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!
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.
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 totally agree. I have sold all my lenses except my 24mm tilt shift lens. I recently changed to mirrorless and now use the 24-70 f4. For sports and wildlife, I use the 100 to 400mm. Definitely a less cluttered and much lighter bag when out.
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!
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.
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.
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. 🙏
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 !
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 use mostly wide angle lenses and it's absolutely true what you mentioned about mastering composition and loosing it with small things moving or changing. Thank you for the invaluable advice that may save us years to aquire. In my defense I like street photography and realstate as business.
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.
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!
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.
Thank you for sharing this info. Having looked back at my most frequent focal lengths, shooting APS-C, I found I was shooting between FF 40 to 50 mm the majority of the time, so a FF 24 - 70 mm. Second up was FF 75 - 300 mm. I find these lenses to be more intuitive in use and feel right in my view. Who knew I shared the ballpark with so many. Cheers. 🙏
I agree, the 24-70 is far too often overlooked. That said, I still have my 15-30 with me and I use the 100-500 for the same reason, I’m just a little more extreme about it. Good content
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.
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!
Excellent video, I enjoy taking pictures and strictly an amateur. I have watched other professionals on TH-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'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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 only use 2 lenses. One 20-60mm for landscape and filming everyday stuff. The other is my big gun 60-600 Sigma for wildlife. On a side note, whenever I'm taking bracketed still images for landscape photography on a tripod, I only use manual focus and turn off image stabilization, to greatly reduce any slight image shifting from ibis motors. When I'm taking moving action shots of wildlife and sports on a tripod, it's much different and ibis is necessary.
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.
Yes good choice for many/most! 24-200mm with f2.8 option is a great combo in just 2 lenses that will cover pretty much 95% of what most will want. It's especially good if shooting with Sony GM mk2 glass (24-70 + 70-200) as this pair are arguably best in class (ie performance for weight, heft etc - much better than original mk1 versions). Doubtless Canon/Nikon fan-folk will disagree, but all OEM brands and many independents are 'good enough' nowadays. If your interest is mostly landscape then arguably one could use cheaper/lighter f4 versions instead. I'm lucky to have both GM mkii lenses which I use regularly with a Sony a7Rv body (61Mp that permits cropping (eg to APS-C mode for a +50% reach and still usable 26Mp). However, as a generalist photographer, who also does landscapes, I'd quibble on a few points.... 1) You ref. a 'sturdy tripod' with image stabilisation (circa 6mins in)... It's generally considered better to turn off any optical/lens stabilisation if tripod mounted as that may counter what the pod is theoretically delivering (stabilisation). Ditto optional body settings like 'steady shot'. Granted one can't turn off the basic in-built stabilisation found on many mirrorless bodies. OK it's 'nit picking' pedantry. 2) sometimes one needs fast glass.... Faster than f2.8 (ie primes) when pushing ISO won't 'cut it' - typically low light situations or you need a fast shutter (OK not typically landscape where you also want good DoF). This is certainly true for astro landscapes. Also cityscapes, interiors, sports/action etc. A tripod can't compensate for moving subjects or where you want limited DoF like f1.4 or f2 can. 3) You make no allowance for the sheer 'joy' of shooting a single, fast, small prime... My 14mm f1.8 delivers drama and viewpoints that my 24-70 can't touch. Ditto my 20mm f1.8 for astro, city night, street, interiors - neither usually good landscape glass (unless great near foreground interest). My 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 are both small, relatively discrete, great for walking about, street, night, interiors etc. I also use a 50mm, 85mm, 135mm all fast and superb in isolation, albeit heavy and bulky as a full set. Each is a delight to use. The snag is I can't usually pack/carry all of my primes, or change in time unless I'm working a specific genre (eg street, portraiture, studio). So for travel and versatility, zooms have their place. IMO, for fun, a single 35mm f1.4 GM, worked fully manually, on a small body, where you force yourself to move, look and see, think about the light, subject and composition, background, working within the confined limits you can find, or improvise eg using available reflectors (walls/glass etc) can help exercise your 'photographer brain'. Closest I can get to the Leica experience without buying yet more kit haha. 4) Specialist glass is special for a reason... Despite post geometric correction possibilities a shift lens is invaluable for architecture. If it also comes with tilt capablity too then shifting the focus plane can be useful as a technical correction too (great for product photography). Sadly tilt/shift optics are often slow and uber expensive. Macro is another niche area that even best in class zooms (eg 70-200 with a quasi macro option) can't touch. Then we have fast sport and nature primes eg 300 or 400mm f2.8. My 70-200 is great even pretty good with a 1.4x converter, but at an effective 280mm f4 it can't touch the new Sony 300mm f2.8 which is virtually the same size and weight. OK I'm typically talking extremes and although I love and use primes my travel choice or w/e trip first picks are typically your stated excellent 24-70 and 70-200 plus perhaps one small fast prime. As an alternative something like a 16-35 f2.8 with a 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200f2.8 also makes a powerful alternative - especially for me as I find I like shooting either wide or long.
Yes I didn’t go into the difference between lens and camera stabilisation as this is for beginners and I find one concept of it at a time is enough to try and teach or give my opinion on and neither did I mention primes as this was a commentary on the other seven photographers. These are all great topics for other videos.
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.
Hobbyist speaking. I have a 16mm, 60mm and 30-150mm. I rarely use the 16 because I’m more into getting in close even with mountain ranges - textures, patterns, etc. The only drawback is the lens is heavy, but will take it with me regardless. Your video happened to pop up and glad I watched it!
I'm fortunate that I am now shooting with the Nikon Z system. As a result I have access to the marvelous 24-120 f4 S lens, one which is very sharp corner to corner at any aperture and has "flaws" such as vignetting or barrel/pincusion distortion corrected in camera if you are shooting to JPG. If you shoot to RAW you can see these "flaws" by turning off the correction. My second lens is not quite as good as the 24-120 in terms of corner to corner sharpness but that cleans up nicely at f8 or f11. That is the Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 in the Nikon Z mount. As for superwide I have the 1st edition Sigma 12-24mm, a near perfect rectilinear lens but just a bit soft in some areas due to Field Curvature. However it is good enough that you can get some very nice images at f11.
I think you are right in many ways. Carrying a lot of lenses is not a wise thing to do. I have an 18-200mm that I love to use as well as my 24-70mm. Both these lenses get great shots. Still it's seeing the shot and taking it at the right time that I have found to be #1. Thanks for this video, it's nice to hear someone else has the same idea's that I have.
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.
Good advice... I shoot Nikon Z now, with some F-mount lenses and for landscape I carry Z 24-120 f4 S, 80%, but I do carry their top wide zoom, it's about 650 gems but amazing and an AF-P 70-300mm zoom... Works well. I find the 70-200 f2.8 so big and heavy, don't need f2.8 for landscape either.. Thanks for the video.
I am a hobbyist and unless I'm going to be more than an hour away from my hotel room, I usually shoot cities or landscapes or nature with just one lens. I find that it puts me in a head space to compose and look for things when I am working with just one focal length. In fact, shooting with a fixed focal length lens taught me a lot about how to move around and make decisions. I can easily see how only two lenses would be all you need. Like you say, you should be focused on the light and the compositions and your eyes should be looking around for what you know will look beautiful through the lens that you have in your hands at that moment.
When purchasing my DSLR I purchased 4 lenses ,& one is or macro & one is for wildlife. Still, Being inexperienced , I went with the 14-24mm (no regrets) over the 24-70. I do have a great 70-200 2.8 that I now use more than the wide angle. This going on 8 years & still holding off - thinking of upgrading to mirrorless for the new AF systems for wildlife & might get that focal length then. In todays world for both Canon & Sony I would go with the 24-105 (Nikon 24-120) if one could afford (probably close in price to a 70-200 2.8) it & the 100-400. The 100 - 400 end of it would be better suited for intimate landscapes & when you can't get closer to them giving more choices. Regarding wide angle, keeping the lens level & centered on the path you want ones eye to follow go along way to helping your photos. Also great for nice looking cloudy skies. Knowing what I know today, I would of chose the 24-70 -2.8 first or the 16-35 as a second choice just on the filter systems SIZE AND EXPENSE ALONE !!! (150mm for my Nikon 14-24mm f-mount)
@@savvyshooterf8 Not bad. Could use a better lens for wildlife but for $1100 US on sale 7 have it for 8 years. dropped twice & just keeps on ticking. If I get another longer prime, I'll send it to Nikon for a good servicing. I have taken some decent landscapes with the 70-200 between 70-110mm. Happy shooting.
Savvy Shooter I agree with everything you said. I live in the city of London, primarily I shoot Street-Photography on the London Underground for which I use a Cannon Eos 5D MKIV, coupled with a 24-70 f2.8 MKIII; I also have a 100mm f2.8 Macro + 1.4x Teleconverter, the only lenses I need. I shot a unconventional landscape photo on the Underground of a tubular interconnecting passage with a sharp bend, 2’ft off the ground at 24mm focal-length; the floor and the walls of this tubular passage had no advertisement posters which made this photo.
It’s interesting how many of us still use the Canon 5D mkIV. I would love to see some of your shots. Haven’t been back to London since Covid I have to go soon.
@@savvyshooterf8 Thank you for replying. Unfortunately London has deteriorated over the last 10 years, due to 14 years of economic austerity of successive Conservative governments and their destruction of vital public services. London was thriving during the 90’s until about 2010 when it was a great place to live. Most people in the UK are miserable now.
@@FART-REPELLENT that’s so sad to hear. Victoria has also deteriorated in the same time because local state government has sent us into debt and many people are leaving the state in droves and moving north to Queensland. Business is leaving in as is tourism.
@@savvyshooterf8 I chose the Cannon Eos 5D MKIV because of its decent resolution of 30MP enabling me to make 36”x24” prints; while also allowing me to shoot at night. I don’t expect you to reply to this, 👍
When I worked as an Army photographer back in the Neolithic film era. I used several different cameras and lenses. I didn’t like using lenses lower than 28 mm, I did a few times. One of my favorite lenses was my 28-200 zoom. But the Lens I used the most was my 35-70 mm lens, and my nifty 50. Of course I wasn’t really shooting landscapes or not often. It was more photojournalism work that I was doing. I did use use various lenses depending on the shoot and my subject. Longest focal length being 400mm with a 2x teleconverter making it 800mm. But that was rare. Most photography is done I think between 35-70 mm close enough to your 24-70, or so and out to 200. I used a few prime lenses too, but my zoom was my workhorse. I generally carried two cameras with me on a shoot to ensure I get the shot I needed. Both with different lenses and film. I still do that.
I own the 16-35 and the 70-200 2.8 and am on the way for a 24-70 4.0. I never believed in getting the most recent gear and will not change to mirrorless, even if I could afford this. I am working with a 6D MK I and a 7D Mk II, which I both got in good condition very cheap. The 24-70 will be my last buy, maybe I will trade the 7D MK II for 5DSR , when they become affordable and that will be it. I am not a pro, so I don't need any more for years to come. What you issue here, really does make me think a lot, teh 70 - 200 is go to my lens for portriat as well. When I purchased the 70-200 from a friend of mine, he also offered me a 100-400 F 4 and told me to take the later, but I did not even think about it, because the 70-200 is so much more versatile. Well i will try what you say, once I have found the 24-70 and go for it. Time being, I enjoy the 6D, because it's so light and delivers beautiful color rendering. So good lesson here, Roland from good old Germany. (onemoresubby)
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
Interesting observations. Ryan Dyar, who is a way better photographer that any of the ones you show in this video, shot the majority of his images with a 12mm lens. Food for thought.
Sony offers a fantastic option in their 20-70 f4 lens. It’s just a smidge wider than standard zoom and great for certain situation. Paired with the new 70-200 f4 lens, it’s a dream combo. Plus they share the same 72mm front filter thread. It’s my go to combo when I just need to get $hit done.
Sounds a great combo. I'm lucky in that I can afford pretty much anything I want and currently own 16 Sony lenses, but neither of those. I used to have the mk-1 70-200 f4 which I really liked for travel. It was my entry lens into Sony's eco system along with a 16-35 f4 and a 55mm f1.8. I still have my 55mm but sold the other two, switching between many others over past 5 years. I have the really excellent mkii 24-70 f2.8 which I use extensively and a mkii 70-200 plus most of the GM primes, but I'm tempted to try the mkii 70-200 f4 and I hear great things about the 20-70 f4. Yet apart from GAS. I also suffer from FOMO so find it really hard to travel with just 2 lenses. Maybe I need to try out one and compare? I did once have a 24-105mm f4 (excellent but sold and missed when I want to go lighter), but a 20-70mm f4 might just be a sweet choice? Possibly I can rent one to try - got to stop buying more kit I can't even carry.
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.
Emerging professional: Landscape, sports, and historical. My main lens is the Canon RF 24-105 f/4 L. I also use a RF 14-35 f/4 L and a EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM II. The RF 24-105 is Swiss Army knife for a reason, I use for most of my photography. I plan on getting the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for its lowlight capability.
@@savvyshooterf8 I don't always carry all of them. Historical photography is something I made up called historical perspective photography. I would go to historical places and photograph them as individuals may have seen them during the event. I hope to compile the photos into a book describing what was seen during the historical event.
Well said . After 45 years I have sold all of my prime lenses & I just use multi focal range lenses , I also use a crop sensor camera too , I've noticed no difference at all in the images from full frame & it's unlikely I'll enlarge any prints to huge sizes.
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.
yes, thank you, I am shooting landscapes for over 20 years now, but for fun, so definitely I am not an expert here . I enjoy using primes. So instead of 24-70 I have 4 primes, and 28 is widest and least used. My most used lens is 50. And of course there is a tele (zoom this time), which is again, more used than 28. So I am definitely not a wide angle lens shooter ;) As you mentioned, wide angle lens requires skills and subject. It is very easy to make your foureground the main subject instead of just supporting the main thing. I think that normal lens can give enough context to the sceene... without distortion. So usually when I choose wide angle lens, I do it because of the perspective, not foreground.
Wide angle lenses are great for showcasing skies as well as the vastness of landscapes. They are also good for showing how small things are in relation to their surroundings. Example, I used my ultra-wide to shoot my kids next to the giant redwoods in California. And I use my wide lenses to minimize mountains to show the vastness of landscapes in the western US. I'll then switch over to something more tele to get intimate compositions. I'm not team wide per se, I think you're right about them being difficult to use and that most amateurs over-use and misuse their wide lenses. But I do think that every landscape photographer should have one eventually. Maybe it's the 3rd lens to get.
As I recently changed to Sony e-mount, I only have 2 lenses: 24-70 & 60-600. So far it covered it all for me....(more then landscape obviously) But I'm not making my money with it, just happy with the amazing results I get and I agree: the less you have to choose between lenses the more moments you will capture. Personally I rather have some grey filters with me then a wide angle.
Thanks for sharing the great lens advice. I like the fact that you intersperse both setup tips for each lens and real-world use cases that are helpful and makes me want to keep watching as well (I wouldn't want to end up with a shot of just some "little hills" now, would I ?? 😉). Glad I found you in VRA!
@@savvyshooterf8 I'm Steve that replied to your VRA post yesterday, saying "Maybe it's a really good video 😁 !!" I started VRA with my @LoFiChillandBeatsVibe channel, but am starting to work on another channel, to go in a new direction (still need to make some content for it, It wasn't originally my intention to be on camera).
I agree with the general principle of avoiding too many lenses. It’s important to find the small subset of focal lengths that work for you personally, and to stick with them and master them. If starting out in landscape photography my advice would be to study the work of the masters (the real masters whose work has stood the test of time, such as Adams, Kenna, Selgado, etc, not just fashionable TH-camrs) and see what kind of work speaks to you and which style you’d enjoy emulating. Also, visit landscape locations you enjoy and just take time to process what you are looking at. Is it the subtlety of the play of light on details in the distance? Or the drama of waves breaking in front of you? What’s making an impact on you? Only then can you start making decisions on focal lengths to keep or discard. For me, 24mm is not wide enough, for example, when shooting night sky, dramatic clouds or waves breaking on the shore. I tend to travel with a 17-40, 70-200 and a simple 50mm prime (all 35mm equivalent). But that’s just me. A good thought-provoking video. Just be cautious of being the flip-side of those always advocating buying more gear. Less is not always more. Form (in this case lens choice) should follow Function (i.e what you’re trying to achieve)
having too many lens is like a Japanese chef having too many knives. In Japan, they have dedicated knifes for cutting poultry, fish, vegetables, sashimi, noodles, etc... One can have 8 to 10 knives in the kitchen . The chinese chef just uses one knife for everything, the cleaver.
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.
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 with you up to a certain point, now I have a 24-70 F2.8 Sigma on my Panasonic S5 and S5 MKII, I also have the same in Pentax for my full frame K1 MKII and several k3 bodies, I used them in conjunction with several prime lens when I started photographing events. For me because I like to shoot seascapes wider than 24mm i use the 16-35 mm f4 alot, my second lens would be a 24-70 my long lens would be a 100-400mm as I like to shoot longer than 200mm and the 100-400mm Fujifilm on my XH2 is also my go to wildlife and bird lens.
that's exactly what I found out myself and I usually have just 2 lenses with me when shooting landscapes (the Sony 20-70mm F4 for most of the images plus the ultra versatile Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 which covers everything tele)
I'm down to 3, a wide, 18-70, and a 70-300. I struggle with composition and found the 70-300 mm helps. I now focus on the subject and then zoom out until I get what I want. More often than not I take a second photo of my first composition and find its all that I really need. I use the same process with 18-70 when the scene calls for that lens. The wide angle is almost exclusively for astro work when it isn't cloudy but thats like never.
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.
I must admit that while I own way too many lenses my favorites are the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 in Canon EF Mount. They are older non stabilized lenses but I haven't had any sharpness issues as they are used mostly on a tripod or monopod. I have a Canon 24-105 f 4 L that I have been using more lately so the 28-75 has been staying home a bit more. The Canon 24-105 is a newer lens that was gifted to me. I do have the Canon 16-35 but rarely use it
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.
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.
I shoot Canon R5 - 24-105 F4 and the 70-200 F4 at f8 very sharp and converted the ranges you discussed // are much more compact than the f2.8 counter parts
I thought I was the only one that just uses two lens. I am a Nikon Z shooter, so instead of the 24-70 I use the 24 to 120 F4 and the 70-200 2.8. I find, like you, most of my shots are between 24mm and 90mm; however, those isolation shots with the long lens are magical and when I don’t bring that long lens, I always regret it , even if it’s for one shot. I ditched my superwide Zoom and just have a 16 mm prime for Astro photography and maybe an occasional landscape but I don’t pack it with me unless it’s for Astro photography.
Worth noting, too, that a couple of those guys are now using medium format digital cameras, which for all practical purposes narrows your options in terms of focal length, especially at the extreme telephoto end. The bottom line is that art often thrives on restrictions. I once did a workshop with Pulitzer winner Jay Dickman, who advised us, “If you don’t have the right focal length, recompose or start using your feet.”
that's often the advise "zoom with your feet". But in most instances, it is impractical. If you're shooting Mt Fuji in the distance, zooming with feet isn't going to change things much. If you're shooting in a crowded pub, you're backed up against the next table, not much there as well. If you're in a crowded tourist spot and there are people in front of you and people at the back of you, there's not much your feet can do to move around. So a zoom lens is very much a necessity in those scenarios. Zooming with feet is only practical in the outdoors, not indoors or in crowded places or things very far away.
I agree with this video based on the last 2months of usage. I carry both a 35mm(for landscape and astro) and 75-300mm (for landscape zooming into certain areas and getting up close to animals and street). I end up using both lens in the same setting a lot. In the past, I've used wider lens but find the distortion unreal to be of use. There are seldom use cases such as street, night time and portraits, where I will use a 50mm.
My wide angle is used mostly for astrophotography or for those epic double rainbow scenes that can come up once every few years. The other thing that I do a lot of in place of a wide angle lens is multiple image panoramas. Luminar Neo’s stitching capabilities are fantastic. I did a 60 image panorama using a 50 mm lens and it came out magnificently. If one needs the back to front sharpness that a wide angle lens provides, again, focus stacking with a more normal lens can give the benefit of some compression that the lens offers while giving front to back sharpness. (Hopefully, the focus breathing of the lens is not too pronounced.)
16-35 f2.8 and Tamron 28-200. they fit in a very small bag with the camera body. The 16-35 gives me the option of some astro and came in really useful with the recent aroura we had. The Tamron is great for 95% of the shooting I do and has more than enough detail. gone are the days that I carry a 70-200
the Tamron is light and compact for a lens that covers 28 to 200mm. I use it on my 60mp Sony and the optics are very good for a lens with such a wide coverage. Not sure if Tamron make one for Canon or Nikon though? Michael Shainblum uses the same lens a lot of the time.
For me, most used ones I use are 16-50 2.8, and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I have a nice 70-200mm 2.8, but it doesn’t get used as much as the other two for shooting portraits because most of the places I shoot in don’t have the room to step back that far for a full body shot, even though when done right produces killer shots. So I have one, but just don’t yet use it as much as the first two…….
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.
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.
Canon 24-105 Tamron 70-210 (Canon L 70-200 on wishlist) are my mains. You can indeed end up carrying about too much with you and using the hip changing bag these 2 are so easy to go out and about with.
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.
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?
Wide angle lenses produce distorted images,and up to a point so do too long lenses! That's my input, I never take any notice of the what the TH-cam photographers use or the cameras! but you can't take anything away from the pictures they produce! Thanks for your input on this and yes you are right!
I am using a 28-300 as a favorite lens. And I am using the upper range 70-300 more often. When I take a second lens it might be my 19-35 or a prime lens.
Too much choice - in photographic gear and in just about everything else can be a problem. Years ago I used to be prepared for everything when I went out for the day - landscape, macro, wildlife. That was a big mistake, and it took me a few years to realize it. Now I head out equipped for only one style of photography, and I typically carry just two lenses. I agree the 24-70 is a bread-and-butter lens for landscapes, though I use a 24-120. My second lens is the 16-35. The image at 10:24 is exactly the kind of shot I like to take. I think the main takeaway here is to limit your gear (at least what you take with you) and limit what it is you're setting out to do - it focuses the mind so much better, and your images will benefit from that.
The 24-70 is only suitable IF you have a full frame camera. A pricy option for most people, but yes for professional photographer that is most likely the best kit.
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.
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 16 55 f2. 8 and 70 200 f4 with my 7D. Works fine.
And a happy birthday to you also!
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.
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 totally agree. I have sold all my lenses except my 24mm tilt shift lens. I recently changed to mirrorless and now use the 24-70 f4. For sports and wildlife, I use the 100 to 400mm. Definitely a less cluttered and much lighter bag when out.
Thanks for sharing
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!
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.
It’s funny how when youre restricted that it can help you be resourceful!
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.
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.
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.
the nikon z 24-120 is a system-seller. best 24-120 ever made by a large margin. perfectly sharp all through to the corners. the landscapers dream.
Yes, I've heard that one is very good!
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 use mostly wide angle lenses and it's absolutely true what you mentioned about mastering composition and loosing it with small things moving or changing. Thank you for the invaluable advice that may save us years to aquire. In my defense I like street photography and realstate as business.
I do a bit of work with Real Estate and that’s when I use my wide angle more than anything these days.
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!
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!
I agree. My walking around lens is 24-105 and I also have a 70-200, but haul around a 100-400 for wildlife.
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.
Thank you for sharing this info. Having looked back at my most frequent focal lengths, shooting APS-C, I found I was shooting between FF 40 to 50 mm the majority of the time, so a FF 24 - 70 mm. Second up was FF 75 - 300 mm. I find these lenses to be more intuitive in use and feel right in my view. Who knew I shared the ballpark with so many. Cheers. 🙏
Yes its very interesting when you do check on your images and what the lenses are that you ainly use and what focal lengths also.
Thank you for the video chapters! I find in my old age that anticipation brings only pain.
I agree, the 24-70 is far too often overlooked. That said, I still have my 15-30 with me and I use the 100-500 for the same reason, I’m just a little more extreme about it. Good content
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.
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!
Reflecting on my past landscape shooting trips, I have to agree you are correct. I use the Nikon equivalents of the lenses you featured.
Interesting isn’t it.
Excellent video, I enjoy taking pictures and strictly an amateur. I have watched other professionals on TH-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'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!
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!
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!
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 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.
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 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 only use 2 lenses. One 20-60mm for landscape and filming everyday stuff. The other is my big gun 60-600 Sigma for wildlife. On a side note, whenever I'm taking bracketed still images for landscape photography on a tripod, I only use manual focus and turn off image stabilization, to greatly reduce any slight image shifting from ibis motors. When I'm taking moving action shots of wildlife and sports on a tripod, it's much different and ibis is necessary.
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.
Yes good choice for many/most! 24-200mm with f2.8 option is a great combo in just 2 lenses that will cover pretty much 95% of what most will want. It's especially good if shooting with Sony GM mk2 glass (24-70 + 70-200) as this pair are arguably best in class (ie performance for weight, heft etc - much better than original mk1 versions). Doubtless Canon/Nikon fan-folk will disagree, but all OEM brands and many independents are 'good enough' nowadays.
If your interest is mostly landscape then arguably one could use cheaper/lighter f4 versions instead. I'm lucky to have both GM mkii lenses which I use regularly with a Sony a7Rv body (61Mp that permits cropping (eg to APS-C mode for a +50% reach and still usable 26Mp). However, as a generalist photographer, who also does landscapes, I'd quibble on a few points....
1) You ref. a 'sturdy tripod' with image stabilisation (circa 6mins in)...
It's generally considered better to turn off any optical/lens stabilisation if tripod mounted as that may counter what the pod is theoretically delivering (stabilisation). Ditto optional body settings like 'steady shot'. Granted one can't turn off the basic in-built stabilisation found on many mirrorless bodies. OK it's 'nit picking' pedantry.
2) sometimes one needs fast glass....
Faster than f2.8 (ie primes) when pushing ISO won't 'cut it' - typically low light situations or you need a fast shutter (OK not typically landscape where you also want good DoF). This is certainly true for astro landscapes. Also cityscapes, interiors, sports/action etc. A tripod can't compensate for moving subjects or where you want limited DoF like f1.4 or f2 can.
3) You make no allowance for the sheer 'joy' of shooting a single, fast, small prime...
My 14mm f1.8 delivers drama and viewpoints that my 24-70 can't touch. Ditto my 20mm f1.8 for astro, city night, street, interiors - neither usually good landscape glass (unless great near foreground interest).
My 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 are both small, relatively discrete, great for walking about, street, night, interiors etc. I also use a 50mm, 85mm, 135mm all fast and superb in isolation, albeit heavy and bulky as a full set. Each is a delight to use. The snag is I can't usually pack/carry all of my primes, or change in time unless I'm working a specific genre (eg street, portraiture, studio). So for travel and versatility, zooms have their place.
IMO, for fun, a single 35mm f1.4 GM, worked fully manually, on a small body, where you force yourself to move, look and see, think about the light, subject and composition, background, working within the confined limits you can find, or improvise eg using available reflectors (walls/glass etc) can help exercise your 'photographer brain'. Closest I can get to the Leica experience without buying yet more kit haha.
4) Specialist glass is special for a reason...
Despite post geometric correction possibilities a shift lens is invaluable for architecture. If it also comes with tilt capablity too then shifting the focus plane can be useful as a technical correction too (great for product photography). Sadly tilt/shift optics are often slow and uber expensive. Macro is another niche area that even best in class zooms (eg 70-200 with a quasi macro option) can't touch. Then we have fast sport and nature primes eg 300 or 400mm f2.8. My 70-200 is great even pretty good with a 1.4x converter, but at an effective 280mm f4 it can't touch the new Sony 300mm f2.8 which is virtually the same size and weight.
OK I'm typically talking extremes and although I love and use primes my travel choice or w/e trip first picks are typically your stated excellent 24-70 and 70-200 plus perhaps one small fast prime. As an alternative something like a 16-35 f2.8 with a 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200f2.8 also makes a powerful alternative - especially for me as I find I like shooting either wide or long.
Yes I didn’t go into the difference between lens and camera stabilisation as this is for beginners and I find one concept of it at a time is enough to try and teach or give my opinion on and neither did I mention primes as this was a commentary on the other seven photographers. These are all great topics for other videos.
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.
Hobbyist speaking. I have a 16mm, 60mm and 30-150mm. I rarely use the 16 because I’m more into getting in close even with mountain ranges - textures, patterns, etc. The only drawback is the lens is heavy, but will take it with me regardless. Your video happened to pop up and glad I watched it!
Thankyou so much!
I'm fortunate that I am now shooting with the Nikon Z system. As a result I have access to the marvelous 24-120 f4 S lens, one which is very sharp corner to corner at any aperture and has "flaws" such as vignetting or barrel/pincusion distortion corrected in camera if you are shooting to JPG. If you shoot to RAW you can see these "flaws" by turning off the correction. My second lens is not quite as good as the 24-120 in terms of corner to corner sharpness but that cleans up nicely at f8 or f11. That is the Tamron 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 in the Nikon Z mount. As for superwide I have the 1st edition Sigma 12-24mm, a near perfect rectilinear lens but just a bit soft in some areas due to Field Curvature. However it is good enough that you can get some very nice images at f11.
Thank you for your insight and experience!
Cheers. Appreciate you watching!
I think you are right in many ways. Carrying a lot of lenses is not a wise thing to do. I have an 18-200mm that I love to use as well as my 24-70mm. Both these lenses get great shots. Still it's seeing the shot and taking it at the right time that I have found to be #1. Thanks for this video, it's nice to hear someone else has the same idea's that I have.
I’m with you on that one.
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.
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
This is very good. I keep coming back to a 24-70, and now I know why. 😁 Thanks.
Glad I could help you!
Good advice... I shoot Nikon Z now, with some F-mount lenses and for landscape I carry Z 24-120 f4 S, 80%, but I do carry their top wide zoom, it's about 650 gems but amazing and an AF-P 70-300mm zoom... Works well. I find the 70-200 f2.8 so big and heavy, don't need f2.8 for landscape either.. Thanks for the video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Fascinating presentation. Many thanks! ❤❤❤
Thanks so much!
I am a hobbyist and unless I'm going to be more than an hour away from my hotel room, I usually shoot cities or landscapes or nature with just one lens. I find that it puts me in a head space to compose and look for things when I am working with just one focal length. In fact, shooting with a fixed focal length lens taught me a lot about how to move around and make decisions. I can easily see how only two lenses would be all you need. Like you say, you should be focused on the light and the compositions and your eyes should be looking around for what you know will look beautiful through the lens that you have in your hands at that moment.
I get it.
When purchasing my DSLR I purchased 4 lenses ,& one is or macro & one is for wildlife. Still, Being inexperienced , I went with the 14-24mm (no regrets) over the 24-70. I do have a great 70-200 2.8 that I now use more than the wide angle. This going on 8 years & still holding off - thinking of upgrading to mirrorless for the new AF systems for wildlife & might get that focal length then. In todays world for both Canon & Sony I would go with the 24-105 (Nikon 24-120) if one could afford (probably close in price to a 70-200 2.8) it & the 100-400. The 100 - 400 end of it would be better suited for intimate landscapes & when you can't get closer to them giving more choices. Regarding wide angle, keeping the lens level & centered on the path you want ones eye to follow go along way to helping your photos. Also great for nice looking cloudy skies. Knowing what I know today, I would of chose the 24-70 -2.8 first or the 16-35 as a second choice just on the filter systems SIZE AND EXPENSE ALONE !!! (150mm for my Nikon 14-24mm f-mount)
Sounds like you've got a good lens setup.
@@savvyshooterf8 Not bad. Could use a better lens for wildlife but for $1100 US on sale 7 have it for 8 years. dropped twice & just keeps on ticking. If I get another longer prime, I'll send it to Nikon for a good servicing. I have taken some decent landscapes with the 70-200 between 70-110mm. Happy shooting.
Savvy Shooter I agree with everything you said. I live in the city of London, primarily I shoot Street-Photography on the London Underground for which I use a Cannon Eos 5D MKIV, coupled with a 24-70 f2.8 MKIII; I also have a 100mm f2.8 Macro + 1.4x Teleconverter, the only lenses I need. I shot a unconventional landscape photo on the Underground of a tubular interconnecting passage with a sharp bend, 2’ft off the ground at 24mm focal-length; the floor and the walls of this tubular passage had no advertisement posters which made this photo.
It’s interesting how many of us still use the Canon 5D mkIV. I would love to see some of your shots. Haven’t been back to London since Covid I have to go soon.
@@savvyshooterf8 Thank you for replying. Unfortunately London has deteriorated over the last 10 years, due to 14 years of economic austerity of successive Conservative governments and their destruction of vital public services. London was thriving during the 90’s until about 2010 when it was a great place to live. Most people in the UK are miserable now.
@@FART-REPELLENT that’s so sad to hear. Victoria has also deteriorated in the same time because local state government has sent us into debt and many people are leaving the state in droves and moving north to Queensland. Business is leaving in as is tourism.
@@savvyshooterf8 I chose the Cannon Eos 5D MKIV because of its decent resolution of 30MP enabling me to make 36”x24” prints; while also allowing me to shoot at night. I don’t expect you to reply to this, 👍
Thanks for the very informative video sis. Keep going. God bless you.
Thankyou!
12-60mm & 50-200mm on an Olympus. Love them. Basically the 12-60mm lives on the camera. Btw f2,8-4 for both.
That sounds like a great combination.
When I worked as an Army photographer back in the Neolithic film era. I used several different cameras and lenses. I didn’t like using lenses lower than 28 mm, I did a few times. One of my favorite lenses was my 28-200 zoom. But the Lens I used the most was my 35-70 mm lens, and my nifty 50. Of course I wasn’t really shooting landscapes or not often. It was more photojournalism work that I was doing. I did use use various lenses depending on the shoot and my subject. Longest focal length being 400mm with a 2x teleconverter making it 800mm. But that was rare. Most photography is done I think between 35-70 mm close enough to your 24-70, or so and out to 200. I used a few prime lenses too, but my zoom was my workhorse. I generally carried two cameras with me on a shoot to ensure I get the shot I needed. Both with different lenses and film. I still do that.
Its great when you know what works for you and what is familiar.
I own the 16-35 and the 70-200 2.8 and am on the way for a 24-70 4.0. I never believed in getting the most recent gear and will not change to mirrorless, even if I could afford this. I am working with a 6D MK I and a 7D Mk II, which I both got in good condition very cheap. The 24-70 will be my last buy, maybe I will trade the 7D MK II for 5DSR , when they become affordable and that will be it. I am not a pro, so I don't need any more for years to come.
What you issue here, really does make me think a lot, teh 70 - 200 is go to my lens for portriat as well. When I purchased the 70-200 from a friend of mine, he also offered me a 100-400 F 4 and told me to take the later, but I did not even think about it, because the 70-200 is so much more versatile.
Well i will try what you say, once I have found the 24-70 and go for it. Time being, I enjoy the 6D, because it's so light and delivers beautiful color rendering. So good lesson here, Roland from good old Germany. (onemoresubby)
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.
Interesting observations. Ryan Dyar, who is a way better photographer that any of the ones you show in this video, shot the majority of his images with a 12mm lens. Food for thought.
Sony offers a fantastic option in their 20-70 f4 lens. It’s just a smidge wider than standard zoom and great for certain situation. Paired with the new 70-200 f4 lens, it’s a dream combo. Plus they share the same 72mm front filter thread. It’s my go to combo when I just need to get $hit done.
Yeah, I try and make sure I can use the same builders as well. That sounds like an awesome combination.
Sounds a great combo. I'm lucky in that I can afford pretty much anything I want and currently own 16 Sony lenses, but neither of those. I used to have the mk-1 70-200 f4 which I really liked for travel. It was my entry lens into Sony's eco system along with a 16-35 f4 and a 55mm f1.8. I still have my 55mm but sold the other two, switching between many others over past 5 years. I have the really excellent mkii 24-70 f2.8 which I use extensively and a mkii 70-200 plus most of the GM primes, but I'm tempted to try the mkii 70-200 f4 and I hear great things about the 20-70 f4. Yet apart from GAS. I also suffer from FOMO so find it really hard to travel with just 2 lenses.
Maybe I need to try out one and compare? I did once have a 24-105mm f4 (excellent but sold and missed when I want to go lighter), but a 20-70mm f4 might just be a sweet choice? Possibly I can rent one to try - got to stop buying more kit I can't even carry.
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.
Emerging professional: Landscape, sports, and historical. My main lens is the Canon RF 24-105 f/4 L. I also use a RF 14-35 f/4 L and a EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM II. The RF 24-105 is Swiss Army knife for a reason, I use for most of my photography. I plan on getting the RF 70-200 f/2.8 for its lowlight capability.
That’s a great lot of gear. Have you always been Mirrorless or just changed and I’d love to know what you mean by historical?
@@savvyshooterf8 I don't always carry all of them. Historical photography is something I made up called historical perspective photography. I would go to historical places and photograph them as individuals may have seen them during the event. I hope to compile the photos into a book describing what was seen during the historical event.
Well said . After 45 years I have sold all of my prime lenses & I just use multi focal range lenses , I also use a crop sensor camera too , I've noticed no difference at all in the images from full frame & it's unlikely I'll enlarge any prints to huge sizes.
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. 🤠
yes, thank you, I am shooting landscapes for over 20 years now, but for fun, so definitely I am not an expert here . I enjoy using primes. So instead of 24-70 I have 4 primes, and 28 is widest and least used. My most used lens is 50. And of course there is a tele (zoom this time), which is again, more used than 28. So I am definitely not a wide angle lens shooter ;)
As you mentioned, wide angle lens requires skills and subject. It is very easy to make your foureground the main subject instead of just supporting the main thing. I think that normal lens can give enough context to the sceene... without distortion. So usually when I choose wide angle lens, I do it because of the perspective, not foreground.
Good point about the wide angle and perspective! Some of mine use that too. When I use it, which is more and more less of the time now! ⭐️
Wide angle lenses are great for showcasing skies as well as the vastness of landscapes. They are also good for showing how small things are in relation to their surroundings. Example, I used my ultra-wide to shoot my kids next to the giant redwoods in California. And I use my wide lenses to minimize mountains to show the vastness of landscapes in the western US. I'll then switch over to something more tele to get intimate compositions. I'm not team wide per se, I think you're right about them being difficult to use and that most amateurs over-use and misuse their wide lenses. But I do think that every landscape photographer should have one eventually. Maybe it's the 3rd lens to get.
I have to admit that some of my favourite white angle shots. Do you have great big skies? You’re right?
As I recently changed to Sony e-mount, I only have 2 lenses: 24-70 & 60-600. So far it covered it all for me....(more then landscape obviously) But I'm not making my money with it, just happy with the amazing results I get and I agree: the less you have to choose between lenses the more moments you will capture.
Personally I rather have some grey filters with me then a wide angle.
@@yspegel that’s a fabulous combination and very similar to me really. I do other things as well apart from landscape for Work.
Thanks for sharing the great lens advice. I like the fact that you intersperse both setup tips for each lens and real-world use cases that are helpful and makes me want to keep watching as well (I wouldn't want to end up with a shot of just some "little hills" now, would I ?? 😉). Glad I found you in VRA!
Ha ha thanks for that. I’ll have to look for you too now. It’s happened to me heaps of times years ago.
@@savvyshooterf8 I'm Steve that replied to your VRA post yesterday, saying "Maybe it's a really good video 😁 !!"
I started VRA with my @LoFiChillandBeatsVibe channel, but am starting to work on another channel, to go in a new direction (still need to make some content for it, It wasn't originally my intention to be on camera).
Throw in more pictures to support talking points. I really liked your presentation.
Will do.
I agree with the general principle of avoiding too many lenses. It’s important to find the small subset of focal lengths that work for you personally, and to stick with them and master them. If starting out in landscape photography my advice would be to study the work of the masters (the real masters whose work has stood the test of time, such as Adams, Kenna, Selgado, etc, not just fashionable TH-camrs) and see what kind of work speaks to you and which style you’d enjoy emulating. Also, visit landscape locations you enjoy and just take time to process what you are looking at. Is it the subtlety of the play of light on details in the distance? Or the drama of waves breaking in front of you? What’s making an impact on you? Only then can you start making decisions on focal lengths to keep or discard.
For me, 24mm is not wide enough, for example, when shooting night sky, dramatic clouds or waves breaking on the shore. I tend to travel with a 17-40, 70-200 and a simple 50mm prime (all 35mm equivalent). But that’s just me.
A good thought-provoking video. Just be cautious of being the flip-side of those always advocating buying more gear. Less is not always more. Form (in this case lens choice) should follow Function (i.e what you’re trying to achieve)
having too many lens is like a Japanese chef having too many knives. In Japan, they have dedicated knifes for cutting poultry, fish, vegetables, sashimi, noodles, etc... One can have 8 to 10 knives in the kitchen . The chinese chef just uses one knife for everything, the cleaver.
Great tips.
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.
Thank you for the great advice and could not agree more.
You are most welcome!
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 with you up to a certain point, now I have a 24-70 F2.8 Sigma on my Panasonic S5 and S5 MKII, I also have the same in Pentax for my full frame K1 MKII and several k3 bodies, I used them in conjunction with several prime lens when I started photographing events. For me because I like to shoot seascapes wider than 24mm i use the 16-35 mm f4 alot, my second lens would be a 24-70 my long lens would be a 100-400mm as I like to shoot longer than 200mm and the 100-400mm Fujifilm on my XH2 is also my go to wildlife and bird lens.
Yes I have a Tamron 100-400 which I use for wildlife and bird photography. I don't do much of that nowadays, it depends on where I am.
that's exactly what I found out myself and I usually have just 2 lenses with me when shooting landscapes (the Sony 20-70mm F4 for most of the images plus the ultra versatile Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 which covers everything tele)
You’ve worked it out!
I'm down to 3, a wide, 18-70, and a 70-300. I struggle with composition and found the 70-300 mm helps. I now focus on the subject and then zoom out until I get what I want. More often than not I take a second photo of my first composition and find its all that I really need. I use the same process with 18-70 when the scene calls for that lens. The wide angle is almost exclusively for astro work when it isn't cloudy but thats like never.
Sounds like a good system you've got going.
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.
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?
I must admit that while I own way too many lenses my favorites are the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 in Canon EF Mount. They are older non stabilized lenses but I haven't had any sharpness issues as they are used mostly on a tripod or monopod. I have a Canon 24-105 f 4 L that I have been using more lately so the 28-75 has been staying home a bit more. The Canon 24-105 is a newer lens that was gifted to me. I do have the Canon 16-35 but rarely use it
Sounds like you have your sweet spot with your lenses all worked out which does make life a whle lot easier.
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.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Glad you found it interesting!
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.
I shoot Canon R5 - 24-105 F4 and the 70-200 F4 at f8 very sharp and converted the ranges you discussed // are much more compact than the f2.8 counter parts
Thanks for the info. Thats a great setup.
That's indeed a good combination. You can also make a case for the 100-500mm instead of the 70-200 f4
Hi there, great video.I use a 24-70, but cannot afford a Nikon 70-200, so I use my 105 which doubles as my macro lens when I occasionally need it.
SOunds good.
I thought I was the only one that just uses two lens. I am a Nikon Z shooter, so instead of the 24-70 I use the 24 to 120 F4 and the 70-200 2.8. I find, like you, most of my shots are between 24mm and 90mm; however, those isolation shots with the long lens are magical and when I don’t bring that long lens, I always regret it , even if it’s for one shot. I ditched my superwide Zoom and just have a 16 mm prime for Astro photography and maybe an occasional landscape but I don’t pack it with me unless it’s for Astro photography.
Sounds like you have a very similar set up.
Worth noting, too, that a couple of those guys are now using medium format digital cameras, which for all practical purposes narrows your options in terms of focal length, especially at the extreme telephoto end. The bottom line is that art often thrives on restrictions. I once did a workshop with Pulitzer winner Jay Dickman, who advised us, “If you don’t have the right focal length, recompose or start using your feet.”
I love that comment. Necessity is the mother of invention. When faced with a difficult situation, people are forced to be creative and find solutions.
that's often the advise "zoom with your feet". But in most instances, it is impractical. If you're shooting Mt Fuji in the distance, zooming with feet isn't going to change things much. If you're shooting in a crowded pub, you're backed up against the next table, not much there as well. If you're in a crowded tourist spot and there are people in front of you and people at the back of you, there's not much your feet can do to move around. So a zoom lens is very much a necessity in those scenarios. Zooming with feet is only practical in the outdoors, not indoors or in crowded places or things very far away.
@@veritas932 You’ll notice that there were two parts contained in that piece of advice.
I agree with this video based on the last 2months of usage. I carry both a 35mm(for landscape and astro) and 75-300mm (for landscape zooming into certain areas and getting up close to animals and street). I end up using both lens in the same setting a lot. In the past, I've used wider lens but find the distortion unreal to be of use. There are seldom use cases such as street, night time and portraits, where I will use a 50mm.
I hear you on the wide-angle distortion, it’s not for everyone.
My wide angle is used mostly for astrophotography or for those epic double rainbow scenes that can come up once every few years. The other thing that I do a lot of in place of a wide angle lens is multiple image panoramas. Luminar Neo’s stitching capabilities are fantastic. I did a 60 image panorama using a 50 mm lens and it came out magnificently. If one needs the back to front sharpness that a wide angle lens provides, again, focus stacking with a more normal lens can give the benefit of some compression that the lens offers while giving front to back sharpness. (Hopefully, the focus breathing of the lens is not too pronounced.)
So many ways to get those great images! Astro is an area I've only dabbled in but looking to doing more with that. Thanks for the comments.
16-35 f2.8 and Tamron 28-200. they fit in a very small bag with the camera body. The 16-35 gives me the option of some astro and came in really useful with the recent aroura we had. The Tamron is great for 95% of the shooting I do and has more than enough detail. gone are the days that I carry a 70-200
That's great. It is heavy! I'mthinking about finally going mirrorless, but using my existing lens for a while, so won't save much weight there.
the Tamron is light and compact for a lens that covers 28 to 200mm. I use it on my 60mp Sony and the optics are very good for a lens with such a wide coverage. Not sure if Tamron make one for Canon or Nikon though? Michael Shainblum uses the same lens a lot of the time.
For me, most used ones I use are 16-50 2.8, and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I have a nice 70-200mm 2.8, but it doesn’t get used as much as the other two for shooting portraits because most of the places I shoot in don’t have the room to step back that far for a full body shot, even though when done right produces killer shots.
So I have one, but just don’t yet use it as much as the first two…….
great video ----when I think about it your right ----Fritz Hemle only used a telerollei and and standard Rollei -----but he knew how to use them
Thanks!
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.
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 :)
I agree 100%. After 12yrs I still use my trusty 5d mk ii,'s and 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8. I have had 15 fish eye, 35, 50, 85, Sold em all.
Been there too!
Canon 24-105 Tamron 70-210 (Canon L 70-200 on wishlist) are my mains. You can indeed end up carrying about too much with you and using the hip changing bag these 2 are so easy to go out and about with.
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.
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?
Wide angle lenses produce distorted images,and up to a point so do too long lenses! That's my input, I never take any notice of the what the TH-cam photographers use or the cameras! but you can't take anything away from the pictures they produce! Thanks for your input on this and yes you are right!
Thanks for your comments.
I am using a 28-300 as a favorite lens. And I am using the upper range 70-300 more often. When I take a second lens it might be my 19-35 or a prime lens.
Thats a good combo.
Great video.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I only use one lens for landscape: Tamron 28-200mm
With the APSC mode (18MP) in my camrea, it covers the 28-300mm equivalent focal range.
Thats great!
Too much choice - in photographic gear and in just about everything else can be a problem. Years ago I used to be prepared for everything when I went out for the day - landscape, macro, wildlife. That was a big mistake, and it took me a few years to realize it. Now I head out equipped for only one style of photography, and I typically carry just two lenses. I agree the 24-70 is a bread-and-butter lens for landscapes, though I use a 24-120. My second lens is the 16-35. The image at 10:24 is exactly the kind of shot I like to take. I think the main takeaway here is to limit your gear (at least what you take with you) and limit what it is you're setting out to do - it focuses the mind so much better, and your images will benefit from that.
The 24-70 is only suitable IF you have a full frame camera. A pricy option for most people, but yes for professional photographer that is most likely the best kit.
The APS-C equivalent of a 24-70 lens is a 12-35 mm lens. So it depends on your camera. There are equivalents for other sensor sizes too. 🤠
Loved it!
Thankyou!
You are not wrong!
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.