# Landscape-Focal lengt?



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 4, 2016)

Hello colleagues,

Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.

I want to prepare for landscape photography. I got two questions at the moment:

[list type=decimal]
[*]What focal length do you use for landscape? I got a 17-50 EX 2.8 sigma on my 7Dmk2. (27-80mm equivalent)
[*]I don't want to spend any extra money. Is the 1000€ worth the IQ/DR upgrade to a 6D considering i also have to buy a full frame lens? Or is the improvement much bigger when i buy 2-3 ND filters + polarizer?[/list]


Thank you guys.[/list]


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 4, 2016)

I'm not going to say this or that system is what you want.

But I do have the 6D, and a relatively inexpensive wide lens, the 28f1.8

here's the comparison between the 28 and your 17-50 ([email protected][email protected]+7D)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=729&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=253&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Other FF lenses will generally outperform the 28 here as it's not the greatest for landscape, I didn't buy it for that purpose.


----------



## lion rock (Dec 4, 2016)

I'd consider ND and grad-ND filters for light modification. CPL is not always useful, especially if the sun is in front or at back of you, though with water-scapes, it helps.
-r


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 4, 2016)

If you are happy with the quality of the images you get with your current rig, then I would add a polarizer and call it a day. If you plan to shoot very many sunrise/sunsets, then a couple of gradient NDs may help, but you could probably do as well using HDR on those shots with software only. Practice some with whatever equipment you plan to bring before leaving. Shoot landscapes mostly at f/8. Also, don't forget your tripod!


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 4, 2016)

BeenThere said:


> If you are happy with the quality of the images you get with your current rig, then I would add a polarizer and call it a day. If you plan to shoot very many sunrise/sunsets, then a couple of gradient NDs may help, but you could probably do as well using HDR on those shots with software only. Practice some with whatever equipment you plan to bring before leaving. Shoot landscapes mostly at f/8. Also, don't forget your tripod!



+1 on the HDR SW approach vs gradient filters. Only windy conditions or rough surf would be a problem for the SW.

I think your 7D2 and wide zoom should be sufficient.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Dec 4, 2016)

I think your focal length options are just fine. I'd put a few bucks into a polarizer and tripod. Anything left over and I'd pick up a graduated neutral density filter, .6 soft. Without a tripod, though, a graduated neutral density is impossible to use. If you did want to pick up a lens, take a look at the refurbished EF-S 10-18mm Canon has on sale right now for $220.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 4, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello colleagues,
> 
> Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
> Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.
> ...






Steve Dmark2 said:


> Thank you guys.[/list]



There is a good chance that the Sigma lens will physically attach to a Canon full frame body. Many of the 3rd party lenses do not extend into the mirror box or cause interference issues.

The Sigma lens may not cover the whole 35mm frame at certain points in the zoom range. 

If you have access to a 6D body, it's worth a shot to see if you like the results... or search the web to see if someone else has done it 

The 6D won't have the same focus system or number of AF points as your 7DII. Would that be an issue?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2016)

For wide sweeping vistas like the Grand Canyon, 17mm on a crop camera is very limiting. You can pickup a Canon 10-24mm wide angle lens for $600. The alternative is stitched panoramas. The Canon 15-85 makes a wonderful all around lens, 15mm is lots ider than 17mm.

A polarizer can be a issue on wide angle lenses. ND filters are for situations where you do not want to stop down your lens but leave it wide open, or for long exposures. That's seldom the case for landscape photos, you want to stop down so as much as possible is in focus. A ND filter for wildlife is of little use.

Polarizing filters are at their best for water.


----------



## JClark (Dec 4, 2016)

Hi Steve - lots of good points made already, but I'll throw my 2 cents in...

First, I think you're absolutely fine with the equipment you have. While it's true that a 24mm-equivalent focal length can be limiting, I'd point out that in wide open places where you're trying to find a composition, superwides themselves can ALSO be limiting. Personally, If were you and I was concerned about focal length coverage on a trip across the USA, I'd be more worried about missing the 70-200 area than the 10-24mm area. You can always "cheat" the wide angle with stitching etc. Can't do much besides work with the feet to fill the frame  That said, I agree 100% with the rest of what Spokane said - watch the polarizer at wide angles, and the ND will likely get little use. 

Second, noise/ISO performance and image quality are usually cited as reasons to move full frame. Again, honestly, I think for a cross-country landscape trip this concern is overstated. For anything too slow for handheld, you should be on a tripod anyway, and at F5.6/F8 and higher, anything you shoot on the edge of daylight is going to requite it. Keep the ISO low and lengthen the shutter speed. Problem solved - no need to move to a 6D  (Also remember that depth of field is greater on a smaller sensor - that's an advantage of a crop-camera that often gets overlooked).

All that said, this is my recommendation. You already have the 7DII - it's a great camera. If you want to be sure to come back with what you hope for and not break your budget, I would do two things before I bought a 6d and filters:

1) Look at a lens to cover the short-mid telephoto range
2) Get a *backup body* - maybe an SL1 or something - so you have another in case something goes wrong.

Good luck, and enjoy your trip!


----------



## Policar (Dec 4, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello colleagues,
> 
> Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
> Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.
> ...






Steve Dmark2 said:


> Thank you guys.[/list]



How big do you plan to print is the question. The difference between FF and APS-C when shooting at an ideal stop for landscape (diffraction-limited) is trivial unless you want to print wall-sized then it might start to be visible if you look up close in the corners.

The best landscape photographer I spoke with (opinions vary, but my favorite) shot with 28mm, 45mm, and 75mm equivalent lenses and maybe only used the 28mm a few times, favoring the longer focal lengths. The use of ultra-wide lenses never appealed to me but a lot of people associate them with landscapes. He also never used a polarizer or grad filter. But when light isn't ideal a grad filter and polarizer are useful of course. And the ultra wides create instantly striking images.

It's totally a matter of preference and how large you intend to print. I've seen decent wall-sized prints from a 12MP 5D but that's not my style, either.


----------



## candc (Dec 4, 2016)

17-50 is a normal zoom on a crop body. If you are doing a lot of landscapes you will likely want wider. I would get a canon 10-18 or a sigma 8-16 to go with it.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 4, 2016)

Back in the days of film I backpacked for 2 years going from the Himalayas to jungles to the New Zealand Alps and wide, wide open spaces of the Aussie outback with my widest lens being 28mm. Even now looking back at the slides I have not onc wished I had had a wider lens. Part of the issue is that if you go to 17mm (10mm on APS-C) things like mountains can easily get pushed back to being a narrow strip across the frame. I would be more tempted to use >28mm and doing panoramic stitches.
One thing to remember about the ultra wides (<24mm) is that you need to be very careful with composition but in my opinion having a whole set of shots with the classic 'big boulder in the foreground' can get very same-y.

The 17-55 on APS-C is a marvellous lens and I do not think something like the 24-105 on the 6D will be any better (I have both combinations). Where the 6D wins out is its low-light capability but the AF on the 7D2 is so superior I think that would outweigh the 'FF advantage' (which IMO is vastly overplayed).

Buy the 17-55 f2.8 and spend any money you save on visiting unique areas or doing crazy things like a heli-tour over the Grand Canyon.

As you asked in your OP, over 3/4 of my landscapes are taken with my 70-300 or 70-200 zooms. If you are driving get a decent tripod if you have't already with a remote release and some filters (my suggestions being polaroid and ND grads with filter holder).


----------



## dak723 (Dec 5, 2016)

No need for any other camera. The 6D's only advantage for the most part is in low light. Daylight landscapes you won't be able to tell the difference between a crop camera and FF. You might want to have a telephoto zoom (all you need is the 55-250mm - it's cheap) to complete the range. I wouldn't bother with any filters.


----------



## AJ (Dec 5, 2016)

> What focal length do you use for landscape?



All of them.


----------



## timmy_650 (Dec 5, 2016)

I use Tamron 17-35mm f2.8 the most for my landscapes. Then probably my 70-200mm, Then least 24-70mm.


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 5, 2016)

Polarizer is also good to cut specular reflections from leaves. 
On my FF, I use 21 and 24/25 the most. 15/17 is less common, next is possibly the 55. I used to have a 28 but got rid of it. The 35 gets hardly any play. But that is all personal preference.
Re ND grads, a tripod is a must. I use the hard NDs more than the soft, 0.3 is pointless, but 0.6 and 0.9 are used on a regular basis, stacking can lead to rather pronounced color shifts (Lee set). HDR is certainly is a good alternative.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 5, 2016)

dak723 said:


> I wouldn't bother with any filters.



DSLRs make it easy to do exposure bracketing which you can then combine in post processing but the one filter that photoshop cannot replicate is the polarising filter. If the glare burns out detail on wet surfaces or glass, you cannot recover it in post processing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 5, 2016)

To the OP, if I was in your shoes, I would stick to the camera you already have and consider your lens range. I would consider an ultra wide lens such as a ef-s 10-22mm and a long lens such as a 55-200mm. 

If you wanted to migrate to a 6D, I would start with a 24-105mm lens and add other lenses later. Such as a 16-35 f4 LIS and a 100-400 LIS II. With those three lenses, you have pretty much 99% of everything covered in terms of focal length. 

I would also invest in a sturdy tripod, one which doesn't have a centre column and can take arca swiss plates. Also get an L plate for your camera along with a remote release. Also consider a Polariser and step down rings.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Dec 5, 2016)

What you have should work nicely overall. If you do anything, I would suggest the 70-200 f4 IS which is excellent, light weight, and offers at a great price right now. Very useful for landscape and wildlife in places where the animals are used to people such as national parks.

For years, I used a 40D with 17-40. A lot of times that was not quite wide enough. I did get a 6D so the 17-40 works well, although I have toyed with the idea of selling the 17-40 and replacing it with the better 16-35 f4 IS. The 6D is an excellent camera for landscape but I would never go back to a crop body with the exception of using it for sports or wildlife. However, your 7D II is an excellent camera.


----------



## hbr (Dec 5, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello colleagues,
> 
> Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
> Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.
> ...






Steve Dmark2 said:


> I don't want to spend any extra money. Is the 1000€ worth the IQ/DR upgrade to a 6D considering i also have to buy a full frame lens? Or is the improvement much bigger when i buy 2-3 ND filters + polarizer?
> 
> Thank you guys.[/list]



Hi Steve,

Firstly, I think you need to research the areas that you will be visiting to determine what types of photographic opportunities there are in each area and determine what type of images you would like to come home with. America is a very large and diverse country. East of the Mississippi is very different from west of the Mississippi. The eastern mountains are heavily forested and the western mountains are more beautiful and majestic. The mid-western plains have their own beauty.

Anyway, I am lucky to own both the 6D and the 7D Mark II and a variety of "L" lenses. IMHO the 7D II images are very good in full sunlight, but tend to get rather noisy as the light falls off. That is where the 6D comes in. My most used lenses are the 24-70 mm f/2.8 L and the 70-200 mm f/2.8 L USM. Throw in a "nifty-fifty" and a 1.4X teleconverter and you should be set. A tripod would be helpful if it is not too bulky.

Anyway, since you said you did not want to spend much more money, just use what you have, you should be ok. Your research will give you more ideas as to what you may wish to purchase extra.

Also, the time of year is also important as to what you will be able to see and photograph.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 5, 2016)

A three-week trip will be expensive enough so buying another rig will add even more. So you need to define first what it is you are after.

If you are wanting to take quality pictures as a memory of your holiday then the kit you have is pretty good. 
If this trip is an opportunity to take those amazing high quality images you always dreampt of taking then maybe the expense is worth it. Will your wife wait patiently while you are taking them (mine would, but only up to a point)?

The fact your asking the question makes me think it is the first one.
I searched for '7D2 landscape' on Flickr and this is what I got:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=7d2%20landscape

This one was shot with at 70-200 (probably stitched) - this is not mine but is from the Flickr page above

https://www.flickr.com/photos/theboyfast/21123653954/in/photolist-ybCfof-pEbkZ5-q4LdjB-pSkpVm-HTqFjx-Cv5CTU-J5tRxU-q9RFvx-peuL8e-r6EBXC-r94bth-JAPCXK-rcuR25-G45UeN-qbErB2-rbcMD4-qH5Nve-CarC1V-qZL2p2-q9AGyY-reJD7K-sqD3W1-qFPQ7p-reTf2T-nh9fy9-qBZVug-rkcNnx-qTTS1R-Gy2GX2-rbmErp-qDgGLY-FCgFBJ-ARLeFo-J8K4DE-sj66FD-BpGwds-q5PUPe-qrb3xU-rzmHJz-rhjcSk-qKpQYq-rvVtUw-tmp65s-DuXhg2-zTEFS7-FxwfW7-GVF1oj-Jgnf1x-CBxeqo-vy9F3U


Can you routinely beat these for quality? If not the maybe you do not need the 6D and instead, if you do not have one already, buy a good mid-range zoom as suggested. 

As I mentioned above I have the 6D with the 24-105 and I have been finding that the 24-105 on my 7D2 makes an excellent 'round town' for portraits and short telephoto and you can have the 17-50 in your bag for anything wider.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 5, 2016)

> Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.


What's your skillset?
Are you a "work the shot" kinda photographer who prints or a snapshooter for social media?
Three weeks isn't long enough for the former.

IMHO...if you're adept at PS, the best all-around lens for any body is a 185 macro...
merge them for landscapes.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello colleagues,
> 
> Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
> Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.
> ...



Just a few thoughts:

For bigger / longer trips, especially when it's to take pictures in a realm of photography you don't shoot often, it's best to rent gear and not buy it. If I'm a lifelong street photographer and I go on safari in Africa, I'm not going to buy a 500 f/4L IS II -- I'd rent one.

But I'd echo other comments here. Basic landscape kit if you just own a camera and a wildlife lens:

*Must*: Ultra-wide zoom lens (on your 7D2, something like a 10-something lens: EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, etc.) is a staple choice, but you can also take terrific landscapes with longer lenses. Not knowing your itinerary, and knowing how we set up our parks to get as close as possible to 'the big view' (Grand Canyon, Zion, etc.) you will find that you can only 'back your feet up' so much and an ultra-wide will be needed at some point. 

*Must*: Circular polarizer to tame bright skies and turn down reflections on water

Strongly recommended: Tripod (you can get by without one in good light, but you won't be able to take long exposures for waterfalls, shoot at low ISO at sunrise/sunset, shoot the stars, etc.) 

Recommended: Cable release -- a shutter button on a cable that won't rock the camera. You can get by without one by using the 2 second timer on your camera as well.

*Note that full-frame camera is nowhere on that list.* FF helps all forms of photography, but beginning landscape work won't make your pictures that much better unless you get a high resolution rig like a 5DS R. I'd recommend you get better at landscapes with your 7D2 (a fine camera) and if you 'catch the bug' and start to love landscapes, you'll see why some folks love their FF rigs.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't bother with any filters.
> ...



+1. CPLs are gold. 

I would say you can pull some bright sky tricks in PS (lower highlights, lower blue luminance) to darken a blue sky, but (a) the sky can't already be blown out at time of shot and (b) you have to be gentle with these or it looks terribly artificial.

But for glare, reflections, etc. you simply can't back that out without some optical help.

- A


----------



## hbr (Dec 5, 2016)

A lot of good advice here and most of us are somewhat in close agreement. Most of the advice though has been about landscapes only. Steve also said that he likes to photograph wildlife, so that is why I also recommend a 70-200 mm f/2.8L USM with a 1.4X teleconverter. Although it will add quite a bit of weight to his bag, this combo will at least insure some good wildlife shots for those animals that are not right next to the road and birds, especially if he goes to one of our beaches either in Florida or California. For the current price of a 6D he could pick up the original 70-200 mm f/2.8L USm which I find to be plenty sharp enough. He could also go with the f/4 model which would be lighter, but with a teleconverter it would take him to f/5.6. My 7D II is quite noisy at f/5.6. I also recommended the "nifty fifty" as it is so light and so inexpensive and it would give him a little more light for evening shots.


----------



## tron (Dec 5, 2016)

candc said:


> 17-50 is a normal zoom on a crop body. If you are doing a lot of landscapes you will likely want wider. I would get a canon 10-18 or a sigma 8-16 to go with it.


+1 I was about to suggest that and then I saw it has been done already. That canon 10-18 is the best value for money uwa zoom lens.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 5, 2016)

tron said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > 17-50 is a normal zoom on a crop body. If you are doing a lot of landscapes you will likely want wider. I would get a canon 10-18 or a sigma 8-16 to go with it.
> ...



I disagree. 17-50 (equivalent 24-80 on a 6D) is a zoom covering wide angle to normal. 
Up until the early 2000s 24mm (on full frame) was as wide an angle as many people could afford and not long before that, 24mm was a luxury. For decades before that it was 35mm lenses that were producing stunning 'wide angle' scenic shots. 

I have spoken to several people (including some landscape professionals) who bought these ultra wide-angles then sold it when they found they hardly used it because of compositional limitations. I agree that some people love these lenses but when you are wanting to get 'bang for the buck' it seems quite a few people don't think these lenses deliver. 

I am not saying he shouldn't buy one, just to be aware that they are not the panacea some people make out. If the OP wants to buy one I would strongly suggest buying second hand because if (and it is an 'if') they want to sell it he will lose little on the resale.


----------



## tron (Dec 5, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


I didn't say to replace 17-50 with it. It is very cheap to be bought and very small and light be carried with as an additional lens...


----------



## Duckman (Dec 5, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello colleagues,
> 
> Me and my wife will do a 3 week tour through USA next year.
> Normally i shoot wildlife, mainly birds.
> ...






Steve Dmark2 said:


> Thank you guys.[/list]



If nothing else I think purchasing ND + CPL filters is money best spent. Consider purchasing largest filter thread you own (or largest you will own in the future) and using step down rings to fit other lenses like the sigma. Buy quality filters. 

Ultra wide angle lenses can give a very unique perspective but they can be difficult sometimes at times to find a pleasing composition. Consider renting one for the trip if purchasing is out. 

Don't forget a tripod.
Enjoy your trip!
-J


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I disagree. 17-50 (equivalent 24-80 on a 6D) is a zoom covering wide angle to normal.



You might want to check your math. 17mm on a Canon crop is not a 24mm FOV. _15mm_ on Canon crop is 24mm on FF. 

I don't mean to split hairs so much as make a point: 15mm crop / 24mm FF is a really satisfying inflection point for framing. Crop standard zooms like 18-55s or 17-50s tend to make me wish they went just a couple mm wider, whereas my two 24-70s on my 5D3 just feel perfect on that wide end. It also lets a standard zoom very capably serve a landscape need when you are bag-size/gear limited when you travel.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 5, 2016)

Fair point. I was just challenging the idea that 17-55 is _not_ a wide angle and is a 'standard' zoom. As I say, I travelled extensively with a 28mm lens and never felt I wanted anything wider, and the images I got still please me immensely. 
UWAs are not 'cheap', and even renting for 3 weeks is not cheap. I just think that if money is tight, the money can be better spent.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Fair point. I was just challenging the idea that 17-55 is _not_ a wide angle and is a 'standard' zoom. As I say, I travelled extensively with a 28mm lens and never felt I wanted anything wider, and the images I got still please me immensely.
> UWAs are not 'cheap', and even renting for 3 weeks is not cheap. I just think that if money is tight, the money can be better spent.



Ah. 100% fair. 

I still think a 28 FF prime (or the 18 end of a crop kit zoom) -- a FL I am personally _very_ fond of -- would comically underpeg some of the National Parks' most signature vistas.

You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, _but some should be_, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 5, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, _but some should be_, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.
> 
> - A



There comes a point where I take the view something is so awesome I haven't got a cat in hell's chance of capturing it in one shot so why even bother 
Subsidiary to that is 'how often do I need to' - and when I do, 'on those few occasions, can I stitch it'.


----------



## geekpower (Dec 5, 2016)

some people say that in order to capture the "feeling" of a landscape, it's best to use a focal length that exaggerates the perspective one way or the other (ie, use other a wide angle, or a telephoto), and that standard perspective landscapes tend to be boring and not communicate the awe that one would experience actually being there. you will find a lot of landscapers who use a 16-35 and a 70-200 and don't bother with anything in between.

if you do want to shoot standard focal lengths, in my opinion, filters become very important because they can add to the "boring" perspective by creating motion in clouds and water, reducing glare, and helping colors pop (especially blue skies).


----------



## bholliman (Dec 6, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Fair point. I was just challenging the idea that 17-55 is _not_ a wide angle and is a 'standard' zoom. As I say, I travelled extensively with a 28mm lens and never felt I wanted anything wider, and the images I got still please me immensely.
> UWAs are not 'cheap', and even renting for 3 weeks is not cheap. I just think that if money is tight, the money can be better spent.



Common usage is that 24-70mm+ full frame equivalent is "standard" zoom and zooms under 24mm fall into the UWA zoom range. Not sure if that is right or wrong, it however is generally accepted terminology.

Personally, I find great value in wider-than-24mm focal lengths for landscape photography. I do the majority of my landscape work between 16 and 35mm, but certainly do some at longer focal lengths as well. 

I agree renting isn't cheap. I've had good success buying used lenses for specific trips and reselling them when I get back. I generally lose a little in the exchange, but its always less than what it would have cost to rent.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 6, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > You don't shoot all landscapes at U-UWA focal lengths, of course, _but some should be_, especially something as vast as the Grand Canyon, as 'aspect-ratio-challenged' as the Zion Narrows, etc.
> ...



That about sums up what goes through my mind every time I start to feel like I "need" a 16-35 ... haven't cracked yet, but I fear it's probably only a matter of time ...


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I have been in an birders excursion recently. The best shots were with my ... 16-35. I coulnd't help it. The scenery was fantastic.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

tron said:


> I have been in an birders excursion recently. The best shots were with my ... 16-35. I coulnd't help it. The scenery was fantastic.



;D
You rebel, you


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I have been in an birders excursion recently. The best shots were with my ... 16-35. I coulnd't help it. The scenery was fantastic.
> ...


This was a birders not a photographers group so appart from some exceptions most of which were shot during the birders lunch the landscape was by far the best. That and some butterflies and a mantis...


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 6, 2016)

Hello Guys,

I am stunned by the number of your helpfull replies 
Thank you very very much! 
This is what I want to do.

[list type=decimal]
[*]I want to go practising on Saturday with my current kit. 7Dmk2, 17-50 Sigma and my old Canon zoom 90-300 4.5-5.6 USM from my EOS 300V 
I know between 50 and 90 is a gap, but i can crop there a little bit.
[*]Comming down with that practise i gonna decide, wether i will order also the 10-18 STM.
[*]What i got is a solid tripod. I order for sure: A set of three ND filter. (because i also want to film a little bit.)
A infra-red remote release, a step down ring from 77mm to 58mm and a circular polarizer filter.
[/list]

Thanks again for your support. I will share results with you second half of next year! 

Cheers,

Steve


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hello Guys,
> 
> I am stunned by the number of your helpfull replies
> Thank you very very much!
> ...



A solid plan. Have a great trip!

- A


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 6, 2016)

Thank you Ashford,

btw, when is a filter called slim?
Can I stack two filters when i use the 17-50 or then the 10-18?
Will I have serious vigneting?

Is there a rule of thump?
I want to order this package:


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Thank you Ashford,
> 
> btw, when is a filter called slim?
> Can I stack two filters when i use the 17-50 or then the 10-18?
> ...



Sorry, Steve, I don't stack screw-in filters like those. When I need more than one filter at once, I switch to a filter holder system because I shoot wide focal lengths (16mm FF or 10mm crop) and stacking screw-in filters with wider focal lengths will absolutely vignette in that situation.

So someone else on this thread will have to answer you. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that your 17-50mm lens on crop should be okay to stack two filters at 17mm. But the 10-18 lens you are picking up will likely be a problem. You said you are using a step-up ring so the 77mm filters will 'get out of the way' of the 67mm 10-18 lens filter ring. But if that step-up ring may occlude the corners of your FOV, especially down towards 10mm.

I'm not aware of a rule of thumb as each lens has it's own relationship between the filter ring diameter to front lens element spacing, which makes this a lens by lens problem to consider.

Thread readers with crop UWA filter stacking experience: any thoughts?

- A


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 7, 2016)

So IF I choose to get the uwa, I will get the filters first, go to a photo Store and ask if i can try the filters on the 10-18 stm. Thx again


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> So IF I choose to get the uwa, I will get the filters first, go to a photo Store and ask if i can try the filters on the 10-18 stm. Thx again



Oh, if you are near a proper camera store and can physically try everything out before buying it, that's 100% the way to go. Just hook everything together in your 'most stacked' condition, set the lens for 10mm and shoot a white wall and see if your corners darken. 

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 8, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Thank you Ashford,
> 
> btw, when is a filter called slim?
> Can I stack two filters when i use the 17-50 or then the 10-18?
> ...



A "slim" screw in filter usually doesn't have a thread on the other side, so you can't stack another filter on it. 
If you are worried about vignetting, use 82mm filters and then use a step down ring to your lens. With the increased filter diameter, you should be able to stack 2-3 filters without any vignetting.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A "slim" screw in filter usually doesn't have a thread on the other side, so you can't stack another filter on it.
> If you are worried about vignetting, use 82mm filters and then use a step down ring to your lens. With the increased filter diameter, you should be able to stack 2-3 filters without any vignetting.



GMC, he's _basically_ got that with his plan for a 77mm filter set for the 17-50 + stepdown ring for the 10-18's 67mm filter ring. 

But the stepdown ring itself has thickness and may give him some grief at 10mm. I'm not familiar with stepdown designs as I don't personally use them, but if any metal projects straight out in the direction of the axis of the lens at the 67mm diameter before widening to 77mm, it very well could vignette at 10mm. His trial and error approach in the store will obviously catch that, so he should be all set.

- A


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Dec 8, 2016)

I will do the testing and let you know the results. Thx again.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jan 20, 2017)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> I will do the testing and let you know the results. Thx again.



I decided to skip the 10-18mm. I got myself this filterset "WP-H3H0-25" from Cokin and it workes very well with my 17-50, alone...
When i also put my circular polarizer as first element and then the filter holder second element i get BIG vignetting.
So for landscape I chose my 18-55mm STM. Because of smaller front element and smaller filter thread i get no vignetting with my screw on Polarizor and the filter holder.

When it comes to big vistas (Hoover Damn, Grand Canyon, Horse Shoe Bend...) I will make Panoramas.
The software of my choise is the free ICE from Microsoft.

Thats it for now. I don't change my gear before vacation in August. I will post some pics after that.

Cheers.


----------



## lion rock (Jan 20, 2017)

Steve Dmark2,
For remote, I'd choose a wireless (RF) remote shutter release over an infrared unit. The latter requires a line of sight, usually near the front of the camera, to work, whereas the RF units are omnidirectional and can work at a longer distance.
A number of brands make RF shutter releases, eg., Hahnel, Phottix, etc., at a fairly reasonable price. Check them out.
And some units even can double as a flash trigger for off camera non-TTL speedlight, too.
-r


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jan 21, 2017)

Thanks for the tip.
But i decided to skip remote as well.
I can go with 2s release delay instead.


----------



## slclick (Jan 21, 2017)

I use my strobe trigger far more often as a release.


----------

