Lenses for Waterfalls

[Kayaker72]

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.

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. ;-)

[Busted Knuckles]

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.

[conropl]

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.


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:


Mingo Falls by Pat Conroy, on Flickr


Bond Falls in Autumn-1131 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

[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."

[conropl]

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):


Bond Falls in the Fog-0887 by Pat Conroy, on Flickr

[conropl]

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

[Kayaker72]

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

[conropl]

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

I do get a little carried away with waterfalls.

[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.

[conropl]

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.