Jump to content

M9 Landscapes.... 24 or 28


Studio58

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having perused the thread which asked the question of whether the M9 is a serious landscape camera, my question is:

Which lens would perform that task better out of the 24/28. And which version of the 24 is better at it. Yes on the one hand 1.4 is very nice, but design considerations can sometimes lead to a compromise in image quality relative to the lenses with smaller apertures, eg, F2.8 F3.8. In this case, maybe the 2.8 is the best choice ?

Your thoughts are most wellcome :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Having perused the thread which asked the question of whether the M9 is a serious landscape camera, my question is:

Which lens would perform that task better out of the 24/28. And which version of the 24 is better at it. Yes on the one hand 1.4 is very nice, but design considerations can sometimes lead to a compromise in image quality relative to the lenses with smaller apertures, eg, F2.8 F3.8. In this case, maybe the 2.8 is the best choice ?

Your thoughts are most wellcome :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to me to be an impossible question to answer, as it depends wholly on the framing you need. Many excellent landscape shots have been taken with (extreme) wideangles, but equally good ones by 90, 135 or even longer lenses.

 

In general, if one takes a single wideangle lens, the 24 would be the most universal I think, enabling both strong wideangle effects, and with a different perspective "normal" photography, even the occasional portrait.

 

The discontinued 24/2.8 is a superior lens to render fine details like foliage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to me to be an impossible question to answer, as it depends wholly on the framing you need. Many excellent landscape shots have been taken with (extreme) wideangles, but equally good ones by 90, 135 or even longer lenses.

 

In general, if one takes a single wideangle lens, the 24 would be the most universal I think, enabling both strong wideangle effects, and with a different perspective "normal" photography, even the occasional portrait.

 

The discontinued 24/2.8 is a superior lens to render fine details like foliage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You certainly don't need an f1.4 for landscapes.

 

What sort of landscapes do you want to shoot? Some of my favourites have been shot with a 90mmm and others with a 28, both on full frame. One lens doesn't usually fit-all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You certainly don't need an f1.4 for landscapes.

 

What sort of landscapes do you want to shoot? Some of my favourites have been shot with a 90mmm and others with a 28, both on full frame. One lens doesn't usually fit-all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

very true regarding the 1.4 considering a feature in many landscapes is the exploitation of max DOF. Of course this is not always the case.

Obviously a wide view can look fantastic at a focal range much wider than the two mentioned. However, if one were to choose between the 24/28 which/why etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

very true regarding the 1.4 considering a feature in many landscapes is the exploitation of max DOF. Of course this is not always the case.

Obviously a wide view can look fantastic at a focal range much wider than the two mentioned. However, if one were to choose between the 24/28 which/why etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What other lenses do you have?

 

I have a 35 and a couple of 50s for my Ms, but I do go to 28 in R. 28 is too close to the 35, to bother with an M in that focal length, for me, so I would go with a 24, personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What other lenses do you have?

 

I have a 35 and a couple of 50s for my Ms, but I do go to 28 in R. 28 is too close to the 35, to bother with an M in that focal length, for me, so I would go with a 24, personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, well the three lenses I now have are all Crons. In my case F2.0 is sufficient, particulary when you consider that most of the Canon L's I was using had a max aperture of 2.8 anyway, F2 is a luxury :). For the intended purpose, 3.8 would suit the need unless the 2.8 is markedly better. In which case I would find a second hand unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, well the three lenses I now have are all Crons. In my case F2.0 is sufficient, particulary when you consider that most of the Canon L's I was using had a max aperture of 2.8 anyway, F2 is a luxury :). For the intended purpose, 3.8 would suit the need unless the 2.8 is markedly better. In which case I would find a second hand unit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the M9?

 

As already said, it is an impossible question. I have shot some of my most popular "landscapes" with a 50 or even a 90mm lens. I have a 28mm on my Nikon via a Leitax adaptor, and a 15 CV on my Ms. The 15 can render some stultifyingly boring results unless you fill the foreground, but the same is true of any wideangle lens.

 

It depends what you want to achieve.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the M9?

 

As already said, it is an impossible question. I have shot some of my most popular "landscapes" with a 50 or even a 90mm lens. I have a 28mm on my Nikon via a Leitax adaptor, and a 15 CV on my Ms. The 15 can render some stultifyingly boring results unless you fill the foreground, but the same is true of any wideangle lens.

 

It depends what you want to achieve.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...