Lenses for Waterfalls

Ok...talking about lenses in the lens thread......

So, my annual waterfall trip with a friend is coming up. I am planning on mostly using the 24-70II but could also take my Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8. The Rokinon is somewhat limited in that it does not accept front or rear filters, at least not the filters I have or will be buying (i.e. no Wonderpana). But, I am strongly leaning toward renting a lens or two and wanted to solicit your thoughts. Which lenses, other than a 24-70 mm, would you want use to take pictures of waterfalls? Is there anything creative that you have done with waterfalls that requires something other than a general purpose lens?

Some thoughts going through my head:

• TSE (17 mm or 24 mm)
• Wide angle prime (test prime vs zoom)
• UWA zoom (16-35 f/4 IS or 11-24)

I am willing to buy a ND gel for the EF 11-24 so that I can blur water and already have 6 stop ND and CPL filters at both 77 mm and 82 mm threads and a 10 stop ND filter for the 77 mm thread. It doesn't look like the TSE 17 mm takes any kind of filter that I would have.

Perhaps a lens that goes to f/32? One of the goals of waterfall shots is often to maximize your exposure length. When shooting recently I got surprised by the Sigma 35mm Art only going to f/16, instead of the more common f/22. I think there are some lenses that do go to f/32, but I'm not sure how much the diffraction affects the sharpness and how you judge that vs. the extra long exposure blur. Since you're stopping down so much, you don't need to start with the best lens... except of course if you're going for the TS-Es.

So yeah, a lens that can stop down extra far that takes one of the filters you have.

An annual waterfall trip sounds like good fun! It sounds like you're already well equipped with gear. I'm not sure of what benefit a tilt-shift lens would give you, unless you perhaps wanted to use it for panoramas (by shifting between shots), or just wanted to play with it on other subjects (which is always fun). Otherwise I'd just go with a wider prime, which would likely be cheaper to rent. If it turns out the lighting isn't ideal for your particular waterfall (for example, too much bright light), I'd suggest using HDR. I'm sure you already know that but I was impressed at how much it helps. I'd also suggest trying some night shots. I have yet to do that myself but I've always been impressed by photos of waterfalls with starry skies.
Happy shooting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Perhaps a lens that goes to f/32?

---

It is a good thought. While I do try to stay in the wider than f/10-11 range I am not one to totally ignore smaller apertures and often shoot f/16 to f/22 if I want an uber wide depth of field. But, I looked at every lens I am considering taking. Smallest aperture was f/22. That surprised me quite a bit because as recently as my EFS 15-85, f/38 was an option on the long end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer

An annual waterfall trip sounds like good fun! It sounds like you're already well equipped with gear. I'm not sure of what benefit a tilt-shift lens would give you, unless you perhaps wanted to use it for panoramas (by shifting between shots), or just wanted to play with it on other subjects (which is always fun). Otherwise I'd just go with a wider prime, which would likely be cheaper to rent. If it turns out the lighting isn't ideal for your particular waterfall (for example, too much bright light), I'd suggest using HDR. I'm sure you already know that but I was impressed at how much it helps. I'd also suggest trying some night shots. I have yet to do that myself but I've always been impressed by photos of waterfalls with starry skies.
Happy shooting!

---

Thanks for the tips Jonathan. I like the night shot and HDR ideas. The concept behind the TSE was to adjust for perspective if not looking at the waterfall straight on. I have sometimes wondered if you couldn't generate an interesting perspective, almost as if you are looking at the waterfall from the trees. Plus, I've wanted to spend some time playing with TSE lens to see if it is something I would want to add to my kit.

Brant,

I used the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L Tilt-Shift for the last waterfall I shot. I actually liked using the shift feature to make it appear I was closer to the falls than I was (I was further downhill/downstream from the falls). And the shift feature would allow you to capture a wider view if used for a panorama shot (as Jonathan said). The only problem - tilt-shift lenses aren't weather sealed. You'd have to be careful about spray.

Otherwise, the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 11-24mm f/4L would be decent choices, but....I'd prefer the convenience of the screw on filters if you think 16mm will be wide enough for you. :-)

Sean

Jonathan already said it, but night shots with the Milky Wayin the back ground would be great. That means a fast prime in the 24mm range. Might be worth while doing a two shot composite at night.

Otherwise a TSE. Given your current set up, the 17mm seems a good choice.

I did not get a 70-200 for a long time, but since going ff I find myself using that for a lot of landscapes... including waterfalls. I use it way more than I thought I would (when I can get out to take pictures). You can zoom in and isolate some of the interseting areas of the falls. Keep that in mind... sometimes the "wide angle" card is overplayed on waterfalls and everyone's shots end up looking the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

I did not get a 70-200 for a long time, but since going ff I find myself using that for a lot of landscapes... including waterfalls. I use it way more than I thought I would (when I can get out to take pictures). You can zoom in and isolate some of the interseting areas of the falls. Keep that in mind... sometimes the "wide angle" card is overplayed on waterfalls and everyone's shots end up looking the same.

---

It's true, a telephoto zoom can certainly be a good choice for waterfalls. However, the problem with them is that you need more distance between yourself and the falls in order to get the right framing. And once you move back, there's more of a chance that distracting objects (trees, limbs, etc) will obstruct your view of the falls. If you can find a clear view, though, a telephoto can definitely work.

I took my first waterfall pictures just recently so technically can't add informed choice. Just a couple thoughts- I love using a tilt shift lens whenever I can- But my experience with the waterfalls was I got wet, camera got wet, lens got wet... and the Tilt shifts are the least environmentally sealed lenses available, I'd be worried about it. If you are looking into renting anyway... what about renting the required filter for your rokinon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

It's true, a telephoto zoom can certainly be a good choice for waterfalls. However, the problem with them is that you need more distance between yourself and the falls in order to get the right framing. And once you move back, there's more of a chance that distracting objects (trees, limbs, etc) will obstruct your view of the falls. If you can find a clear view, though, a telephoto can definitely work.

---

Not necessarily. If you make the assumption that you have to get the whole waterfall in plus the surrounding area, that may be true. But that is not what I am suggesting. Zoom in tight on features. And yes, you do have to pay attention to moving details, but waterfalls are usually protected and in the morning or evening (when they should be shot) it is usually calm. Also, if you are going to include vegetation, you need that calmness no matter what focal length because of the long shutter speeds when shooting falls. But as far as what I am talking about, here is an example of one of the best waterfalls there is... but it is over shot and they all look the same, so I tried to isolate portions of it. It is only at 45mm, but could very well have been shot at 70-200mm as well. This turned out to be one of my favorites.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5604/1...086e9dca_c.jpg
Upper Bond Falls-7589 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

Or these at 70mm:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7047/1...89a1abc5_c.jpg
Upper Bond Falls-0982 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7060/1...53f974d9_c.jpg
Upper Bond Falls-0901 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

I really like that top image – it's quite captivating. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

I did not get a 70-200 for a long time, but since going ff I find myself using that for a lot of landscapes.

---

While the 24-70 II is my most used lens, I think the 70-200 II is my favorite. I get a little excited each time I use it. It will be on the trip. I've been trying two things to mix up my waterfall shoots, trying to capture the entire scene and not just the waterfall and isolate interesting portions of the falls. So far my attempts are not as good as yours in trying to isolate portions of the falls. But it does bring in an addition level of interest as you look for something that may work as a stand alone picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kombi

I took my first waterfall pictures just recently so technically can't add informed choice. Just a couple thoughts- I love using a tilt shift lens whenever I can- But my experience with the waterfalls was I got wet, camera got wet, lens got wet... and the Tilt shifts are the least environmentally sealed lenses available, I'd be worried about it. If you are looking into renting anyway... what about renting the required filter for your rokinon?

---

Huh......see...that is why I post questions.......anyone know of someplace that rents the wonderpana or equivalent system for the Rokinon 14 mm?

BTW....Big waterfalls get all the glory and can make for great pictures. But I tend to favor smaller falls. Not only do they tend to have a lot of character, but, also, less spray. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Brant,

I used the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L Tilt-Shift for the last waterfall I shot. I actually liked using the shift feature to make it appear I was closer to the falls than I was (I was further downhill/downstream from the falls). And the shift feature would allow you to capture a wider view if used for a panorama shot (as Jonathan said). The only problem - tilt-shift lenses aren't weather sealed. You'd have to be careful about spray.

Otherwise, the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 11-24mm f/4L would be decent choices, but....I'd prefer the convenience of the screw on filters if you think 16mm will be wide enough for you. :-)

Sean

---

I agree either the 24 TS or 17 TS - I used the 24 and have a 90. The easiest way to learn what they do is to shoot a movie from a tripod of a fixed scene through the lens WHILE adjusting it. It was my AHA moment - remember to narrate what exactly what your are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

BTW....Big waterfalls get all the glory and can make for great pictures. But I tend to favor smaller falls. Not only do they tend to have a lot of character, but, also, less spray. ;-)

---

I agree. There are a lot of small ones that are very photogenic, and for the most part get ignored. Here is one I really like and timed my shoot for when the sun would be just in the right spot. It is along a highway that everyone in the U.P. uses, but I always get asked by waterfall people... where is that one, I have never seen it? But the reality is, they pas it by because it is a small humble little fall.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8177/8...2595dba2_c.jpg
Scott Falls-2160 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

By the way, here a couple more of a large water fall dissected to get just a portion of it:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3183/5...2a51e866_z.jpg
Mingo Falls by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8474/8...d4e244a8_z.jpg
Bond Falls in Autumn-1131 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

Pat, I think all of your images are great, but I agree the first one is unusual. Without a frame of reference your photo could in theory be a scene ten feet wide or more likely a hundred feet or more wide. Please tell me this isn't a close up "trick shot."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Always Looking

Pat, I think all of your images are great, but I agree the first one is unusual. Without a frame of reference your photo could in theory be a scene ten feet wide or more likely a hundred feet or more wide. Please tell me this isn't a close up "trick shot."

---

If you are talking about the first one posted yesterday (not today's post), then yes it is zoomed in at a close distance. It was not intended to be a trick shot, but I like to zoom in to see the detail of an interesting area of a waterfall. But to better answer your question, the drop is only about 3-4 feet high. If you look at the next two winter shots in yesterdays post, you see the same area with a completely different perspective to the surrounding area and gives you a better idea of the size.

Here is that area with a wide shot (it was the center part of this that I zoomed in on):

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8037/8...04a272e4_c.jpg
Bond Falls in the Fog-0887 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

Sorry Brant... I just realized I hijacked your thread a bit. I'll shut up now.:o

Ha, no issues. Feel free to populate the thread with more great waterfall shots :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Ha, no issues. Feel free to populate the thread with more great waterfall shots :)

---

I do get a little carried away with waterfalls. :)

As long as you keep sharing Pat I believe all will be forgiven.
Back to the lenses question I have added a 16-35 f4 to my kit for the wide angle option with ability to use filters which I do use very frequently. It means my landscaping kit now has 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100mm macro, TSE 24. The one that gets the least amount of use is the TSE. It also produces some of the best, or at least unique, images when the scene fits the field of view and benefits from the movements. I keep looking at the 17mm and some other wide primes but when a lens can't take my filters it would lose so much value to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

As long as you keep sharing Pat I believe all will be forgiven.
Back to the lenses question I have added a 16-35 f4 to my kit for the wide angle option with ability to use filters which I do use very frequently. It means my landscaping kit now has 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100mm macro, TSE 24. The one that gets the least amount of use is the TSE. It also produces some of the best, or at least unique, images when the scene fits the field of view and benefits from the movements. I keep looking at the 17mm and some other wide primes but when a lens can't take my filters it would lose so much value to me.

---

Thanks.

From what I have read, the 16-35 f/4 is close or as good as a prime... so what would be the point of a prime. The 16 mm has a lot of dof... so it can be argued what's the point of the 17 tse (considering you have the 24 tse). The 11-24 is the next logical step; but for me, shooting ff and where I live in the land of flatness, going wider does not make a lot of sense either unless it was faster for night sky shots. Your landscape kit sounds pretty ideal.

I think I need to get the 16-35 f/4, but that is going to have to wait until I can free up some time to be able to use it more.

Yeah the 16-35 f4 is gaining more and more use every time I head out. Once I get back from current trip along north shore of St. Lawrence I'll try to post some shots. Yes it will even include some waterfalls in a stretch to stay on original topic.
At the end of the day it is a lens I can recommend for pretty much everything including waterfalls.

By the way - You'll notice, most of what I posted in this thread was taken with what is now considered the lowly 24-105 mm f/4L. Many consider this a throw away lens... they buy it in a kit with the intention of selling it dirt cheap. I find it a great focal length... and I did with my 7D as well. Not the fastest, but f/4 is not bad either. And the IS is great. The recent offerings by Canon in the 24-70 range has put a damper on it, but I still like it, and would miss the 105 mm end if it was capped off at 70 mm.

I also do not see a lot of people going for the f/4 version of the 24-70 lens, unless it was a kit lens. It seems the f/4 aperture is getting a bad rep... but now here comes Canon with the 16-35 f/4L and the 11-24 f/4L that seem to be popular because they solve some of the distortion issues the 16-35 f/2.8L had, and the presumably the optical formula difficulties the 11-24 f/2.8L would have relative to weight and distortion. The only thing solved with the 24-70 f/4L was cost, weight, and MFD (with the dubious macro capability). So am I readying the tea leafs correct in saying that people are willing to buy an f/4 lens if it provides significant improvements in distortions, otherwise they will pay more for the f/2.8 capability?

Another good reason if AF. Top tier bodies have several focus points, some sensitive to f/2.8, some to f/4, and some to f/5.6. Non-top tier bodies typically have an f/2.8 center point, and f/5.6 everywhere else. Buying F/4 lenses means (I think, but I could be off), that unless you use the center AF point, your AF sensors aren't sensitive enough for your lens... the camera might think it's in focus, but it's not.

Also, typically, the non-f/2.8 lenses (aside from the super teles) just weren't built to the same standard. Canon is putting out a series of high quality F/4 lenses these days, but it wasn't always the case. The 24-70mm f/4L IS is a weird case. Yes you get IS and the dubious macro mode, but it's not nearly as sharp as all the other lenses Canon (and Sigma!) have released recently, which makes it hard to justify the non-trivial price. Especially since you could get the 24-105mm f/4L IS for less, which also wasn't the sharpest (atleast my copy wasn't!) but had more range. Most people who are willing to invest in a lens aren't willing to invest in a just okay lens. They'll save their pennies for a great one.

I've always thought my 24-105 was pretty sharp. The one flaw that I have had was the CA... it is fixable in post, but it takes a little hit on the sharpness of the line with CA.

I get your point though. Another reason for buying f/2.8 is a lot of lenses are not good wide open. For these lenses, the f/2.8 becomes usable at f/4 - f/5.6, whereas the f/4 lens becomes usable at f/5.6 - f/8. But with the newer wide f/4 lenses (16-35 & 11-24 in particular) are good wide open... which essentially puts them comparable to an f/2.8 that is not sharp wide open.

If a lens is sharp wide open at f/2.8, produces good bokeh, and has distortion under control; then I buy into it (I really like my 70-200 f/2.8 II for those reasons).

The one lens I have that I really wish was good wide open is my 24 mm F/1.4L. If it was actually usable at f/1.4, that would bring the clarity (due to reduced noise level, sharpness, and coma) way up and bring my night shots to a new level. As it is, I am stuck at f/2 and still have coma problems. But if usable at f/1.4 I could drop the ISO from 3200 to 1600 or better yet 6400 to 3200. That would make a considerable difference in what I could do with it.

The EF 24-105 is under appreciated in my mind as well. Granted, I moved on to the EF 24-70 II. That was mainly for f/2.8 and because of the stellar reviews of the 24-70 II. I am not disappointed nor have I felt the need to go back and use the 24-105. But anyone with it should be happy. It is a very good lens. Actually, one of my favorite shots with the 24-105 was a waterfall:

https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3758/1...5fef031f_b.jpgsmall-8135 by kayaker72, on Flickr


So, thanks for all the good discussion. I have decided to rent the 16-35 f/4 IS and the TSE 24 mm. Both take filters I already own and both are lenses I have considered buying. So, it will be good to test them out.

My waterfall "kit" for this trip will be:

Day shots:

• EF 16-35 f/4
• EF 24-70 II
• EF 70-200 II
• TSE 24 mm

Night shots:

• Rokinon 14 f/2.8
• Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art

More lenses than I typically take, but I will pack them in my 2500 storm and keep a few those I am not planning on using in the hotel safe. Honestly, looking at the kit, the 24-70 II may be the most redundant of the lenses. But I'll primarly use the others and have it around if I run into any issues.

For the night shots, I am not worried about ND filters which is good as I do not have any for either the Rokinon or the 35A.

Thanks again for the input. Keep the discussion going if you'd like.

FYI...just dropped off the 16-35 f/4 IS and TSE 24 mm. Two great lenses. I am very impressed with both.

16-35 f/4 IS
I intentionally used this as my primary lens. It worked exceptionally well for waterfalls. The UWA perspective took a little getting used too. But sharp lens with minimal distortion. I didn't really shoot wide open, mostly at f/5.6-f/11. But, scanning my images, I am very pleased with the results and it performed flawlessly in the field.

But....I am not sure I "need" it. I am not sure I got very many shots with it that I couldn't have gotten the same or very similar with the 24-70 II. This is because a lot of my shots were 24-35 mm range...but also, I could have just changed my position slightly to account for the difference in focal length. I actually found myself setting up very close to several waterfalls just to use the wider angles. But, also, there were a few instances were 16 mm wasn't wide enough.

So, I may someday add this lens as it is very good and there are uses. I think it is perfect for someplace like antelope canyon. But my kit is still pretty good without it for what I shoot.

TSE 24 mm

Where I was generally impressed with the 16-35 f/4.....this was more of a "wow." I didn't use it often, but when I did it was fun. As an example, one waterfall I could only shoot from above it or at its base. I prefer to shoot waterfalls somewhat level to their center. Enter the TSE. I set it up level, shifted down and.....

http://community.the-digital-picture...tid=2434&stc=1

Maybe not the best shot in the world (shot mid-day, just before lunch), but I was sitting at the ledge level with the top. More of an illustration of what it could do. I also used it to adjust perspective on a couple of larger waterfalls.

Pretty cool lens.