Landscape Lens advice

[TrumpetPower!]

The TS-E 24 is unquestionably my favorite -- nay, for me, the ultimate -- landscape lens. It's the perspective I'm generally looking for, and it is truly unbelievable at how well it lets you incorporate elements both inches and miles away from the lens. Just last week I was at the Superstition Mountains on the east side of the Valley of the Sun. I haven't done the post-processing yet so I won't post the image, but a quarter of the frame was a basketball-sized clump of wildflowers about a foot away from the camera (which was almost on the ground itself), and the skyline was the jagged cliffs of the Superstitions themselves, dominating the sky but still distant. And everything in focus from here to there.

I find 24 wide enough to be expansive, but not so wide that it feels unnatural or that I have trouble framing the subject. For example, with the shot last week, the Superstitions would not have been so imposing, and there would have been too much uninteresting flat ground at the sides of the frame. I would have had to have gotten half again as close to the mountains...and then the perspective would have started to have gotten weird...and there didn't happen to be any wildflowers there, anyway.

And, when I am looking for that type of wraparound all-encompassing view...well, for me, that's what my sniny new toy is for: the 8-15. Such as what I posted here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13771.msg249243#msg249243

from the same outing.

Cheers,

b&

[Mr Bean]

I must admit, the TS-E 24 is a cracking good lens. Its very sharp and the TS bit helps in tricky situations. I'll add that to the collection one day. But, after hiring and using the Zeiss 21mm for 2 weeks, I have fallen in luv with the Zeiss UWA lenses. So much so, I've plonked the money down for a 15mm Zeiss. And this from a guy who is a one eyed Canon person

Note: I have particular needs for a lens like this, for use in astrophotography, where sharpness across for the FF is critical.

Perhaps you could hire the Zeiss, to get a feel for it?

[charlesa]

The TS-E 24 mm version II. I caress that lens on every landscape and architecture shoot. Love it to bits.

[willis]

14L just doesn't look or work right for landscape photography.  Plus it's too expensive and does too little.

You are right but sometimes you need that extra wide lens but rarely, usually 16-40 is enough for landscapes.

[Zv]

The 17-40L is fine if you stop down to f/8 or f/11, corners look fine around 24 - 40mm. But as you said you mainly use it between 17 and 24mm maybe a 17mm TS-E would be better. Personally I think with digital photography nowadays it's rather easy to correct the lens distortion, vignetting and perspective and apply sharpening (selectively). But then I've never used a TS lens before so I could be missing out.

Landscape is a broad term. It really depends on the scene and which parts you are trying to capture. There's no right focal length. Sometimes the compression from a tele lens actually works better. Just my opinion.

[chauncey]

The all-time best, IMHO, is the 180mm macro...but ya gotta be adept at photoshop and it's photomerge tools.
The quality is unbelievable.       

[joaopedroglm]

Thanks Guys, for your opinions.

[CarlTN]

I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well.  I would also like to try a T/S lens.  I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners.  That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40.  The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...

[J.R.]

You may want to have a look at the 17mm TSE.

I sold the 17-40 with the thought of upgrading to the 16-35 but going through my shots the other day and realised that almost 65% of my shots with this lens were taken at 17mm while shots over 24mm were almost 20%. So now I have dropped the idea of getting the 16-35 and will get the 17 TSE instead.

[pj1974]

Replying to the OP's initial question - I have no experience with the Ziess 21mm, so I can't comment there.

I really like compression in many landscapes (and have a particular interest in landscape photos in the portrait-orientation, where that compression can also work beautifully in many compositions).   Eg when I lived in Europe and visited Switzerland, taking photos of the Alps with details closer to the foreground ... magic!

Actually, I don't own a FF (my Canon DSLRs are 7D and 350D). My favourite landscape lens is probably the trusty Canon 15-85mm. It's got great IQ, and the USM AF and IS are very handy too. But perhaps more important than AF and IS is the focal range... from 24 to 136mm in 35mm format equivalent.

I find that 15mm on an APS (24mm in FF) - works VERY well for me for most landscapes. (I definitely really like those few extra mm compared to the 18-XXmm or 17-XXmm lenses). And 85mm on the tele-end is important for me (I find 50/55mm too short for a tele-end walkaround).

Though I do have an UWA (Sigma 10-20mm) - and it does come into its own in certain situations (and yes, there is a huge difference between 10mm and 15mm) - often I take my favourite landscapes around 15mm.  I really like the flexibility of a zoom when out bushwalking, sight-seeing, etc (I currently live in Australia, but have lived and travelled extensively around the world).

I'm not planning to upgrade from APS-C (looking forward to what a new 7DmkII may have in store for us).  Hope the OP will find the right lens for his/her needs.

Paul

[wickidwombat]

Replying to the OP's initial question - I have no experience with the Ziess 21mm, so I can't comment there.

I really like compression in many landscapes (and have a particular interest in landscape photos in the portrait-orientation, where that compression can also work beautifully in many compositions).   Eg when I lived in Europe and visited Switzerland, taking photos of the Alps with details closer to the foreground ... magic!

Actually, I don't own a FF (my Canon DSLRs are 7D and 350D). My favourite landscape lens is probably the trusty Canon 15-85mm. It's got great IQ, and the USM AF and IS are very handy too. But perhaps more important than AF and IS is the focal range... from 24 to 136mm in 35mm format equivalent.

I find that 15mm on an APS (24mm in FF) - works VERY well for me for most landscapes. (I definitely really like those few extra mm compared to the 18-XXmm or 17-XXmm lenses). And 85mm on the tele-end is important for me (I find 50/55mm too short for a tele-end walkaround).

Though I do have an UWA (Sigma 10-20mm) - and it does come into its own in certain situations (and yes, there is a huge difference between 10mm and 15mm) - often I take my favourite landscapes around 15mm.  I really like the flexibility of a zoom when out bushwalking, sight-seeing, etc (I currently live in Australia, but have lived and travelled extensively around the world).

I'm not planning to upgrade from APS-C (looking forward to what a new 7DmkII may have in store for us).  Hope the OP will find the right lens for his/her needs.

Paul

going somewhat off topic I'd be interested in a EF-M version of the 15-85  ..... for the lil old M i wonder if they could get smaller? since the 18-55 EF-M isn't much smaller than the EF-S 18-55 although it is optically better

[Bruce Photography]

I would go with the 24mm TS-E ii F/3.5 over the zeiss. You would be able to take so many pictures you wouldnt have been able to take before.

+1 on this recommendation.  I'm shooting Nikon with the 14-24 right now, but my real favorite is the Canon 24 TSE II.  This and the 17mm TSE are my sharpest Canon lenses from frame far left to frame far right.  And with their dual axis for tilt and shift this was a great combination on my 5D2.  The 24 is the best overall because you can use a filter and/or polarizer on it as well as a minimum of distortion as long as your gear is perfectly level (except for the tilt).  Perhaps renting a tilt shift lens first to get the hang of it would be a good idea but it is much better than the 16-35 (at least the copy I have).  Try it out and see if you don't agree.  (yes it is manual focus - I use live view with mag for my focusing.  This allows me to move the focus box to my precise area that I want to focus on and then move it to where I get my meter readings.  What a great tool.

[ahab1372]

I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well.  I would also like to try a T/S lens.  I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners.  That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40.  The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...

You mean you like the telephoto FOV? :-)
To change compression in a landscape photo, you would have to walk several yards or miles, as only distance changes perspective

[J.R.]

The all-time best, IMHO, is the 180mm macro...but ya gotta be adept at photoshop and it's photomerge tools.
The quality is unbelievable.       

Interesting ... would you mind posting some images?

[Hobby Shooter]

If you REALLY want to go full-blast landscape, and are willing to put down the bucks, the 17-TS lens is probably the best, next to the 24-TS.  Then I'd go Zeiss 21mm.

My opinion of course.

I am interested as I have had the same thoughts as the OP and my widest is currently the 24-105. How would I benefit from the 17-TS?

thanks
J