Do you really need a mid-range zoom for Landscape?

I currently own the terrific Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 that I use on my D700. Problem is, I hardly put it on my camera. Currently been shooting birds and shots of the kids at the beach but the lens that I have mounted for these shots is the 70-200 f/2.8. Currently looking to go with the 17-35 for super wide and wide angle landscapes and then going with the 50 mm f/1.4G for my indoor family shots. Unless, there is a real need for a mid-range zoom for landscape work I'm tempted to sell it since I can get almost as much today as I paid for it 10 months ago.

So, after all that verbage, do I really need a mid-range zoom for landscape photography?

I think it depends on where you are and how you shoot. I do about 90% of my landscape shooting with one, only putting on something wider or longer when the situation really calls for it. Boats and strokes, and all that I guess.

Glenn-

I find that the mid range zoom is rarely used now. Working on a crop sensor 50D I find that I use either the 10-20 or the 70-200 99% of the time. My 17-50 now site on my XTi and actually sees most of it's use when I am running two cameras during night photography rather than regular use on the 50D.

It's not that it is not useful, but I find I can do or prefer to do most images with the other two.

So it is one less lens to carry.

It totally depends on what you're shooting. Typically I carry a 16-35, 24-105, and 70-200, but many trips go by that I never use my 24-105. If I'm shooting forests or intimate abstracts, however, that's typically my go to lens. What I find most useful about it is that if I'm working in the 24-100 range, while much of that is covered by the 16-35 and 70-200 (especially when you consider stitching), it becomes really annoying and hampering of my creativity to have to switch constantly. So, in short, if I were you I'd keep something midrange around just so you don't lock yourself out of those opportunities. A 50mm prime might be a good way to do it, and in fact before I had my 24-105 that's what I did, but I ended up liking the flexibility.

I use the Canon 24-105 as an all around landscape lens. It can get down to the wider angles but also pull in a lot with the 105 end. Since I'm not out there looking for bambi, thumper, and bluebirds I really don't need the longer range capacity as much. But, with my 50D and its cropped sensor the 24mm lower end can't do justice to those close-in settings so I do carry the 10-22 for those situations. It's light enough to go along without breaking my back--Larry

The real question is whether your vision is versatile enough to take advantage of these focal lengths. Great landscape images can be made with any lens. If you see an obvious lack of images at a given spot - you know where you need to improve.

For the heck of it, I just entered focal length data from the last few years into Excel to see how my own work is distributed and this is what it looks like.

Guy

Damn Guy, I don't know if I should bust on you or praise the hell out you. I guess if I knew you I'd probably bust on you Seriously though this is a very cool graph and I'm sure very enlightening. Oddly enough as I look at your work it totally fits. I would like to see the range of focal lengths assigned to each category, ie what's considered wide normal vs. normal?

Bust away, Kurt

I'm sure there are better ways to group things that will result in a more meaningful distribution but this is what I used:

Ultrawide: Under 24mm
Wide: 24mm-35mm
Wide Normal: 35mm-45mm
Normal: 45mm-70mm
Long Normal: 70mm-150mm
Short Tele: 150mm-200mm
Long Tele: Over 200mm

Guy

That's about what I would have expected for the distribution.

Not that I plan to do this with my own images (after all I have a life ) but I'd be curious if this distribution would hold up if done on a per year basis or if there would be swings that were biased toward one range of focal lengths for a year or two and then shifted toward another range. I know personally I've tended to focus more on finding wide angle comps the past year or so as opposed to the intimate stuff I tended to focus on 5 years ago.

I wonder how much the purchase of a new lens would effect this distribution in the year it was acquired, gotta play with the new toys.

All great questions and I'd love to do this analysis but alas, I have a life too
This took me 10 minutes to throw together. I used Adobe Bridge to count the files (click on a group of focal lengths in the filter tab and it will show you the number of matching images on the status bar). It covers a couple of thousand images made over a ~2 year period. There's no way I'm doing this for my film images...

Guy

Thanks for all the help guys. Guess I'm still somewhat in a quandry but will keep the lens for now. My lovely wife has my D80 and I guess we'll continue to use that for the everyday photos, since everything is in jpeg. Since I shoot raw exclusively on the D700 it just isn't worth the hassle to do post processing on the kids. They look pretty no matter how bad the photographer!

Thanks Again Glenn

Forgot to mention that the reason for all this churn is that looks as though I will be moving back to the Pacific NW from Florida, due to what my wife refers too as my overly demanding career. Since we are both native Oregonians looking forward to the scenery again, ergo my interest in landscape and lens selection.

I spent 2 1/2 weeks shooting landscapes in Oregon and Washington last month. I shot from overlooks, on the beach, at a lavender farm, waterfalls, in the forest and in the mountains. I have three lenses in my bag: 14-24, 24-70 and 80-400, with a D700 (plus a 200mm macro). I used the 24-70 roughly half the time, I'd guess, with the other two lenses roughly splitting the remaining shots more or less equally, less perhaps 5% at most of the shots with the macro lens.

It's certainly dependent somewhat on where you typically shoot--assuming there is a "typically" for you--but I honestly can't imagine not having access to a lens that covers the "normal" focal length range.

Kerry,

How do you like the 14-24 for landscapes? Do you use it with any kind of filters?

Vr, Glenn

I like Guy's chart. I am suprised more folks have not done that. I have Excelled them but never for focal length. Now I have something new to consider........

My guess is I will find 50-70% done with my widest lens in any format. And most imges toward the widest end of any zoom.

A comment the other direction might be that maybe I do wider and longer but skip the middle distance is that I still tote my 4x5 around. With it I have three lenses -75mm, 125mm, and 210mm. That is roughly equal to 24mm, 35mm, and 60mm if you convert it to full frame DSLR. So basically it covers the middle ground and I can go wider and longer with the DSLR.

Hi Glenn,

I use three lenses predominately for my landscape work; 17-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. The former and latter are my more preferred lenses in the last couple of months but my 28-70mm f/2.8 has been a workhorse for me during the last two years especially with my travel images. If I got shot of it, it would be for the newer 24-70mm f/2.8 .

I think the best thing to do is to sell the lenses you don't use. Buying is based on projected use. But actual "need" is what really happens.
I seldom use a near normal lens for landscape, but I will always want a general purpose zoom for a 35mm camera).
My main three landscape zooms for Canon 5DII: Nikon 14-24, Contax 35-70, and Canon 70-200/4 IS. My "grab" camera has the Canon 24-105.

How do you like the 14-24 for landscapes? Do you use it with any kind of filters?

Glenn, I've been happy with it. I've been using it since the tail end of last year, when I moved to full frame. It's subject, of course to the kind of optical distortion that all super wides face, so you have to live with it, watch the camera tilt or be prepared to deal with post-processing correction (I've done all three at various times). In any event, it's a remarkably sharp lens.

I don't use any filters with it. Screw-ins, of course, are out and I really didn't want to get involved with rigging up something with a specialty filter holder. It's doable, but it means hauling more gear around and you still face the possibility of vignetting at particularly wide focal lengths. I've resorted to blending and/or HDR with scenes were a GND might work and living without a polarizer (which would only cover part of the field of view anyway) with this lens. I figure if I really need a polarizing filter, the 24-70/2.8 will essentially always suffice. So far, that's proven to be the case.

Guy is correct, "Great landscape images can be made with any lens".

Two of my most popular images were made with 700mm and 14mm focal lengths. NEVER let your lenses limit your vision. You should be seeing scenes as finished prints in your head, and then using the appropriate lens to create the image you see.

Equipment is all secondary to your vision. A good photographer can make a great image with any camera and lens.

In past years I have done about 90% of my landscapes with one as well.

Mark