Is 24mm wide enough for Iceland?: Landscape and Travel Photography Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

As usual, these are few and far between, but when they work, they're nice.

18mm ff equiv.

2

You could always create panos and stitch them together if you need a wider view. I hope to visit Iceland this fall myself. My current debate is to bring a small compact tripod to save on weight and space or go with a bigger one. Normally I wouldn't bring any on a vacation but may want some long exposures of their landscapes and waterfalls.

I do intend to bring my small infrared converted camera along (Canon G15).

1

JeffryZ wrote:

You could always create panos and stitch them together if you need a wider view.

Yep. 24 is fairly wide. I have 14mm on my full-frame and I almost never use it.

Yes, it helps to illustrate how vast an area is; but as far as actual detail for the viewer to inspect, it's just tiny little areas of the image that show. Basically, unless you're way too close to a waterfall or something, 14mm is a whole lot of negative space.

I hope to visit Iceland this fall myself. My current debate is to bring a small compact tripod to save on weight and space or go with a bigger one. Normally I wouldn't bring any on a vacation but may want some long exposures of their landscapes and waterfalls.

I purchased a Gitzo Traveler 2 for my vacationing needs. It's actually a full-size tripod, but it folds over itself and becomes just 17+ inches.

The problem with tripods is that when you go light, a light wind can move that whole setup and give you blur that you can't really notice in the field. And I'm kind of speaking from experience when I say that. My Gitzo Explorer was useful for lighter gear, but caused lots of slightly blurred shots with my full-frame. Make sure that you get a tripod that does lots more stability than the weight you intend to put on it.

Also, I buy Gitzo because they never let me down. They are quite expensive, but they last for over a decade in all conditions and wear out very slowly. Also, I never feel like I'm fighting my tripod; it's a beautiful piece of gear. Combine a Gitzo with a remote or a delay and you'll have rock-steady shots.

I do intend to bring my small infrared converted camera along (Canon G15).

Iceland isn't really known for its trees. And vegetation really pops with IR. So I'm wondering why you would bring your IR with you?

I'm interested in purchasing a converted full-frame at some point, but I have used IR before and it's very enjoyable. I can't blame you for wanting to bring it along; I'm just curious as to what you think you'll photograph with it.

5

JeffryZ wrote:

You could always create panos and stitch them together if you need a wider view.

I second that!

Why would one introduce, the imho ugly/disturbing, distortion(s) of a WA lens? Especially for landscapes, stitching is easy and can give you years and years of rewarding and satisfying memories, when looking back on those great and overwhelming landscape imagery, you once visited.

And no, you don't need fancy panoramic contraptions for a tripod to create fantastic wide panoramic images.

The only thing a tripod (if you willing to drag it around) is useful for, are the longer timed shots and/or in dark(er) conditions.

FYI: (all shot handheld, without tripod)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chasa-imago/albums/72157632682673775

Enjoy your trip!

2

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

Why do you think you will need such a wide angle lens? Landscape photography does not automatically mean wide angle lenses. Do you want a wide vista with small details and a lot of sky? 24mm will be fine. I would suggest a longer lens as well.

mclewis wrote:

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

Why do you think you will need such a wide angle lens? Landscape photography does not automatically mean wide angle lenses. Do you want a wide vista with small details and a lot of sky? 24mm will be fine. I would suggest a longer lens as well.

It's why I'm asking. I don't know.

But it does sound like 24mm will be just fine in most scenarios. So that's good for me, since it means I will not need to purchase a wider angle lens.

1

Captain Hook wrote:

JeffryZ wrote:

You could always create panos and stitch them together if you need a wider view.

I second that!

Why would one introduce, the imho ugly/disturbing, distortion(s) of a WA lens? Especially for landscapes, stitching is easy and can give you years and years of rewarding and satisfying memories, when looking back on those great and overwhelming landscape imagery, you once visited.

And no, you don't need fancy panoramic contraptions for a tripod to create fantastic wide panoramic images.

The only thing a tripod (if you willing to drag it around) is useful for, are the longer timed shots and/or in dark(er) conditions.

Yeah, timelapses and such.

Even for silky waterfalls, you can do those handheld too! Not in one shot of course, but you can combine many shots into one and it will look exactly the same as a long shot.

I know all this, but I still feel like my tripod is a component I feel helps me compose. Everything takes longer, but the slowed down consideration allows me to get better shots (I think this is especially true when it's a stunning scene). I walk around the area I'm at with the tripod. It's kind of like my people fence - I'M WORKING HERE!
I love my tripod. One of the best pieces of gear I have. It's not as necessary as it once was, but it still helps in ways that aren't so easy to explain.

Mintmint wrote:

mclewis wrote:

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

Why do you think you will need such a wide angle lens? Landscape photography does not automatically mean wide angle lenses. Do you want a wide vista with small details and a lot of sky? 24mm will be fine. I would suggest a longer lens as well.

It's why I'm asking. I don't know.

But it does sound like 24mm will be just fine in most scenarios. So that's good for me, since it means I will not need to purchase a wider angle lens.

Since you don't say what gear you have are you sure you have 24mm FF equivalent?

Many lenses indicate focal length but if it's not a FF body you have to multiply by the crop factor of the sensor.

Regardless of all that an UWA is one of the most useful lenses in Iceland for landscape photography. Also if you plan on doing any aurora capture a fast WA or UWA is needed. F2.8 or better.

The other thing I would mention is if you are not on a time limited visit.
(eg stopover with 3 days or less) then bring a tripod. You may have to rent a vehicle to get around since the tour buses won't wait forever for you to setup and tear down your tripod every stop and if you're interested in more than holiday snaps the tripod will help up your game.

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

Its a tough one, if Iceland is anything like NZ then the scenery is magnificent regardless of the lens because there is always a shot to be had at practically any focal length. Perhaps the time of year you go will really matter, if there is plenty of light, why not take the ultrawide zoom and keep your options open. My suspicion is that Iceland will suite ultrawide because a lot of the interest is in the geothermal and volcanic geography so the foreground interest is dominant over the background of white mountains in which case, an ultrawide really places the photographer in the scene itself.

for the most part it should be enough. you won't be able to do the most beaten to death shot of Kirkjufell with waterfall, and it may also be slightly narrow for Seljalandfoss but otherwise it'll be OK

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

just went through my own shots from Iceland (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bartrozanski/albums/72157691088914154 - if that helps)... there's one more popular stop where ultra wide angle is very helpful: Stokksnes black beach with reflection of Vestrahorn. this is wonderful place to play with 17~20mm lens.

then there's also Westfjords where UWA can get good use. quite a lot of tourist skip this part of Iceland chasing umptieth waterfall on the south coast. which is pity as this is the best part for photography.

otherwise... Iceland offers magnificient skies and UWA gives some extra freedom to enjoy shooting those. and this, together with Westfjords, would be main reason to have UWA on the trip. not for particular landscape in front of your eyes or below your feet, but for all the magnificient stuff that happens above your head

22mm

akustykmagmanetpl wrote:

for the most part it should be enough. you won't be able to do the most beaten to death shot of Kirkjufell with waterfall, and it may also be slightly narrow for Seljalandfoss but otherwise it'll be OK

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

1

Focus Shift Shooting wrote:

JeffryZ wrote:

You could always create panos and stitch them together if you need a wider view.

Yep. 24 is fairly wide. I have 14mm on my full-frame and I almost never use it.

Yes, it helps to illustrate how vast an area is; but as far as actual detail for the viewer to inspect, it's just tiny little areas of the image that show. Basically, unless you're way too close to a waterfall or something, 14mm is a whole lot of negative space.

I hope to visit Iceland this fall myself. My current debate is to bring a small compact tripod to save on weight and space or go with a bigger one. Normally I wouldn't bring any on a vacation but may want some long exposures of their landscapes and waterfalls.

I purchased a Gitzo Traveler 2 for my vacationing needs. It's actually a full-size tripod, but it folds over itself and becomes just 17+ inches.

The problem with tripods is that when you go light, a light wind can move that whole setup and give you blur that you can't really notice in the field. And I'm kind of speaking from experience when I say that. My Gitzo Explorer was useful for lighter gear, but caused lots of slightly blurred shots with my full-frame. Make sure that you get a tripod that does lots more stability than the weight you intend to put on it.

Also, I buy Gitzo because they never let me down. They are quite expensive, but they last for over a decade in all conditions and wear out very slowly. Also, I never feel like I'm fighting my tripod; it's a beautiful piece of gear. Combine a Gitzo with a remote or a delay and you'll have rock-steady shots.

I do intend to bring my small infrared converted camera along (Canon G15).

Iceland isn't really known for its trees. And vegetation really pops with IR. So I'm wondering why you would bring your IR with you?

I'm interested in purchasing a converted full-frame at some point, but I have used IR before and it's very enjoyable. I can't blame you for wanting to bring it along; I'm just curious as to what you think you'll photograph with it.

Infrared isn't just about white foliage- though that is one of its more famous effects. It is also good for "mood". Darkening skies for one. A boring, cloudy day can become more interesting. With a converted camera, I try it on all kinds of different subjects. http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz/infrared_gallery

Hotel Del Coronado- San Diego, CA

Point Loma Old Lighthouse- San Diego, CA

Ayer's Rock (Uluru) Australia

mclewis wrote:

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

Why do you think you will need such a wide angle lens? Landscape photography does not automatically mean wide angle lenses. Do you want a wide vista with small details and a lot of sky? 24mm will be fine. I would suggest a longer lens as well.

Sorry but that's just how anyone with a bit of knowledge would never use a UWA.

Coming to the OP's question, it depends on personal style and how you use the foreground to give depth to your image. For Iceland I agree that a long lens would be highly advisable.

Ideally, I would bring for FF in this order: 16-35, 70-200, a f/2.8 WA for astro, 24-70/105.

Bluerio wrote:

mclewis wrote:

Mintmint wrote:

As the question states, will having a 24mm focal length as my widest lens in Iceland be too limiting?

Or for the most part, it will be wide enough and I can capture mostly everything well?

Why do you think you will need such a wide angle lens? Landscape photography does not automatically mean wide angle lenses. Do you want a wide vista with small details and a lot of sky? 24mm will be fine. I would suggest a longer lens as well.

Sorry but that's just how anyone with a bit of knowledge would never use a UWA.

I know how to use one but I suspect many people who ask about wide angle lenses and landscape photography just assume that you need a wide angle of view to capture that wide vista when in reality that does not often work - you just get lots of sky and small subject. You do need to know how to use any lens effectively.

Captain Hook wrote:

Why would one introduce, the imho ugly/disturbing, distortion(s) of a WA lens?

Clearly you've never created a photo with an UWA lens.

Bluerio wrote:

Sorry but that's just how anyone with a bit of knowledge would never use a UWA.

Coming to the OP's question, it depends on personal style and how you use the foreground to give depth to your image. For Iceland I agree that a long lens would be highly advisable.

Ideally, I would bring for FF in this order: 16-35, 70-200, a f/2.8 WA for astro, 24-70/105.

Agreed. An UWA lens is standard tool for landscape photography.

1

HeyItsJoel wrote:

Bluerio wrote:

Sorry but that's just how anyone with a bit of knowledge would never use a UWA.

Coming to the OP's question, it depends on personal style and how you use the foreground to give depth to your image. For Iceland I agree that a long lens would be highly advisable.

Ideally, I would bring for FF in this order: 16-35, 70-200, a f/2.8 WA for astro, 24-70/105.

Agreed. An UWA lens is standard tool for landscape photography

And *THAT* is the exact problem that the OP faces.

He's been *TOLD* by so many sources that Landscape = UWA.

It's just like the rules of thirds, or how people are blinded into not even considering to even LOOK for a background; because they were taught that bokeh is how you do a portrait, so f/1.4 everything out of the image except the person and you've taken a good picture.

These are nonsense. You can put the subject in the corner of the frame and it will be more interesting that the rules of thirds. You can actually look around before you take a picture and move your model in front of a billboard and shoot it at f/32 with a starburst sun in the frame and make a dazzling portrait. And you don't need and shouldn't use a UWA for landscape most of the time.

The most impressive landscapes I've seen were done with super telescopic lenses in the 400mm+ range. If you don't know why, maybe it's because you're always trying to grab everything you see; which is fine for a snapshot, but it usually doesn't tell the story of why you are really there, and it usually is so full of wasted space that people are looking at specks of wonder when it should be immense grandeur.

1

This may help. This is a review of the gear I took.

(Note. M4/3s, so double the focal lengths for 35mm values).

Review of the gear I took to Iceland and Faroe Islands

Had trouble choosing lenses for Iceland.

And some shots from the trip so you can see what I was shooting.

Trip Favourites

Cliche Shots, Iceland and Faroe Islands (Image heavy)

Northern Lights - Aurora Borealis.

A few shots from Jökulsárlón, Iceland

England, Iceland and Faroe Islands: Wildlife``

Main point is:

If you followed my lens choice thread, you'd know I was pretty happy with the lenses chosen. All of them got their time to shine, though the bulk of the work was done with the 12-40. One of the distinct benefits of taking UWA and fisheye lenses, is that Iceland is packed with tourists during the summer, and the ability to go ultra-wide, and stand in front of everyone for a clean shot of a feature is quite useful. The 75mm was my least used lens. However, I'd probably still take it, as it's not big, and would have been invaluable if I had gone exploring the town at night, or to a show.

And:

Well 12-40 is being the workhorse.

9-18 has started showing it's value again in the Faroe Islands. I find myself needing a wide angle a bit more here (well, from one day's experience) than in Iceland.

The 75mm made it's appearance for Jökulsárlón and a few other spots.

Only one casualty so far. The 12-40 lens cap had an unfortunately accident at a breakwater - disappearing into the basalt boulders. I spent a couple of days shooting with a polariser on the lens to keep it protected until I found a replacement Hama lens cap at Elding in Torshavn (Faroe Islands).

So far (and keep in mind these include bracketed shots, which will up the count a fair bit):

iPhone - 200 shots. Mostly grab shots of maps, memory shots.

Fisheye: 123 shots

9-18: 196 shots

12-40: 1623 shots

75: 85 shots

100-400: 876 shots

And finally a few more shots.

The latest Lumix puts a Four Thirds sensor in a full-frame body with boosted AF and a wealth of stills and video capabilities to create a Swiss Army Knife of a Micro Four Thirds camera.

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.