Jump to content

landscape photography wich lens?!


Recommended Posts

Those lenses are pretty wide. My suggestion is the 18 if you want really wide, and a 35 for somewhat normal landscape needs. You can always stitch with the 35: the 18 is good for near/far if you have a good foreground or want to do some star photography.

Just my $.02

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use an A6300 with a 12, 25, 55 and within days I get my Batis 85.

That's the fullframe equivalent of 18, 35, 85 and 135.

I mostly use the 25 and the 55, the 12 is really, really wide so that's nice but not easy to use.

I would recommand the Sony/Zeiss 35 2.8 and the Batis 85. Alternatively, the Batis 25 (which I use as a 35) is a good option because it is easier to use than the 18.

If you can, just rent them for a day or two and try them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do take mostly landscape and cityscape shots as well and asked myself the same question about half a year ago. I decided to buy the 16-35 f4 and did not regret it so far. Just checked in Lightroom which focal length I use the most with this lens and it's pretty mixed - everything from 16 to 35mm. Obviously the Batis once are much brighter but since I do take my tripod everywhere and mostly shoot between f/8 to f/22 it hasen't been an issue for me.

 

Besides being cheaper than two Batis lenses there's another point that speaks for the zoom: You don't have to change lenses as often. That's actually something you really should consider. I do change between the Sony 16-35, 55 and 90mm regulary and am very carefull. And even though I clean my sensor regulary I almost always have to remove sensor dust in Photoshop when shooting at f/8 upwards. That's not as big of an issue with DSLRs since there's a mirror.

 

BTW: The Sony 55 f/1.8 is a great landscape lens as well. Sometimes beeing just a bit more telephoto helps the composition a lot. Especially when you're in a cluttered environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys im going to buy a A7r2 and i wonder what lenses you would

recommend for landscape photography im thinking about the ....  25 or

should i get the ... 18 

 

i would love to hear your thoughts  ;)

  

Assuming you do NOT suffer from excessive wealth, I would 

suggest the 25 cuz it's also a great general purpose FL and 

has an extra stop of speed for general use. So, you get more 

use-per-dollar that way.  

   

Another reason for 25 is to avoid beginning your landscape 

adventures with an ultrawide. I assume you're at [or near] 

the beginning cuz otherwise you'd already KNOW what FLs 

work for you.  

   

"Work for you" is the operative thing, and is why I suggest to  

avoid starting with an ultrawide. The 25 allows you to impose

your personal vision on the image. An ultrawide is less about

your personal vision cuz the lens itself imposes that cliched

"Hey lookit this ultrawide landscape" look on every scene, so

your landscapes are just clones of every other UW user's UW

landscape ... the details within the frame vary but the "look" is  

always too much the same.

 

That is my "Sage Advice". Doesn't bother me that it's almost

universally ignored ... but it costs me nothing to repeat it :-) If, 

by chance, I rescue just one person from the herd mind then I 

figger "mission accomplished" :-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I own all but one of the lenses discussed except for the Batis 18.  My favorite is the Batis 25.  Compared to the 16-35 f4, it is lighter and faster.  I have only owned the 16-35 for six months.  That ultra-wide is really handy for landscape.  And the zoom is nice for composition.  The Batis 25 is so handy when trying to capture the grand baby.  With plenty of speed (f2.0) and the wide aperture and high speed mode, you will get a useable shot.  I did enjoy the really wide aperture of the 16-35 in Europe just recently.  This shot was taken from a 100 meters of the base of the Eiffel Tower and got it all:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The geometry insists that is nowhere

near 100 meters from the base. Did 

you get that measure from the lens's 

focus scale ... most of which are very 

vague and inaccurate ... and maybe 

you read the footage scale and not 

the metric scale ?   

   

Just curious about the numbers, NOT 

knocking the image :-)  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the A7r2 and one of the first, and still most used lenses for me is the Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8.  The images have a wonderful character that is hard to describe but to my eyes are just plain beautiful and sharp.  I also have the 16-35 but that lens (at 30-35mm) isn't as sharp as the 35mm prime.  The tiny 35mm 2.8 makes a great lens to just have on the camera as it is very versatile too.  You will be amazed at how diminutive it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! I'm new here, but have been shooting with Sony quite a bit. There's a few lenses I REALLY like:

 

25mm Batis - Already mentioned here. It's an amazing lens. I love its colors, and it's sharp. Its only weakness (to me) is its vignetting. It's a fairly fast lens (not an f/1.4, but stopping down isn't needed with the Batis anyway, so on that aspect the Batis has the edge for small size compared to an f/1.4), and it does a good job for astro landscape shots, with very little coma. I have walked with the Batis quite a bit, and I found myself cropping photos. But the A7R II has a lot of pixels, and the Batis is sharp, so it makes for a handy combination. Here's a heavily cropped shot from the Batis:

 

30316136915_266d395644_k.jpg

 

35mm 2.8 - Amazing little lens. It also has really nice rendering and colors. Not as sharp as the Batis in the corners, and slower. But so nice to carry around due to its size. To me, it really makes my A7R II pocketable.

 

35mm 1.4 ART - That's an other lens I really like. I don't think its rendering is as nice as the little Sony (and I haven't tried the Sony f/1.4 so I can't compare the two). It's very sharp, and fast. At f/1.4, there is less contrast in the photo, so I prefer to use it stopped down a little. Good one for astro if, let's say, you want the Milky Way to fill out more of the frame.

 

55mm f/1.8 - A classic. Really nice lens. Whether or not that focal length works for you, I'm not sure. But I like walking around with that one, too, especially in the city.

 

Samyang 135mm - Sometimes, it's really nice to have a long lens for landscape photography, and the Samyang 135mm is an amazing lens. It's both sharp and fast, and I just really enjoy using it. Here's a landscape photo I took with the Samyang:

 

34530379592_6983375fb2_k.jpg

 

 

Now, it's often difficult to choose a fixed focal length. Most of the time, I carry at least two primes to be able to switch. Most of the time, I'll choose the Batis 25 and the Samyang, and if I bring a third lens I bring the 55mm. But recently, I've also managed to afford to buy two zooms - Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM (which I bought for photographing events), and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, which I also bought for photographing events. I think that zooms can do a really nice job for landscapes too, and it might be a good idea to get a zoom like the 16-35 or 24-70. I personally find I prefer to carry the 24-70 (I also have a Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, which is a very good lens, but I find I don't need to go that wide that often).

 

 

I hope this was useful to anyone looking to choose a landscape lens for the A7R II. Overall, I think my best recommendation would be the Zeiss Batis 25mm, but it won't suffice for all situations. On more of a budget, I wouldn't hesitate to buy Sony's 28mm f/2 and Sony's 85mm f/1.8. I think they would make a great combination to carry around, for a good price. That, or a good standard zoom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

The Eiffel Tower is 300 metres tall, so you could quite easily get a reading of 100 meters if the camera focuses somewhere up the tower. The base is also very wide, well over 100 metres, so you would have to be at some distance to get it all in.

 

The geometry insists that is nowhere

near 100 meters from the base. Did 

you get that measure from the lens's 

focus scale ... most of which are very 

vague and inaccurate ... and maybe 

you read the footage scale and not 

the metric scale ?   

   

Just curious about the numbers, NOT 

knocking the image :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

35mm has always been the normal focal length for landscape work. I have used a 105mm occasionally to create punch especially in mountain photography, and I have often used a standard 50/ 55mm lens which is by far the most common focal length. I should be careful before you go for ultra wide you can end up with very distant effects which are fine but limiting

 

Hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best suggestion I think would be to rent a lens to see how well it meets your needs. When I went on a photo shoot to Death Valley, California, I was torn between a Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16–35 mm F4 ZA OSS and a Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2 Lens for Sony E Mount. I had a Sony 55mm and a  zoom 70-200mm so I needed a wider lens.

 

Both lenses had great ratings and were similarly priced. I prefer prime lenses and the Zeiss Batis 25mm I thought had a bit more praise and sharpness than the Sony 16-35mm lens. I rented a 16-35mm Sony and took lots of photos with it. I found that I shot most of my landscapes between 20 and 25mm, and I had actually taken a photo at 16mm that showed my toes.I decided that I did not need to go below 25mm for the landscapes I wanted. I returned the rental 16-35mm lens and bought the 25mm. It has been a great addition to my collection and I am glad I spent the money to see which lens would be better for me.

 

So, my point is not give advice on which lens you should buy, but to suggest which lens to try.

 

All the best,

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hey guys im going to buy a A7r2 and i wonder what lenses you would recommend for landscape photography 

im thinking about the ZEISS Batis 2.0/25 E-Mount or should i get the ZEISS Batis 2.8/18 E-Mount

 

i would love to hear your thoughts  ;)

 

I am not sure a wide angle is the answer for landscape photography? I wouldn't go any wider than 35mm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...