Author Topic: Choice for a landscape lens (Read 3044 times)

marekjoz · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2012, 01:28:10 PM »

Quote from: EOBeav on August 16, 2012, 12:41:12 PM

If money is not an issue, than the 16-35mm is probably the way to go. Optically, it is superior to the 17-40mm, which I would whole heartedly recommend if money was an issue.

There are some suggestions for some primes on here, but you should consider the flexibility of a zoom also.

According to TDP, 17-40 is the same or even better from 20 to 28mm @f5.6-f11 even in corners.

canon rumors FORUM · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2012, 01:28:10 PM »

K-amps · « **Reply #16 on:** August 16, 2012, 01:56:14 PM »

According to one reviwer who must not be named

, the Nikkor 16-35 F4 is noticeably sharper than the 14-24 f2.8. That tells me that Canon needs to work hard on their Zooms.... looking at the TSE 24, we know they can do it.

charlesa · « **Reply #17 on:** August 16, 2012, 01:57:45 PM »

Depends on budget, but the 24 mm TS-E II is a prime contender. Sharpest wideangle Canon produce with added bonus of depth of field manipulation and fixing converging verticals. Price a concern maybe though.

rumorzmonger · « **Reply #18 on:** August 16, 2012, 02:15:41 PM »

Quote from: K-amps on August 16, 2012, 01:56:14 PM

According to one reviwer who must not be named , the Nikkor 16-35 F4 is noticeably sharper than the 14-24 f2.8. That tells me that Canon needs to work hard on their Zooms.... looking at the TSE 24, we know they can do it.

Only in the very centre of the frame... but on the edges, it's (much) worse than the Canon 17-40L.

scrappydog · « **Reply #19 on:** August 16, 2012, 02:24:31 PM »

Quote from: charlesa on August 16, 2012, 01:57:45 PM

Depends on budget, but the 24 mm TS-E II is a prime contender. Sharpest wideangle Canon produce with added bonus of depth of field manipulation and fixing converging verticals. Price a concern maybe though.

Buy it clean used copy for $1,750 or so. Not cheap, but not full price either. It's a really great lens.

Kernuak · « **Reply #20 on:** August 16, 2012, 04:13:52 PM »

I think the first question is to ask yourself, how often do you really need to go wider than 24mm, then consider hard your answer and ask yourself why. While soms landscapes do work well at wideangle, not as many do as a lot of people assume, plus filter use starts to become a problem, unless you have the larger Lee filters or equivalent - not cheap. Personally, I rarely find a need to go wider than 24mm on full frame, but everyone is different. If after your strong consideration, you definitely want to go for a wider view, then aside from the lenses already suggested, consider the Zeiss 18mm and 21mm Distagon lenses (I know they were mentioned in passing). The 21mm is supposed to be the better of the two, but the 18mm does well in tests (certainly better then the 16-35L MkII) and is wider. I would certainly rule out the 17-40, as mentioned, it is very soft in the corners at 17-20mm and if you take any pride in your landscape work, you won't be happy. That said, it is probably on a par or slightly better than the 24-105 once you get to 24mm and beyond.

nonac · « **Reply #21 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:15:13 PM »

Thanks averybody for your comments. I am leaning toward a TSE lens, most likely the 24mm as filters will be easier to use on it. I've not used a TSE before; however, I like the ability to control the DOF, even at wide open in some cases. I'll just have to learn how to use it! Hopefully the learning curve is not too bad.

I know that there are many options regarding lens use in landscape work. I've used my 24 to 105 quite a bit. I've also used my 100mm vertically before on a tripod and stitched the shots together which worked well too. The only drawback with those is the monster file sizes at times. I had one last year that was over a GB!

canon rumors FORUM · « **Reply #21 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:15:13 PM »

Moody Blues · « **Reply #22 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:33:33 PM »

I owned the 14L 2.8 II and achieved some incredible captures. It just isn't feasible though unless you absolutely need it. I sold it and bought the 16-35 2.8 II and absolutely love it. Here is a shot from last night and a BW from this morning with it.