Full frame landscape options

[nwhc]

Hi Canon users.

Looking at a wide lens for my 5D mkII, would like a fast lens aswell as im enjoying shooting the stars at the minute.

So far i have found.

canon 16-35 2.8
samyang 14mm 2.8

What other options are out there being used?

any help would be great.

cheers

[Warus]

The 17-40 is a pretty popular combo with the 5D for landscape work although it isn't a 2.8. I have heard lots of good things about the 16-35 though as well.

[nwhc]

Thanks Warus, Yeah if i didn't want to play with the stars that would definitely be an option is looks good value for money.

[I @ M]

What other options are out there being used?



Available in Canon mount are the Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 and 17-35 F/4 (http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/) . Although we are not Canon users, we have found the 16-28 to be a very handy landscape lens (plus other uses) at a reasonable price.

[Roosta]

I was on the crux of buying the Tokina 11 - 16 mm F2.8 for my 50D, but ended up with the Sigma instead, as I didn't really need the F2.8 for what I shoot. I have used the 16 - 28 and nothing but great results with it (Golden Hour Landscapes though)

But you could try here (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/products/Tokina-16%252d28mm-F%7B47%7D2.8-ATX-Pro-FX-Zoom-Lens-for-Nikon-DSLR-Camera.html).

And this (http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Press-Release/Tokina-AT-X-16-28mm-f-2.8-PRO-FX-Lens.aspx).

They always seem to rate very highly, as on dpreview.com as well

[arthurking83]

An important point that needs to be reiterated again as to the benefits of having an f/2.8 aperture lens.

It's not just about using this wide open aperture value to get shallow DOF and other such obvious endeavours.
There's also the major benefit of having a brighter viewfinder and/or liveview image to help in setting up the frame too.

smaller aperture lenses don't allow the same image brightness through to the viewer as do larger aperture lenses, and this can be important in some situations ;)
(ie. as in shooting astro landscapes).

Of course the advantage of shooting at f/2.8 compared to f/4 at infinity is also a bonus .. once again especially for subject matter such as starfields.

[nwhc]

Cheers, They dont seem to have the full frame tokina in stock, but ill look into it.

I already have the 24-105 at F4 so i would really like the step up to 2.8 for my basic astro shots.

[harmo]

The zooms mentioned above are great, I've found the 16-35 2.8L II to be a very nice lens to work with. Some minor issues with flare, but I'm very happy with it.

[Roosta]

Cheers, They dont seem to have the full frame tokina in stock, but ill look into it.

I already have the 24-105 at F4 so i would really like the step up to 2.8 for my basic astro shots.

Can also try here (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/astore/Tokina-Lenses.aspx#) mate.

[nwhc]

Thanks Roosta not sure if im blind but i cant see the full frame canon option anywhere.

I have just spent 5 minutes over at 500px looking through the samyang 14mm pics its gets more and more tempting each time.

[mikec]

I really rate my 16-35, the hood is a complete pain in the butt to pack but other than that I can't fault it. Be perpared for buying into 82mm circular and 100mm wide square filters though.

[Roosta]

Thanks Roosta not sure if im blind but i cant see the full frame canon option anywhere.

I have just spent 5 minutes over at 500px looking through the samyang 14mm pics its gets more and more tempting each time.

From that link, in the last 4 lenses, there's 3 FX lenses, if you click on "More Info" and you can select Camera Mount, they're all Canon mount available.

[nwhc]

I really rate my 16-35, the hood is a complete pain in the butt to pack but other than that I can't fault it. Be perpared for buying into 82mm circular and 100mm wide square filters though.

Cheers Mike, it does look like the pick of the bunch I just need to justify the outlay!

Thanks Roosta found it not sure how i missed that :2abnor:

[Dwarak]

I would not recommend anything other than cannon lens I previously owned the canon 17-40 f4 which is a fantastic lens I then got the 16-35 f 2.8 II found out that flaring is an issue with this lens even if I place the tripod low near the ground other wise the focussing is quiet fast the focussing ring is smooth for manual focussing the other ultra wide is the 14mm f2.8 l very very sharp but cannot use any filters with it due to the curvature of the front element.

[nwhc]

I would not recommend anything other than cannon lens I previously owned the canon 17-40 f4 which is a fantastic lens I then got the 16-35 f 2.8 II found out that flaring is an issue with this lens even if I place the tripod low near the ground other wise the focussing is quiet fast the focussing ring is smooth for manual focussing the other ultra wide is the 14mm f2.8 l very very sharp but cannot use any filters with it due to the curvature of the front element.

Cheers Dwarak,

I would love to be able to grab the canon but spending that much for a hobby at the minute is a bit steep, especially now i just bought another gopro :2smile:
I will wait until after xmas now and see how much money i can find.

[roastman]

I have the Canon 17-40 and am really happy with it, but if you need f2.8 it is not for you.... As a general landscape lens, I am really happy with it, but I don't know what the requirements of astro photography are, so I am not qualified to comment on your particular use. From the posts above, it appears to be useless for shooting the stars, but it is awfully nice for shooting landscapes :2smile:

[William W]

Looking at a wide lens for my 5D mkII, would like a fast lens as well as im enjoying shooting the stars at the minute. So far i have found: canon 16-35 2.8; samyang 14mm 2.8. What other options are out there being used?

What does “shooting the stars” mean, exactly?
Because you specifically mention wanting 'a fast lens', I shall assume you are wanting to shoot nightscapes showing celestial detail.


Then, the 24mm F/1.4 L MkII is the ultimate solution; more budget conscious, the EF28F/1.8, is a good alternative choice.

Using either of the F/2.8 lenses you mentioned for this type of work, will be pushing the ISO very high and / or necessitate the use of an Equatorial Mount: but that can only be used if no foreground is to be included in the shot.

For this type of nightscape work a fast and wide Prime Lens is essential.

WW

[Dwarak]

I second William on the primes 24mm is quiet wide for full frame camera I am myself leaning towards the primes the 24mm L f 1.4 ii is probably one of the best lens canon has made I am planning on selling the 16-35 and getting the prime lens myself.

[Danger09]

I'm looking for a canon 16-35 mm lens for my girlfriend where is the best place and obviously good price?? can someone assist me I need it ASAP I leave for the northern lights 10th jan...


This is my first post on here so forgive me if I'm a noob.:2smile:

[ricktas]

I'm looking for a canon 16-35 mm lens for my girlfriend where is the best place and obviously good price?? can someone assist me I need it ASAP I leave for the northern lights 10th jan...


This is my first post on here so forgive me if I'm a noob.:2smile:

Good price, do you mean CHEAP. Remember that many online stores that are cheap do not stock the items, and only order them in when you place your order, thus your chances of getting it before you leave on the 10th reduce. I would just go to Sydney and buy it off the shelf from one of the stores if needed by a set date. Yes you can order online, but do you want to risk going without the lens cause it hasn't arrived, or pay a bit more and get it. Note that I also edited your post and removed your reference to a particular store (read the site rules, in particular 3-7).

Also you do not tell us which camera you have, this is a FULL FRAME lens discussion thread, and therefore the info in here may not be relevant to you. If you have a crop sensor camera, look at the Sigma 10-20 as 16mm is not really that wide on a crop sensor.

I also hope we get to see some of your photography and advice to other members soon as well. AP is about GIVING back to other members, as well as getting the advice you need.

[Steve Axford]

There's always the Canon 14mm f2.8. It's a superb lens, but it takes some practice to get good pictures from it. You also have to give up any thought of filters (no big deal in my opinion). I think it should be the best for stars as it is certainly the best for daytime sky photos.

[dulvariprestige]

Steve there are now filter systems for these UWA lenses, http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/08/23/fotodiox-introduces-new-wonderpana-filter-system-for-professional-photographers-and-cinematographers/

[nwhc]

thanks for the discussion and points everyone.

The 24 1.4 would be great!

This is how i see it in my head.

Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm should give me around 55 sec using the 600 rule before i start to see any movement in the stars, sounds too good to be true. So 55 sec @ 2.8 with 1600 iso could be good?

with the 24mm i would have 25 sec @ 1.4.

How much extra light would the 1.4 be letting in then the 2.8? would it be enough to beat the extra 30 secs of exposure @ 2.8?

[William W]

. . . Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm should give me around 55 sec using the 600 rule before i start to see any movement in the stars, sounds too good to be true. So 55 sec @ 2.8 with 1600 iso could be good?
with the 24mm i would have 25 sec @ 1.4.
How much extra light would the 1.4 be letting in [than] the 2.8?
would it be enough to beat the extra 30 secs of exposure @ 2.8?

Your mathematics is in error.

If you have a sky’s light, which gives you an exposure of: F/2.8 @ 55secs @ ISO1600, then using an F/1.4 Lens you can use:

F/1.4 @ 11secs @ ISO1600 ≡ F/1.4 @ 23secs @ ISO800 ≡ F/2 @ 23secs @ ISO1600.

The above three exposures are all within “The 600 Rule for Astrophotography” for a 24mm lens on a 135 Format camera.

An F/1.4 lens will allow 2 Stops more light than an F/2.8 Lens.

If you are asking about expected exposures – my expectation is you could be using ISO around ISO800~400, possibly ISO200 with a 24mm F/1.4 Lens.

WW

[nwhc]

Thanks William,

I have only dabbled with star photography and did not realise the F stop played a factor in the exposure time i thought it was only the focal length.

Do you have any links to helpful formulas for this stuff?

Cheers

[William W]

OK.

Just like in all Photography there are THREE exposure parameters:
Aperture
Shutter Speed
Sensitivity (ISO)

Making Photos of Stars or the Night Sky is nothing special in this regard – we still have the same interrelationship of these three Exposure Parameters – once we know the exposure we can increase one and we need to decrease another . . . and so on.

The reason I suggested a 24/1.4L if you wanted to make Photos of the Night Sky WITHOUT Star Trails, is because it is the fastest / widest Lens which Canon manufactures.
And the reasons we want the fastest lens is so we can use the shortest SHUTTER SPEED – i.e. to make a shutter speed shorter or as short as the “600 Rule” AND ALSO we want to use the LOWEST ISO possible, so we get the finest detail and least noticeable noise.

For Shooting Night Skies (without Star Trails) the EF24F/1.4L MkII is an exceptional lens and can certainly be used wide open (i.e. at F/1.4) to allow the leverage of both the Shutter Speed and the ISO.
So that is why I recommended a very fast lens

Also I recommended a PRIME LENS, not only because we cannot get a zoom lens as fast as F/1.4 or F/1.8 – but ALSO because there are (mostly always) less complicated optics in a Prime Lens, than a Zoom Lens. When making images of bright objects on dark backgrounds there is always the possibility of general LENS FLARE and more often a special type of flare known as GHOST IMAGES.
As a general comment, there is more chance of Ghost Images with a Zoom Lens than with a Prime Lens.
Also, in respect of reducing the likelihood of any type of Flare - you should REMOVE any filters for these Night Shots and also use a Lens Hood.
Lens hood – brings us to the next (minor) reason for using a Prime Lens and not a zoom – becase the lens hoods on Zoom Lenses are only at their maximum efficiency at the widest angle of the zoom’s compass.
And by definition (for example comparing the 16 to 35/2.8 to the 24/1.4) at FL= 16mm the zoom lens’s hood will NOT be as effective as the 24/1.4 lens’s hood – nor will the Zoom lens's hood be anywhere as effective at FL =24mm as will the Prime lens’s hood.

As for detailed guides to this particular Genre of Photography, all the foregone information has come out of my head: it is just what I know and what I teach – mainly all my references are hard copy or my own notes gathered over many years; so I don’t have any particular web-links to share with you – and I don’t use web-links as first source information much at all anyway – as much of the information is not referenced or footnoted.

You might search the library on this forum – it has some very good articles but I don’t know if there are any specifically on this topic.
And (if it is allowed to mention) other useful information could be found at ‘Cambridge in Colour’ as that forum has a very good library – I only know that because I have been asked to proof-read some of it before it was published. Also one of my Students has previously mentioned ‘Luminous Landscape’ and I have checked some of those articles my student inquired about and they were of an high standard – but again I don’t know their inventory of articles.

Apropos Photographers: Colin Southern is a friend and colleague of mine, who shots Night Landscapes, but he is not so much into Star Scapes – but notwithstanding those facts, he has written a few articles and you might look there also.

BUT – in my opinion – the greatest joy is experimenting yourself and with a digital camera like the EOS 5DMkII, the cost of making mistakes is very small, it is really only your time and a using up a few shutter releases and a very slight drain on your camera’s battery . . . so my best advice is to get out there and make some mistakes – review and ask some questions – work out what went wrong and what went right and get back out there and make some better photographs . . . and so it goes on.

WW

[nwhc]

Thanks William thats really helpful