Lenses for Waterfalls

[jrw]

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.

[conropl]

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?

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[conropl]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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:

small-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.

[Kayaker72]

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.....



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.