Tag Archives: IS

Equipment, Ideas, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I)

33 Comments

(NOTES: This article has been updated periodically since its original publication, including a more significant update in 2019. And, yes, there is a Part II.)

A recent discussion got me thinking once again about another “myth” of landscape photography, namely that [i]some lenses are appropriate for landscape photography and other lenses are not[/i]. There are several such myths, including but not limited to the following aspects: focal lengths, zooms versus primes, maximum apertures, expense, etc. While I could have a lot of fun (or not!) starting with the zoom/prime question, I have saved that for Part II. (Short preview: I think that “zooms or primes?” may be the wrong question, the image quality implications are not as simple as you might think, and I use both… but tend more and more to rely on zooms.)

Instead, I’ll start with…

Focal Length

The trigger for this was a discussion of the suitability of a certain type of lens for landscape photography. I had made a point concerning a 85mm prime that I sometimes used, and the other party disagreed with my perspective. Several rebuttals to my thinking were offered, but the one offered as a sort of trump card was that using a 85mm lens for landscape is an inappropriate choice, and one should use a wide-angle zoom like a 16-35mm lens.

While many landscape photographers know better, especially those who have done this for a while, it is surprising how many folks assume it to be accepted wisdom that proper landscape photography is done with ultra-wide to perhaps normal focal length lenses, and that the first and perhaps only lens that a landscape photographer would want would be such a lens. (Again, I’m not getting into the prime v. zoom question here – I’ll save that fun topic for a later post. :-)

In my view, the best answer to the “what focal length is best for landscape?” question is the focal length that works best for the photograph I am making right now. My current kit, based on full frame DSLR bodies, covers focal lengths from 16mm to 400mm — technically 560mm if I add a 1.4x TC. While I frequently work with less than the full kit (when backpacking, for example), when I’m not constrained by weight or other limitations I carry lenses to cover this full range and typically use most or all of them. What follows is an overview of some of the lenses I use, accompanied by some photographic examples and a bit of explanation. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Landscape Photography Lenses’ (Part I) →

Commentary, Equipment

New Canon Instant Rebates on Lenses

4 Comments

It looks like new rebates are available on Canon lenses, at least via B&H Photo/Video. Given the recent increases in Canon lens list prices, this may be a good opportunity to save some money on that lens you have been waiting for. The list of eligible lenses includes some very popular ones.

If you are ready to spend over $5000 on a 200mm f/2 lens (!) you can save $500. Many other lenses offer instant rebates in the $100-$150 range with some less-expensive lenses offering smaller rebates. Lenses available under this offer include:

Equipment, Tests

An Example of Corner Performance on the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Leave a comment

Sample24105f16Corner.jpg
I’m taking the opportunity to use the photograph I posted earlier today to illustrate a couple of technical points about equipment and technique. Here is a 100% magnification 400 x 400 pixel crop from the far upper corner of the photograph.

Not much to look at, but that isn’t the point. At this resolution, you are looking at what would be a small section from a print that is four or five feet wide. Before I explain why I think this is important, some technical information about the image: Canon 5D, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, 2.5 second exposure, f/16, focus point was on the foreground tree seen in the full image (e.g. – perhaps 50 feet closer than the subject of this test image), IS disabled, tripod, mirror lockup, remote release.

Some doubt the ability of this particular lens to produce sharp images. This sample challenges lens performance in a number of ways: it is a very low contrast image, the crop is from the far corner of the frame, the crop is not in the focus plane of the photograph, at f/16 the effects of diffraction blur should be just visible at this magnification.

With all of that context in mind, this cropped sample represents quite good performance. This section of the image would be very sharp, indeed, in a print at 16″ x 24″.

This photograph is not in the public domain. It may not be used on websites, blogs, or in any other media without explicit advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment, Ideas, Technique

Wide Angle Lenses and Image Stabilization

Leave a comment

I often hear people claim that image-stabilization is only of value on normal to long focal length lenses, and is not useful on wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses.

The photograph posted earlier today was shot handheld on a full frame DSLR at 1/25 second at ISO 800 and 32mm. (32mm on full frame is equivalent to using a 20mm focal length on a 1.6x cropped sensor body.)

I had just finished a session of tripod-based landscape shooting on the summit of this dome, had packed up, and was heading down when the lone hiker crossed the ridgeline below me just as some lovely post-sunset light gently illuminated the landscape. Having no time to set up a tripod – hiker and light would have been gone by then – I dropped everything, pulled the camera with image-stabilized 24-105mm lens from the pack, made some quick seat-of-the-pants exposure calculations, and got of three quick frames before the scene was gone. Without IS I simply would not have gotten a usable version of this photograph – a photograph that has since been licensed for use in a print journal.

Even as one who often shoots from a tripod – and almost always carries one – I have found the notion that IS has no value at shorter focal lengths to be a myth not born out in actual practice.