Wide lens to choose

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will be going out west, Yellowstone and Grand Tetons, later in the year and originally thought 24-90 would be wide enough but I know I will regret it if I don't have something wider.  Once again I start researching and am left with tons of questions and reviews seem to be a bit all over.  So....  personal experience and recommendations would be appreciated on:  Sigma prime 14's 1.8 or 1.4, or Panasonic 18 or the zooms Leica/Sigma 14-24 or Panasonic 16-35?  I am hesitant on 14-24 just due to physical size.  Finding a bag to fit these huge lenses, 24-90, 50 lux, 100-400, has been difficult.  My old Canon 17-35 2.8 was my workhorse for many years but I am not so sure that would be the case now as I have thoroughly enjoyed the change in shooting the Q3 28 has forced on me.  That to say a zoom may not be necessary I think I may notice something slower than 2.8 although I am sure the SL3 is way better in low light than any camera I have had before.

[spydrxx]

You could get a CV 21/4 for those wide shots. I'm hesitant to recommend the CV15/4.5 Heliar which I owned for a season, not because of any defect, but because it really pushes things in the distance to really tiny. IMHO there isn't a good generic answer without knowing what you plan on shooting or what camera you will be using, and whether or not you will be using a tripod.

[ALScott]

Using SL3, may take a tripod and would 21 be too close to the 24 I have to bother with?  I would just be shooting wide shots of whatever in Yellowstone.  I am sure there will be something I will need/want a wider lens.  Plus, I have no clue what a CV lens is.... Leica is all still very new to me.  Guessing that is M mount and not quite ready to venture down that road yet, kind of hope not to but knowing myself it will probably happen somehow.

[Stuart Richardson]

I agree with spydrxx...as someone who lives in a big open landscape not dissimilar to the West, I would say the best way to make big mountains look small is to use too wide of a lens. There is always a balance to be had...wide enough to frame enough of the landscape, but not so wide as to shrink everything. In my experience, much wider than 18-20mm and landscapes start to look pretty small...also pretty unnatural. These days I rarely need any wider than 24mm, but if I did, I would probably consider an 18mm, just because with a high resolution camera you can still crop in a bit from there to get a decent focal length. I do think wide angle zooms can be useful though. Like on the tele side, it is hard to "zoom with your feet" with extreme wides or extreme telephotos. It is easier to change the focal length than to change your framing. In the normal range, a 35mm or 50mm can easily be made to have a similar framing by moving forward or back a bit, but with certain landscapes it is useful to have the ability to go from 14 to 24 or 16 to 35. Unfortunately I cannot personally speak to those lenses enough to advise which one. I think the Panasonic lenses are known to be compact and light, as are the slower Sigma wides, so they are probably both worth a look. I think a 1.4 is not really a practical aperture for extreme wide angles, not even here for the aurora (you will be on a tripod anyway).

Edited May 29, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[IkarusJohn]

I no longer have SL lenses, and I haven’t been to Yellowstone or the Grand Tetons, but I have done, and do a lot of travel and landscape photography.

I tend to chose lenses based on what I’m likely to encounter.  If the subject is reasonably close, then wides are great; for distant landscapes, I prefer a telephoto.  With image quality, size and weight to balance, I have found that one zoom, a wide and a tele works for me, or some combination.  I gave up on long zooms years ago, despit the image quality - the 90-280 is fantastic, but hopelessly huge for carrying.  I find the 24-90 also longer than I like.

What I’ve settled on in the past is a 21, the 24-90 zoom and a 180mm telephoto (often with a 2x converter).  In your shoes, I would consider the 21 APO Summicron with your 24-90 and I’d leave the long zoom behind.  Alternatively, the 16-35mm SL zoom, your 50 Summilux-SL and a 180/2.8 APO Elmarit-R (with an APO 2x converter, if you want long reach).

Sounds like a great trip.

[dpitt]

I can understand that you want to cover all that might be needed. For me, I think 24-90 would be more than wide enough. And if need be, I could always stitch a few shots together. The auto stitching in C1P is very good, even when you have the same person or car on multiple shots, it will stitch them perfectly in almost all cases.

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CV is Cosina Voigtlanfer. So M lenses with an adaptor. The ones mentioned are exceptional but manual focus. But if you want small....

You have many many options in L mount wides. I suppose it comes down to how much you'll use the lens. For me, the bigger the landscape, the longerthe lens. Anything wider than 20mm can really shrink a big landscape. But I still like to have one available.

My go to as the best lens to match the 24-90 is the 14-24. There's no reason to spend more on the Leica version. The Sigma is an Art and fully sealed. Filters are an issue but other than that it's superb. Good corners wide open and no wasted overlap. You likely wont tell any IQ difference to the 24=90. For a lightweight option the Panasonic 14-28 would be my choice. Not quite at the level of the 14-24 but makes nice files. I like it at f8 a lot. And it's 350 grams.

In primes the Sigma I DGDN primes are hard to go past. You could esily add the 17 and 20mm options. Optics are excellent and they're lovely to use. Relatively basic weather sealing is the only criticism. I haven't been to Yellowstone but the Tetons likely won't need a super wide. I'd probably opt for the 17mm Sigma for occasional use in closed in areas.

Generally I take either the 14-24 or a Sigma prime or two. I would like Panasonic to make a better 20-60. I have the current one and it's OK. I use it for city wandering. But It's not quite there for landscapes and big prints. Something closer to the Sony 20-70 would be nice. I'm also goinf to try the V2 of the Sigma 24-70 as a 24-90 alternative for walking trips.

Gordon

[LeicaR10]

ALScott,  I have done quite a bit of landscape photography in the American west over the many decades to include Grand Tetons and Yellowstone National Parks.  I used the R, S, SL and M systems in those areas.  As the previous posts mention, the suggestions from Stuart Richardson, IkarusJohn and Dpitt are quite valid and helpful.  I would suggest you consider a SL 21, keep your SL 24-90 to use there.  The latter lens will be the most useful by far based on my experience and results.  Have fun and most certainly take bear spray with you should you go hiking.  Last week a momma grizzly bear got a hiker near Signal Mtn in Grand Tetons....the bear spray saved him...quite by accident too.  r/ Mark

[ALScott]

Wow!!!  This is so helpful. Thank you all. This will be my first foray into any kind of landscape photography.  Never had any interest before but I do now.  I was thinking I need a wild angle in situations like being close to say a geyser or springs and wanting to get as much of it as possible not shooting the mountains or general landscapes,  24-90 should be good for that.  I got the 100-400 and 1.4x for animal shots on the trip and sports at home. The 100-400 has already proven itself too!  I think I may need to sign up for a landscape photo course.  I am not sure news photography preps someone for that well. 

Edited May 29, 2024 by ALScott

[JohnSantaF4]

22 hours ago, ALScott said:

I will be going out west, Yellowstone and Grand Tetons, later in the year and originally thought 24-90 would be wide enough but I know I will regret it if I don't have something wider.  Once again I start researching and am left with tons of questions and reviews seem to be a bit all over.  So....  personal experience and recommendations would be appreciated on:  Sigma prime 14's 1.8 or 1.4, or Panasonic 18 or the zooms Leica/Sigma 14-24 or Panasonic 16-35?  I am hesitant on 14-24 just due to physical size.  Finding a bag to fit these huge lenses, 24-90, 50 lux, 100-400, has been difficult.  My old Canon 17-35 2.8 was my workhorse for many years but I am not so sure that would be the case now as I have thoroughly enjoyed the change in shooting the Q3 28 has forced on me.  That to say a zoom may not be necessary I think I may notice something slower than 2.8 although I am sure the SL3 is way better in low light than any camera I have had before.

I love the detail, color rendition and handling of my LUMIX S Pro 16-35 for landscape and wide cityscapes. The 24-90 won’t be enough for the majesty of those two parks and the American West in general. Have a great time.

[dpitt]

5 hours ago, JohnSantaF4 said:

I love the detail, color rendition and handling of my LUMIX S Pro 16-35 for landscape and wide cityscapes. The 24-90 won’t be enough for the majesty of those two parks and the American West in general. Have a great time.

If you are really into ultra wides, I can understand. I do not own both lenses, and maybe I am not that much into ultra wide. From what I see online, I am afraid that if I would have a SL 24-90 with me, the Lumix would be only used for the 16-19 mm. 21 mm is too close to 24mm and the range of the excellent 24-90. Also, I think that I would appreciate having the shots wider than 24mm, but that I would also wish they would have the same IQ as the ones taken with the 24-90. 

As an example, this is a shot taken with the Summicron v3 on my APSC TL2. (50mm eq.) 
It was the only lens that I had with me.
I think C1P stitched the 2 portrait shots perfectly. This is roughly equivalent to 35mm.
Two portrait shots with 24mm would result in around 18mm...and you do not have to stop with 2. 
Three shots will make a very high resolution 16-9 format ultra wide.

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!

 

[J.C.T.]

In addition to the most helpful suggestions above, I used an ND filter on my 24-90 during my trip to the Grand Canyon. In the absence of an ND filter, a good polarizer would be great too. 

[GFW2-SCUSA]

I would like to suggest you consider renting for the trip. Lensrental rents a Sigma 14-24mm for 7 days for $72.00. a Leica 14-24 for $118. and a bunch of others. You use it and send it back and your out of pocket expense is minimal.  Also, I was thinking you might look over Mr. Ansel Adams amazing pictures and see what focal lengths he used (converting 8X10 to 35mm) to get a visual idea.  A fun exercise if nothing else. 

I envy your trip! 

[ALScott]

On 6/1/2024 at 3:17 PM, J.C.T. said:

In addition to the most helpful suggestions above, I used an ND filter on my 24-90 during my trip to the Grand Canyon. In the absence of an ND filter, a good polarizer would be great too. 

What does an ND filter do?  Never used any filters. 

[ALScott]

2 hours ago, GFW2-SCUSA said:

I would like to suggest you consider renting for the trip. Lensrental rents a Sigma 14-24mm for 7 days for $72.00. a Leica 14-24 for $118. and a bunch of others. You use it and send it back and your out of pocket expense is minimal.  Also, I was thinking you might look over Mr. Ansel Adams amazing pictures and see what focal lengths he used (converting 8X10 to 35mm) to get a visual idea.  A fun exercise if nothing else. 

I envy your trip! 

This is a fantastic idea!!!!  Thank you. I have been out of the game for so long I didn’t that was so easily available. 

[LeicaR10]

ALScott,   Here is a link to Breakthrough Filters that explains Neutral Density filters.  I use these filters for landscape photography.  These are excellent, color neutral filters. This should answer your question in your Post #14.  r/ Mark

Try:  https://breakthrough.photography/pages/nd-buying-guide

Edited June 11, 2024 by LeicaR10

[spydrxx]

ND (neutral density) filters essentially reduce the ISO of your film or sensor. They may be useful on very bright days when you don't want to stop down your diaphragm into the diffraction zone.

[J.C.T.]

3 hours ago, ALScott said:

What does an ND filter do?  Never used any filters. 

@LeicaR10 is spot on. The link is also most useful. I use the Breakthrough filters on my SL lenses; they are excellently made. 

[ALScott]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:41 PM, GFW2-SCUSA said:

I would like to suggest you consider renting for the trip. Lensrental rents a Sigma 14-24mm for 7 days for $72.00. a Leica 14-24 for $118. and a bunch of others. You use it and send it back and your out of pocket expense is minimal.  Also, I was thinking you might look over Mr. Ansel Adams amazing pictures and see what focal lengths he used (converting 8X10 to 35mm) to get a visual idea.  A fun exercise if nothing else. 

I envy your trip! 

I checked out Ansel Adams focal lengths and based on what I found none were even close to "wide".  That said, I know there will be some things where I can get very close and probably limited by park rules and paths to only being close so I will need or want something wider than the 24-90.  I am working some deals on the 16-35 and the 14-24, how they pan out will determine what I get.  I favor the 16-35 as the Canon 17-35 was my workhorse for many years but I am torn because it's not a constant 2.8 and my old Canon L was.  I wish I had the data but I would guess I used it at 2.8 more than any other aperture thus why I am really torn between it and the 14-24.  Plus, I do want the option to start using ND filters and the 14-24 looks to be miserable for that.

Edited June 21, 2024 by ALScott

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lightsourcekauai]

On 6/11/2024 at 1:19 PM, ALScott said:

Never used any filters.

In Yellowstone, around the Geyers, please use a Polarizer or UV filter. The sulfuric spray from the Geysers can eat away at the coatings on the lenses. 

And as others have mentioned, these landscapes are BIG so a wide angle lens is not always desired. Often wide angles lenses are used to get very close to a subject, giving it the appearance of being larger than it is or giving the viewer the sense of being "right there." While in mountainous and open landscapes of vast distances, compression is your friend. Your 100-400 will be useful for landscapes. And I would even argue that the VE 90-280 APO would be more useful in these locations than say my 21 APO SL. Have fun. These are amazing locations. I look forward to the images you get here. Some of the most beautiful and inspiring places on the planet and well worth sharing and protecting for others and future generations.