600mm equivalent) and RX100 VII (24-200mm equivalent)extensively for travel and landscape photography. I then replaced it with the Sony A7RV and Tamron 18-300 APS-C for a reduced range of 27-450mm equivalent. Thinking that I needed to add a low light wider angle lens, I added the Sony A6700 and Tamron 20-40 for a two camera travel landscape kit. In order to increase the quality and sharpness of my bird, wildlife and landscape I then added the Sony 70-200 GM II and 2x extender. Finally after much soul searching I have switched to using the Tamron 50-400mm lens together with my Tamron 20-40mm lens and both bodies for what I hope to be a complete landscape, bird, wildlife, macro kit that enables me to have a range of 20-600mm with only two lenses and two cameras weighing around 2.7 kilograms.
It's true I have seen a few great landscapers (reluctantly?) on youtube, but while I'll grant these seven in particular are "masters" of the algorithm, I would hesitate to put their finished work on some photography pedestal. Listicles, Gear talk, contrarian takes, system changeovers, clickbait titles, hiking montage, "the lake district," and now Hassleswag makes for a frothy brew (also an on-camera trope!). With the shift to video didactics so much of the give-and-take learning via forums seems to have been supplanted. Granted over the same period lenses have improved to the point where primes are optional, but I am starting to question if emerging consensus on lens choice might be an artifact of this same herding. The competing demands of being a one-man film production crew - drone/b-cam/tripods - while chasing the light... is it any wonder they have pared down to a couple of slowish zooms? The only successful landscape work I have done on camera was with a TV crew in tow - and only because in a pinch to get adequate b-roll we caught the chance sunrise breaking through extreme weather. My preferred approach has been fisheye, an UWA zoom and two (now three) tilt-shift lenses, but if that methodical work is too deliberate for my hiking companions, imagine trying to inspire a youtube audience!
I don't disagree. It's all about finding what works best for you! There are many but it was more about getting various points of difference across so people can make up their own minds.
Although I’m interested in street photography and using only my favorite perspective lens, Canon FD 35mm f/3.5 lens for my work, I might try these two lenses you’ve mentioned for landscape photography. 🎉
Primes can be great too.
@ I really love 💕 your work. They’re stunning!
Recently, I ditched my digital cameras and went back to shoot film 🎞️
There’s something that analog can give, but digital can’t, in my opinion.
Superb video - you’ve articulated brilliantly what I’ve felt for a long time. By the way, you have a most remarkable look - has anyone ever told you you remind them of Jeanne Moreau or Melanie Griffith (when she was younger)? I mean this as a compliment - stunning!
Excellent information. Well worthwhile.
As someone who is NOT an expert? With my current camera I cannot do it your way. I simply cannot get those lenses. Maybe some day I'll upgrade my camera and be able to get those lenses but right now that's not an option.
But the underlying idea is what I appreciate. Simplify and use lenses which fit the vast majority of your compositions and learn to use them well.
Keep making videos like this and I'll keep watching!
Thank you so much for your comments and yes, I appreciate how much lenses cost. My Canon lenses I have are DSLR and getting up seven years old now. It’s not about the latest gear it’s about using what you have to the best of its ability. Keep practising and get out and take those shots!
Great advice. I own a 14-24, 35, 85, 100-400, and a drone. No more than two of the items mentioned ever make it into my camera bag if I go out for a hike or travel. If I shoot close to my car I bring my “everything bag”. The 100-400 and drone are used the most by far, especially for landscapes. The 85 mostly for portraits, and the 35 for general walk-around photography.
With this kit I’m done purchasing lenses. I may upgrade a camera body or drone, but unless something breaks I’m not spending another dime on glass.
That’s a great combination. I do exactly the same thing, keeping my kit to a minimum when I’m out and about.
I've recently changed from APS-C to Full Frame, and being very aware of the weight (& cost!) factor, decided that I needed to cull my lenses from 5 to 2. If money were no object I would have chosen a 70-200 F/2.8, but like you thought that F/8 would be more than adequate & chose an F/4 version instead, which has the side advantage of allowing an almost half size macro.
The 24-70mm F/2.8 zoom was more problematic; the version I wanted was both too expensive & heavy(?), so I reviewed my photo library & found most of my wide angle shots were around 25-35mm. As a stop gap I bought a compact 3rd party 35mm F/2 prime and it has almost become a permanent fixture on my camera.
Will I buy the 24-70mm when funds permit, or will a lightweight 3rd party 17mm F4 be sufficient for the odd occasions when an extra wide lens is required?
when funds permit, you will get GAS and you will get the 16 35mm and 24 70mm and the 70 200mm and the 600mm and several manual focus lens and a second camera body. And then you will find that micro four thirds have some advantage in the lens weight area and you'll get about 5 M43 lens.
Great advice, thank you! I came to a similar conclusion about a year ago, when my wife and I took a vacation to England. I reviewed previous vacation pictures taken with an 18-200mm lens on a crop sensor camera and found that except for a handful of shots where I needle the extra reach, most of my shots fell within about an 18-55mm range on crop, so I took my 28-80 for my full frame body. I also took my 20mm as a security blanket and only used it on some interior shots. A couple of weeks ago, we visited Ireland for a week and the only difference was that I packed a 135for reach and because it’s small. I never mounted the 20 and only used the 135 at Dublin Zoo! Thanks for the video!!!
It sounds like you really have it figured out! I think if everyone did that exercise that many would be quite surprised at what focal lengths their favorite images have been shot at!
A huge thanks, was about to purchase another wide angle lens that I probably wouldn’t need. I have the 70-200 which makes so much sense, I’m going to follow all advice on this.
You’re welcome.
You are spot on with your advice. So often i pack all my lenses to only shoot with one. Thank you for sharing your expertise.
I’m glad you enjoyed it.
I do a lot of travel photography so I take my Sony RX10 IV. I do give up some low light capabilities with the one inch crop sensor but carrying just one lens makes up for the short comings. It's a 24-600mm zoom! For low light close in, I use my I-Phone 13 Pro. It's about the shot not the gear for me.
I have thought about ditching my A7R2 and lenses for the RX10 IV precisely because of the its focal length range. (It's just hard for me to get out of my "sunken cost fallacy" mindset and my dismay at how low resale prices are for gear I've cared for. Maybe when they come out with an RX10 V I'll take another look.)
Actually, I did many of my landscape shots with an RX100 - because that one is always in a small pocket on my backpack strap when hiking. Nowadays I use the smartphone occasionally. But both do not offer the same quality as even my very old 5D Mk II so I sometimes regret to not have taken that one on the trip. Especially the smartphone in the telephoto lenses does very bad. Distant trees look very muddy and the color rendition is on another level - which cannot be fixed in Post, even when using RAW. The latter also applies to the 1" compact. Somehow the bigger sensor seems to capture more color nuances - I noticed this immediately when I switched from APS-C to FF 15 years ago.
My primary lens for my OM System OM1 is the 12-100 Pro. A 24-200 equivalent. Outstanding quality
There are very few landscape photographers "making serious money from their work".
Yes myy work went down in covid.
That was an absolutely wonderful video presentation. I learned more from you in this one video than I have in reviewing over 50 videos from other landscape photographers. Thank you so much.😊
Does it matter whether or not you use a full frame sensor versus using a cropped sensor, or a micro four thirds sensor as long as one uses the equivalent 35 mm focal length?
I don't think so, you can work out what your needs are. The best way is to do the lightroom check on your favorite work. Find the lens that yo use and love the most.
it does matter. Full frame allows shallower depth of field and dim/night scene shooting. Crop sensor allows more to be in focus for the same f stop and a lighter lens and doesn't work so well in dim/night scenes, ie. it gets more grainy at lower iso compared to full frame.
What a great video. I shoot APSC & M4/3. My go to lenses for OLY in wildlife or landscape are my zooms. The 40-150 (80-300ff) is my beast of a lens that I would take to the island. But somewhere along the line, desiring all the wide angle lenses I could get my hands on (OLY 7-14 or 14-28ff, for example) I discovered that I like shooting the wide zooms while in the vertical orientation -- to the point where I started telling people that I was a portrait style landscape photographer (because I thought it sounded cool). But hearing you talk about the compression and the "squish effect" of a wide (in landscape) and the way it might look different in portrait mode makes me wonder if my eye just liked it better. Thanks!
That’s a good way to put it, portrait style landscape photography, it’s definitely a thing.
I need three lenses for my landscape photography: First the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L: about 70% of my forest and landscape images are shot with this lens. Second: The RF 14-35mm F4 L - because I am a wide angel- junkie: 20%. And finally the RF 100-400mm F5.6-8: 10%, when I want to zoom into a scenery. Sometimes, on a hike in our Swiss mountains, I do without the 100-400mm to save it's weight of 640 grams. By the way: You do not need f/2.8- lenses for landscape photography, because you will stop them down to f/8 or f/11 anyway in most cases.
Totally agree re the f2.8 comment!
My goodness! Your expert words on the demands that a wide-angle lens makes are so timely to save me time choosing and then money buying one,
only to take a one-off shot and than let it rest on the shelf. As a fledgling amateur I knew there was some overkill in my desire to get one but for the light to shine on me I did need to hear these very words of yours.
It looks like a finder's fee deducted from the cost of a Viltrox 13mm f1.4, or a Samyang AF 12mm f2 is going to you just like that! -;;
Im so glad I was able to help.
Thank you Lady for your advices👍
For Landscape photography, my Sony G 20-70mmF4 has replace my GM 24-70mm F2,8 and my new G 70-200mm F4 macro has replace my GM 70-200mm F2,8 because with that combination, IT give me more versatility for composing and less weight to carry. 😉
Thanks for the interesting video. Am I right in assuming your lens choices are full frame?
I primarily use my 200-600mm lens for wildlife, birds, and landscapes. However, when I need a wide-angle shot, I usually opt for my phone, even though I also have a 12-24mm lens. I mat sell that lens and replace it with 70 to 200. Wonderful episode, Savvy
Thankyou so much.
Hobbyist: Landscape mainly and family. Two lenses on a Nikon Z 6ii: Nikkor Z 14-30mm F4 and Nikkor Z 28-400mm F4-8. These two lenses cover my needs - family, woodlands, seascapes, and night sky. My goal was to have everything in a small sling bag that could be with me at all times.
Thats a great plan and great combo!
I'm not into landscapes but this was very helpful in that it's reinforced my recent decision to sell off all except my (full frame eq) 15-27mm zoom and my 50mm prime, I don't use the other three much anyway. Interestingly the prime is double the 27mm, about, which reminded me of film days when some advice was just two prime lenses, one double that of the other is all you need.
Glad it helped you!
Good vlog. My 24-70 is my workhorse, can’t do without it. The 70-200 has been a revelation for the reasons you spoke of. And finally, whilst I still use the 16-35, it’s taken more of a backseat these days.
I understand where you're coming form. I still have mine but use it for real estate and the occasional landscape shot.
Because of so much that you can do in post processing, for example, controlling the depth of field, I don’t feel it’s necessary to have heavy glass and lenses that have very low F stops. I also find it not necessary to have a heavy bag so I agree with much of what you say. I have found that a Nikon 28 to 400 mm can do just about everything I need. I do have a 14 to 30 mm which I find very important when you are in narrow streets, when you are inside, and when you’re needing to have shots where there’s a big crowd and you want to be in front of the crowd to catch everything.
I agree that a good zoom lens can cover a lot of ground!
Guess I'm covered for landscape with two of my Olympus micro four thirds lenses: the 12-45mm f/4 and 40-150mm f/4. This provides what in full frame cameras would be 24 to 300mm. Thanks for this video.
You're very welcome. Great setup!
I was going to mention that my Zuiko 12-100mm (24-200mm ff equivalent) is used in probably 90% of my photos - even though I own the 7-14mm and the 100-400mm - but you beat me to it.
yes, in terms of the focal length, the micro four thirds are very good at covering those focal lengths. But the weakness of the micro four thirds is in the shallow depth of field, dim light and lack of hardware innovation. If one is not into shooting indoors or night scenes, or shallow depth of field, then it is good system. Though Olympus seems to have stopped the sensor innovation and just focused on computational features these days.
@@veritas932 I’d argue that in landscape photography the kind of front-to-back sharpness that MFT can get you without having to drastically stop down or focus stack is more often an advantage than being able to achieve smoothly blurred backgrounds without much fuss. But that’s a decision individual photographers need to make for themselves. I grow increasingly weary, as I’m sure many do, of the gear wars in all their nonsensical technocratic splendor, particularly when there are such worthier subjects to fight over. Let everyone pick the tool that best suits their needs and leave at that.
Good advice! I find the 24-70 mm. 2.8 my favorite lens. Its versatility makes up for 80% of my shots. I also have a complimentary 70-300 mm. 3.5 - 5.6 for my telephoto needs.
Sounds like a great setup!
I have just been on holiday in the lake District (UK),took too much gear,and ended up using a D5100 and D7200,with Nikon 18-105 and Tamron 70-300.I used a 10-20 for about 10 shots,but found the 18-105 and 70-300 combination was all I needed.Looking back at the images,the 70-300 was used a lot more than people would think for Landscape photography, especially when there is wildlife as well.I also carried a Canon SX30 IS,with a coverage of 24-840, and some of my favourite shots were taken with this little gem.
A problem for you is that the Tamron is designed for the Nikon D750 and similar cameras. There isn't a good lense designed with just enough coverage for your cameras' sensors. Even if there were, it would be bigger than strictly necessary because of the size of the mount.
I'm just a "snap shooter" for around the house and travel, and settled on the 28-70F2 and 70-200F2.8. I thought I'd be on the 70-200 most, but the 28-70 mostly wide open has become my go-to and I love the look. Tempted by the 200-800 for wildlife though!
That 28-70 is a great lens for those “snap” shots! I use my 70-200 for wildlife too.
Great advice! It explains why sooo many effective ultra wide landscapes follows the same cookie cutter recipe and background is lost.
I came to the same conclusions after looking at the data for 1000s of my images and what I actually use, especially for "rated" images.
On Nikon Z you can distill this down to the excellent 24-120mm f4 and the 100-400mm for amazing coverage in a reasonable package. My 24-70mm f2.8 is being left behind more and more. Sometimes I throw in the 14-30mm but honestly, it doesn't come out very often.
It's interesting to see how you use your lenses - I've found that I prefer using my zoom more and more as well.
A great video. I use a 24-70 a lot, but much also RF50mm/1.2. And when I look the photos with that lens, those are just out of this world. What would be the 2-lens answer if I turn the question to primes? 24+50 or 35+85? Or if at least one prime? 15-35+85mm?
I’m heading to dolomites, alps, Furka Pass, toscana, garda and venice round trip next July with my 3 small kids and wife, and I have to consider what would ve the minimal setup to have marvellous photos. One is perhaps X100 35mm equiv., second 24-70 third 70200. But struggling not to take 2 heavy camera bags with me and be angry to myself.
Practice before you go on a few day trips to see what works - remember your carryon too at airports. You'll need something to cover family also.
Have you done the lightroom check to see what your favorite focal lengths are? That should be a guid. I havent covered primes in this video.
Made me smile. At 82 I shoot "utility photography" for nonprofits. I can do almost anything with a kit similar to yours: Canon R6 and R50 with a EF 24-105/4 L and spectacular 70-200/2.8 L II. Weirdly, the R50 and 70-200 take wonderful portraits at 300mm/F2.8 equivalent. The R6 and 24-105 are fine for theater needing 1/500 and faster (with help from Adobe Denoise).
That’s great that I made you smile! What do you think of the six? I also use my 70 to 200 for portraits doing a lot of dogs at the moment for Christmas presents.
I find the R6 a little weird - I'm always bumping something or touching something that throws my settings off. But then, I'm not a full-time shooter. I assign eye-tracking to C1 and spot focus to C2; it helps. Otherwise, I love the R6 compared to any DSLR. The image is lovely but it takes a bit of work to rescue the Raw files from their rather dark and flat look.
@ thanks for that. I’m thinking of upgrading to one Mirrorless body so I think I’ll have to hire a few and check them out. Do you use the back button focus?
@@savvyshooterf8 Try everything, within reason. Assume you will be buying new lenses, though EF lenses are improved with the EF-R adaptors. Personally, I wouldn't expect to find a significant difference between Canon, Nikon and Sony. It might not matter to you, but Sony's mount is compromised and it's not suitable for my most important lenses. The 24 Mpx Lumix S5 cameras might suit you, I use a Lumix S1R with a Sigma adaptor.
Fujifilm has a range of pro standard cameras and lenses, but I don't know much about them.
For general photography, OM Systems 20 Mpx OM-1 II and 25 Mpx Lumix G9 II are worth considering. Both have have high res modes of 4x their native resolution, both have live ND and live composite. I think both also have a special focus modes for heavenly bodies. Lenses are interchangeable.
I shoot with a Sony a 7iii. I have taken several trips to Italy with it and used a variety of lens combinations.
In 2020, we took a two week trip through Italy followed by two weeks cruising the Mediterranean for Turkey and Greece. I reviewed my photos in Lightroom from previous trips. I found that most of my photos were in the 35-70mm range. For the next trip, all I took was my Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and 28-75 f2.8 lenses. I found I almost never used anything but the 28-75. Last year for a family vacation in Sicily, all I took was my Tamron 28-200 f 2.8-5.6.
So, I have to agree that the 24 to 28 short focal length to 70 to 75 is definitely that sweet spot. Plus, you can get some great lenses at reasonable prices in that range. I go back to film days when all I had was a 28, a 50, and a 200mm and learned how to zoom with my feet! You just have to adapt and overcome.
I come from the film camera days and 3 lenses. We learned a lot about shooting everything. I consider myself a photojournalist due to my job on military base newspapers. So, I love lenses, the wider the better. I even took a photo of one of our F4 fighter jets with a 16mm fisheye. I will not limit my use of lenses to just 2. Not being a one-trick-pony really allows me to experiment and have fun with many lenses. Each has its own character, and I love to explore it. Karen may be just a landscape photographer, and I can understand where she is coming from. But I am the total opposite. I love to play with different focal lengths just because I can.
I love your response. Yes Im a landscape photog but have had a few stints with portraits/weddings/real estate in my time and I also started with film in the old days and the darkroom, so I know where you're coming from. I think with subjects like you have, and your journalistic approach you've got the right setup for what you do!
@@bondgabebond4907 I have no issues with your decisions as you must have the proper tools for the job at hand. When I go out to do some birds in flight, my lens selection is a lot different than if I am doing street photography. My point was that for travel photography, I looked at what type of photos I had taken in the past and tailored what I had to carry to fit. I am in my 70s so I need to minimize the extra weight I carry around so I will be around longer! 😀
@@bondgabebond4907 well, with a zoom, you can play with all the focal lengths you want. Go with the Tamron 28 300mm. You can have the odd focal lengths like 32mm or 120mm or 222mm that's not available with any prime lens. You can play with all the focal lengths to your heart's content without ever changing a single lens. How's that for flexibility?
I'm with Mads and have the same setup. Tamron 28-200 on a Sony 7RV. I use mostly telephoto for landscapes.
It's great to see others are using a similar setup! What are your favorite telephoto lenses?
Very pragmatic perspective. Thank you. I have the Nikon Z 24-200mm, so I suppose I only need 1 lens.
It's a great lens and you're right about simplifying things.What are your other ones?
Mid range zooms are my permanent set up and I rarely use filters 📷👌
Amen, especially regarding the 24-70mm lens. Especially since my Get-Up-and-Go largely got up and went, it can be quite liberating to simply carry the one mid-range lens, on the camera, leaving the bag at home. (A belt pouch can be used for the tele zoom.) 24mm is almost always wide enough, and, I rarely hit the 70mm maximum. I certainly can use an ultra-wide-angle lens, for some very interesting images, but, is it worth its weight, in usefulness? My 14-24/2.8 lens quickly became a specialized night-time lens, typically used as my only lens for an evening/night shoot.
I’m glad you found this video helpful.
This is an argument that I always find interesting because the assertions are typically generalized, and as with most generalizations, there is plenty that is excluded. First and foremost in photography - what is The Subject and what treatment best serves The Subject? Much of this probably comes down to what interests an individual photographically. I'm interested in The Natural World, and as I amble through it i'm struck by moments of both the large and the small and everything in between. I don't see any merit in artificially restricting my respinse to The Subject based on some Orthodoxy from the Canon of 'Landscape' photography... so I carry whatever I need in order to respond to whatever I discover. I suppose that one advantage of this is that it frees me from taking the same photos as many others - I don't really have a desire to get images that are already in someone else's Calendar because there is already far too much in the natural world that is worthy but overlooked, and far too many images of the same old subjects shot in pretty much the same old ways. Obviously, one way around the problem is to carry and use lenses that others don't, creating opportunities that others deny to themselves. Yes... lenses have weight and cost money, but the value question is answered by what they enable and, in this, what they encourage us to notice and learn about in the world around us (on all scales). Lots to say on this topic, but that's enough for this post bar saying that I'm happy for anyone else who has settled on a solution that serves their needs, whatever that and those may be. Cheers.
Well this was aimed at landscape photogs, but my point was to take what you need, that suits the pictures you take, and go from there. I mentioned my chooices. The check out on lightroom of what lens you use mainly is an eye opener sometimes.
Recommendations in this vid is a good starting point aimed at most likely beginners or little to no experience.
A 24-70mm and 70-200mm, along with a 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, deliver a world of fun where one can choose flexible composition with the former two, and great image quality in low light, shallow DOF with the latter pair. Use a 100-400mm in place of the 70-200mm if animals are in the plans. Just taking the primes now and then really gets you used to pre-visualizing and composing at those lengths.
Super tempted to say 100mm f2.8 Macro instead of the 85mm though! Used to carry 24 f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 100 macro in a little bag, but I think a fast 24-70 would be better than the first two. A fast 35mm and a 100mm macro are an extremely versatile pair! A fast 135mm can sub for the tele zoom and be less obtrusive.
I would only take a pair of these lenses out at a time, and choose depending on anticipated conditions and goals. Mixing primes and zooms is not illegal. Even the 24-70mm for outdoors and the 35mm for inside. A 24-70mm + 100mm macro or 135mm f2 works great in a little bag. You lose compositional flexibility on the tele end though.
If you boil it down to two for just landscapes though, the 24-70mm and 70-200mm, both in f2.8 for flexibility, are really a great choice and most of us could stop there.
You have a great point about prime lenses, they really do make you think about your framing!
@@savvyshooterf8 Thanks. Really enjoy your videos. It's a two edged sword, isn't it: On the one side, primes spur me to make the best of the only angles of view available, and I go 'hunting' for compositions visualizing only one or two focal lengths. On the other, there's the anxiety that one simply can't get the framing desired, eg. not wide enough, or the 135 is just two tight indoors, but then you miss an amazing wildlife opportunity and wind up with a critter-dot.
Especially when traveling with others I don't get the time to run around and frame everything the way I want. That said, I did enjoy being limited to only a 50mm f1.4 on one trip, but there were times during the trip that I wished for other options. The two zooms in your video resolve this perfectly. Two zooms leave me with far more 'keepers', far less cropping. A 24-70mm is so much more flexible and I have used a 24-70mm f4 with polarizer steadfastly since that 50mm trip, with a fast 35mm for indoors.
But much of my best work has been with a fast 35mm and a 100mm macro. My photographic vision sees things most often around 35mm and 100mm. 135mm is often too long. I think one has to lose the anxiety and accept that one will work within the constraints of whatever winds up in the bag, and not sweat the other stuff. If Ansel Adams can move millions with a 35mm and 80mm equivalent, and HCB can change the way people see the world with a 50mm, then we are spoiled for choice.
Returned my 16mm lens; found it too hard to use. Lowest I can go comfortably is 35mm with my skill level. I normally only shoot with 35mm and 50mm primes depending on location/setting. I'll sometimes goto 85mm when I want to take some covert shots from father away. Only zoom I use on a need-to-only basis only is the 100-300 2.8 (indoor sports).
That makes sense!
Great video here! I am a former camera/GAS person. Just sold four cameras and kept one with two lenses. It makes my photography easier just sticking to minimal body and gear. I use an old (yet still good) Olympus E-600 (four thirds) not M43 system. The kit came with 14-42 and 40-150mm lenses. Full frame equivalent lenses of 24-84 and 80--300. these lenses cover almost all of my landscape and street photography needs.
You just have to work out what suits what you take with your photography. If weight isn’t an issue then use more if you want.
Loved this video! You are a breath of fresh air. Being a wildlife lover and shooting mainly birds I don't consider myself a photographer at all. I started with Canon, still have my 70d with a couple of lenses, had the Nikon p900, always looking for that extra reach without the weight. I now have Fuji, Sony rx10iv and recently moved to OM1, debating what lense to buy to try my hand at landscapes along with wildlife... I'm now convinced it's the 40 -150 f2.8, I've got the 12 -45... Think I need to sell all my other stuff and stick OM + the Fuji, can't sell it! not yet anyway 🫣.... But more importantly I need to stick in and learn my camera, have the patience I have while waiting for a bird to arrive... Thank you. 🙏
That would be 80-300.
Returning to photography after a 22 year hiatus, I chose to purchase Pentax as I had older K mount lenses. If I go out with just one body, I carry a 10-17, 17-50, and alternate between a 55-300, or an older non AF Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 (which is quite heavy, but awesome even today!)... I'm always looking for good landscapes to shoot, but rarely get what I see. Working on it...
Just keep going. Learn one technique at a time until it comes naturally.
I agree. Started out with landscape photography thinking it must always be wide, so wide! I now just use a 28-75 and a 50-300 for landscapes. Still have my wide angle lenses but use those for night sky photography where I do want that big expanse of night sky.
It's great to see others finding what works for them!
I've reduced my kit two lenses, Z17-28 and Z28-400. While not the sharpest lens, the 28-400 covered almost all of my needs. Other than for milky way shots, I rarely pull out the wide angle.
Maybe it will sound out of context, but what I want to share is the pleasure I had to listen to your explanations.Your voice, diction and presentation are really convincing. Why aren't you the prime minister?
Haha You don't realise how much I'm involved locally. I've just stepped down from Deputy Mayor from Council and Mayor x 2. I need to get back to my photography.
Great point! Too many options can be jarring. I’ve personally noticed this issue before traveling. My latest kit has narrowed down to 2 to 3 lenses maximum (14-35mm, 50mm, and 100mm macro). I usually shoot with two camera bodies for portrait work, but it doubles as back up and increases the speed of lens changing.
I enjoy using a wide angle lens for architecture, fashion editorials, and capturing anything from different perspective. If I only photographed people, I would probably stick with the 50mm and 100mm macro.
Yes, more is not always better, especially when travelling.
That’s handy as those 2 lenses are exactly the ones I use the most. The other one I use a lot is the 100mm macro.
I've been using the eqiuvalent of these two zooms for urban photography for years as a hobbyist and have had to endure much grief from other photograpers for not using expensive primes. Modern zooms are so much better quality than they were 20 or 30 years ago and their versatility is unmatched. As with natural lanscape you can't always move closer or further from your subject easily, so a zoom makes sense.
Use whats right for you. Don't take any notice of others opinions unless you ask them!
@@savvyshooterf8 I haven't succumbed to the pressure for 25 years so I'm not going to start now :)
so so very true and true again --- more gear = more confusion = more frustration = loss of interest -- just wish I learnt that so much sooner. Also, what I need and can use is very different to what I want/wanted .
Olympus goes one more better x 2 with my equal to 80 - 300mm and 24 - 80mm ; both 2.8 consistent . With the convertor, 300m becomes 420 F4 but I don't used it much.
Honestly, only blind pixel peepers and the few selling lots of very large photos need more IMO.
Because of size/price/weight, my 2 main lenses has it's own camera body always attached.
Another one liner you are welcome to freely use --- no matter how much gear and focal length I have, I can't get every photo I might see . If I could get every photo I might see what would I do with them all .
Thank you for passing on your great thought provoking advice about gear.
Me too! That’s a great saying too!
Totally enjoyed your video and suggestions. I shoot Nikon and have found the 24-120 and 100-400 gives me the range I want. I can also do wildlife. The 50 f1.8 is always in my bag. Thanks again.
Thank you for that
I shoot M4/3. I have the 8-18, but sometimes not wide enough, so I have the 7.5 fisheye which is fun to use. I can do panos with my 25mm, a selection if primes for street and my 40-150 for details. I dislike using the 12-35
I haven't afforded either of those 2 zooms yet - but I found the super-wide info rang a bell for me (not that I've owned one) as I can just imagine that most of the time I would also be struggling to get a perfect foreground, sidelines and main content all lined up in the shot (and they're uber exxy) - I only have an 85/1.8, so am looking for a wider, just not convinced on any of them yet (plus, err, they're not cheap - so really need to be sure). Good stuff, thx for shooting straight and telling it like it is.
Thanks for that. Yes theyre quite exxy. But there are many 2nd hand places to get good gear now which guarantee and check everything depending on where you're located.
I am not a landscape photographer, but for when I go out in nature my go to is the Samyang 35-150mm for L mount
Whatever suits your genre. Sounds like a great setup for what you do.