Appreciate your no nonsense, quick and to the point videos.

Like your pragmatic approach in these kind of videos. That RF 70-200 is such a cool lens!😍 Great pieces of advice as always!

Great summary, I just came home from a 4 weeks roadtrip withyg my wife in the US midwest with a layover of a few days in Iceland, brought my R6, 14-35, 24-240, 100-500 and the nifty fifty, never felt that I lacked anything! Love that such optic quality has become so compact / light.

The best summary I have ever watched.

I love the 14-35 , may favorit in landscape , even in close flower

Well done, 👍

Awesome, really enjoying these videos Peter!!!!👍 I got the Canon R7, so I've been trying to decide on my next lens..... this video certainly helps. 👍

Very interesting talk Peter and some interesting lens choices. When I shot Canon I had an ultra wide and never really liked it. I found it made the background really small. I shoot Panasonic Lumix M43 so keep my lens small and light. For my standard lenses I switch between the Leica 15mm f1.7 (30mm FF) and the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (50mm FF). I tend to shoot a lot of panoramas and for these I tend to use my Olympus 45mm f1.8 (90mm FF) which is extremely sharp. I also have an Olympus 14-150mm (28-300mm FF) and an Olympus 70-300mm (150-600mm FF). Most of my shooting is in rainforest environments so the zooms tend to only get used when I decided to shoot seascapes or nature/wildlife. I find it interesting to see what choices different photographers make regarding the lens they carry.

Thank you. In the past I always came at my lenses from an events shooter point of view, with people, and went for fast primes and f2.8 zooms. Now that I’m putting a bag together focused on landscape and smaller I guess I really have to break down the barrier of f/4. Typically assuming I needed lenses to cover both but may be more appropriate to own both an f/4 and at f/2.8 like the 70-200/4L and a 70-200/2.8L plus a 14-35/4L and 15-35/2.L. This may mean specializing to two kits, one for events and one for landscape. Take care.

F 2.8 or wider is useful shooting night scenes - starscapes and auroras. But, for less than the cost difference between the 15-35 and 14-35, you can pick up a 16 or 14mm prime.

That said, I have surprised myself with the number of good to great landscape shots I have taken in the 400mm to 800mm range. These were often taken almost accidentally when photographing wildlife and "stumbling" across a scene while scanning for critters.

I use the 100mm micro alot when shooting landscapes exploring.

Hi Peter love your approach to landscape photography. I have been taking Landscape and family photos for many years , two years ago I upgraded my Canon gear to mirrorless at present I own ; RF 50 F1.8, RF 35 F1.8 and the RF 24-105 F4. I want do do more in my landscape ( travelling in the bush / Outback) photography my thought is maybe one of the following could add more fun RF 14-35 F4 or RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM or RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM or RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM. I have an EOS R and EOS RP and is very happy with both of them. your advice will be much appreciated.

great advice, I'm just waiting it out for Sigma/Tamron to finally jump onto the RF system so I can finally get my 70-200. on a related note, what focal length do you see yourself shooting at most often?

I recently jumped ship to Canon and got myself both the 100-400 and eventually the 100-500 but I think I will sell the former. I love how lightweight it is and the quality (good for me), but it is not weather sealed, so I am reluctant to take it with me. The 100-500 is great for both landscapes, wildlife and closeups. On the wide end, I like my 16mm prime and the 24-105L as a weather sealed lens. I didn't invest in an ultra wide zoom as I find it is very limited to wide picturesque vistas that I hardly ever visit. For more intimate scenes I find that 24mm is more than enough and for panoramas I just use a longer lens and post processing. Maybe I'm just more used to +100mm as it is a staple on my camera. How practical do you find the 70-200 when you have 100-400? Does the 70-100 gives you enough opportunities to use that instead the super zoom? I'm asking because I'm contemplating getting the 70-200 as a more compact version of the 100-500, but it is very difficult to justify. It is more like a want than a need, I guess.

Oh no, another lens review? Nope - just good realistic advice that makes sense. Thanks Peter!

With regard to ultra-wide lenses, how would you rate the Canon RF 16 F/2.8?

Hopefully tomorrow I will get my 14-35 😉 @Peter: I have the ef version from 50mm / should I switch to the rf version?

Completely agree about the F/4 lenses especially the RF series. The 70-200 never fails to impress.

Well after watching your videos and went shopping and I got the F4 14-35 rf then I bought the Rf 24-105 f4 and the last one i got rf 70-200 f4 and now I’ve watched this I’m thinking I get rid of the 24-105 and just get the 50mm F1.8 as I’m the same as you the 70-200 is the one that lives on my camera

is 30mm good enough for casual landscape photography ??

Some really valuable advice Peter! :) thank you :) I used to shoot with the EF 24-105 F4L IS, well... still do... The EF 100-400L IS lens (just wow!), along with the drone for my landscapes... But sold my 100-400 a while back to fund other things... So predominantly use the 24-105 F4L now.. I do find it quite a handy length.. If I need extra width, I do like you mentioned... pano's! :) Awesome L lens for DSLR users for $500-$650! but do miss the extra reach once every blue moon!

The 4 questions page has all dead links and the main print is blurred. I can't find a link to feed you my email.