Canon IS Primes for landscapes?

[scaptic]

My current gear is still doing fine, but the time has come to think about an upgrade. I’m planning to:

a) Move to Full Frame (ditching the “0” on my 60D and going for a 6D);
b) Switch to primes (which I tend to use as “2-way” prime anyway).

The choice for a 6D is mainly a financial one, but for most of my photography (mainly landscapes) it will do just as well as a 5DmkIII. A possible drawback of the 6D is the wildlife shots, but I think I would actually prefer a 70D (or maybe 7DmkII) over a 5DmkIII because of the higher fps and crop factor.

I’ll keep my L zooms (70-200 f/4 and 100-400) for now, but the EF-S lenses need to go. For my new prime lenses it’s hard not to get excited about the new Sigma ART lenses, but:

I’m shooting landscapes most of the time. As such, I tend to use apertures from f/4 and upward.
When comparing the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART to a more moderate priced Canon 35mm f/2 IS, the latter actually isn’t doing that bad:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

There is no Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART yet (thus an unfair comparison), but the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS seems to be dropping the ball a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART is rumored to be heavier and more expensive as the 35mm Art.

Although the mentioned Canon IS Prime lenses are not as good wide open, they have some clear advantages:

• They are much smaller and lighter (the combined weight of the 24mm and 35mm Canons is actually less than a single Sigma 35mm ART, a big bonus when hiking);
• They are (much) cheaper (the possible savings could bring a 5DmkIII in reach, but likely be spend on more glass);
• They offer IS (which I don’t care about, but could be good for filming).

Am I missing something, or is this actually a viable option? Any good experiences using these Canon lenses for landscapes?

 

[Random Orbits]

Have you considered Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS? It'll be similar to what you're considering stopped down, and carrying zoom might be easier than a few primes.

The new Canon IS lenses are nice and compact (I've used the 24 and 28), and they can be had for decent prices when they go on sale or through the refurb store.

 

[Don Haines]

Have you considered Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS? It'll be similar to what you're considering stopped down, and carrying zoom might be easier than a few primes.

I second that.

The 24-70 F4 IS is a VERY nice lens and there is a bundle with the 6D and that lens.... it is harder to find than the 24-105 bundle, but the lens is so much sharper..... It's sharper than a lot of the primes that it's range covers....

 

[scaptic]

I did think briefly about the Canon general purpose zooms like the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 24-105.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is a bit too expensive and heavy for me (for hiking/backpacking).
The performance of the 24-105 lens at the wide side seams to be lagging a bit (>50% will be shot at 24mm).

I must admit I completely overlooked the 24-70 f/4 IS, which is an interesting option.

The test sheet on the 24mm f/2.8 IS looks a little bit better (but I’m the first to admit that test sheets do not equal real life performance):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Maybe I should go for a kit including the 24-105 and a separate 24mm f/2.8 IS…

 

[CarlTN]

My current gear is still doing fine, but the time has come to think about an upgrade. I’m planning to:

a) Move to Full Frame (ditching the “0” on my 60D and going for a 6D);
b) Switch to primes (which I tend to use as “2-way” prime anyway).

The choice for a 6D is mainly a financial one, but for most of my photography (mainly landscapes) it will do just as well as a 5DmkIII. A possible drawback of the 6D is the wildlife shots, but I think I would actually prefer a 70D (or maybe 7DmkII) over a 5DmkIII because of the higher fps and crop factor.

I’ll keep my L zooms (70-200 f/4 and 100-400) for now, but the EF-S lenses need to go. For my new prime lenses it’s hard not to get excited about the new Sigma ART lenses, but:

I’m shooting landscapes most of the time. As such, I tend to use apertures from f/4 and upward.
When comparing the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART to a more moderate priced Canon 35mm f/2 IS, the latter actually isn’t doing that bad:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

There is no Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART yet (thus an unfair comparison), but the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS seems to be dropping the ball a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART is rumored to be heavier and more expensive as the 35mm Art.

Although the mentioned Canon IS Prime lenses are not as good wide open, they have some clear advantages:

• They are much smaller and lighter (the combined weight of the 24mm and 35mm Canons is actually less than a single Sigma 35mm ART, a big bonus when hiking);
• They are (much) cheaper (the possible savings could bring a 5DmkIII in reach, but likely be spend on more glass);
• They offer IS (which I don’t care about, but could be good for filming).

Am I missing something, or is this actually a viable option? Any good experiences using these Canon lenses for landscapes?

You can buy my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for less than half what the 35mm Art costs, new. It has about as low barrel distortion as the Art. Just has a bit more coma and CA. It's manageable. (The Art is not immune to these either). Closed to f/9 or so, the Sigma 24mm is pretty sharp across the frame (doesn't have the contrast of the Art). Also it's a quasi macro lens, very useful for wildflowers, or insects...placing them in a wider context than a macro telephoto does. The Art would clearly be superior optically, but it's not as wide, and isn't a macro.

If you have to have the best landscape lenses, then buy the 35mm Art, and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon. The Canon 17 and 24mm T/S lenses are also very good to excellent, with the tilt shift feature being vital for serious architecture work, but can also work well for landscape. If you are very extremely serious about only doing landscape (and no architecture), you should just consider forgetting all of this (and forget Canon), and buy only a D800 and the 21mm Distagon. It's sharper than the newer 15mm Zeiss f/2.8, costs a third less...isn't as wide, but width isn't everything. Not sure when or what will best the 21mm Zeiss. It has noticable mustache distortion, but the resolution is worth having to correct it when needed (most landscape shots won't need correcting all of it). The 21mm is what I would get if I simply had to have the best (and only did wide angle landscapes), but thankfully I don't. The 18mm Zeiss appears to have great color, but is just not remotely as sharp, has a slow aperture, and quite severe vignetting that doesn't go away until f/7.1 or so. Costs about 65% the price of the 21mm, though.

Frankly I'd like a 21mm "Art" from Sigma, rather than a 24mm. I doubt it would be quite as good as the existing Distagon, though, but might cost less.

I've had the 24-105L since fall, and rented one before that. It's great for a general purpose lens. At 24mm, it has severe barrel distortion at 5% or so, and fairly high chromatic aberration towards borders and corners. That's all correctable, but you lose a bit of resolution and angle of view, when correcting the barrel distortion. Of course you don't always have to correct it.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

My current gear is still doing fine, but the time has come to think about an upgrade. I’m planning to:

a) Move to Full Frame (ditching the “0” on my 60D and going for a 6D);
b) Switch to primes (which I tend to use as “2-way” prime anyway).

The choice for a 6D is mainly a financial one, but for most of my photography (mainly landscapes) it will do just as well as a 5DmkIII. A possible drawback of the 6D is the wildlife shots, but I think I would actually prefer a 70D (or maybe 7DmkII) over a 5DmkIII because of the higher fps and crop factor.

I’ll keep my L zooms (70-200 f/4 and 100-400) for now, but the EF-S lenses need to go. For my new prime lenses it’s hard not to get excited about the new Sigma ART lenses, but:

I’m shooting landscapes most of the time. As such, I tend to use apertures from f/4 and upward.
When comparing the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART to a more moderate priced Canon 35mm f/2 IS, the latter actually isn’t doing that bad:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

There is no Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART yet (thus an unfair comparison), but the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS seems to be dropping the ball a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART is rumored to be heavier and more expensive as the 35mm Art.

Although the mentioned Canon IS Prime lenses are not as good wide open, they have some clear advantages:

• They are much smaller and lighter (the combined weight of the 24mm and 35mm Canons is actually less than a single Sigma 35mm ART, a big bonus when hiking);
• They are (much) cheaper (the possible savings could bring a 5DmkIII in reach, but likely be spend on more glass);
• They offer IS (which I don’t care about, but could be good for filming).

Am I missing something, or is this actually a viable option? Any good experiences using these Canon lenses for landscapes?

I have both the 35 and 24 IS lenses from Canon, the 35 is stunning the 24 i have not yet had enough chance to fully evaluate there seems to be a quite sharp and gritty quality about its images, I use it during weddings for the shots that need it for which it works great , i am not sure however in the long term it would suffice as a landscape lens - reason being i think 24 is not quite wide enough on full frame for some shots and the lens although well made does not feel like it would take the hammering that my previous 17-40 and 24-70s took whilst landscaping , that said it is sharp and this shot is straight from camera not sharpened at iso 100 f8 on tripod should give you an idea of the lens itself.

cheers
Andrew

www.andrew-davies.com

 

[ecka]

There is no Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART yet (thus an unfair comparison), but the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS seems to be dropping the ball a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART is rumored to be heavier and more expensive as the 35mm Art.

Although the mentioned Canon IS Prime lenses are not as good wide open, they have some clear advantages:

• They are much smaller and lighter (the combined weight of the 24mm and 35mm Canons is actually less than a single Sigma 35mm ART, a big bonus when hiking);
• They are (much) cheaper (the possible savings could bring a 5DmkIII in reach, but likely be spend on more glass);
• They offer IS (which I don’t care about, but could be good for filming).

Am I missing something, or is this actually a viable option? Any good experiences using these Canon lenses for landscapes?

There is an older Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 which is near as good optically as the new stabilized version, only cheaper and smaller.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=246&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[Policar]

90mm TS-E.

Wide angle landscapes look terrible.

 

[scaptic]

Everybody thanks for the input; there is a lot to think about when replacing both the camera and lenses and this is very useful.

When I check my photo’s in Lightroom, I’m using my 17-55 at 17mm and around 22-24mm almost exclusively. The 24mm would actually give me a wider angle when taking the crop-factor into account. I hardly ever use my 10-20mm on crop (I actually thought I used it more often, but the Lightroom numbers don’t lie), so a 24mm should be wide enough for me.

The TS-E and Zeiss lenses look great, but a bit too expensive (maybe the next upgrade).

I actually use my 70-200 (f/4 L IS) for landscapes as well. It’s by far my favorite lens, but find it’s often just not wide enough. On FF it would be perfect.

 

[yorgasor]

Whenever I go landscape, I carry my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and my Canon 70-200mm (with a 1.4x extender thrown in, just in case). I tend to either want to see everything, or things far away. The 70-200 is excellent for stitching together a few photos for a panorama. Here's a couple sample shots from my trip to Utah in February:

Stitched Panorama:
PotashCanyonPanorama2 by yorgasor, on Flickr

Zeiss 21mm
Utah Valley Car Lights by yorgasor, on Flickr

Just remember to turn of the !#@$ IS when taking shots if your 70-200 has IS. I ruined a spectacular night panorama because I didn't notice the jitter when previewing the photo on the back of the camera

 

[Ruined]

My current gear is still doing fine, but the time has come to think about an upgrade. I’m planning to:

a) Move to Full Frame (ditching the “0” on my 60D and going for a 6D);
b) Switch to primes (which I tend to use as “2-way” prime anyway).

The choice for a 6D is mainly a financial one, but for most of my photography (mainly landscapes) it will do just as well as a 5DmkIII. A possible drawback of the 6D is the wildlife shots, but I think I would actually prefer a 70D (or maybe 7DmkII) over a 5DmkIII because of the higher fps and crop factor.

I’ll keep my L zooms (70-200 f/4 and 100-400) for now, but the EF-S lenses need to go. For my new prime lenses it’s hard not to get excited about the new Sigma ART lenses, but:

I’m shooting landscapes most of the time. As such, I tend to use apertures from f/4 and upward.
When comparing the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART to a more moderate priced Canon 35mm f/2 IS, the latter actually isn’t doing that bad:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

There is no Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART yet (thus an unfair comparison), but the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS seems to be dropping the ball a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART is rumored to be heavier and more expensive as the 35mm Art.

Although the mentioned Canon IS Prime lenses are not as good wide open, they have some clear advantages:

• They are much smaller and lighter (the combined weight of the 24mm and 35mm Canons is actually less than a single Sigma 35mm ART, a big bonus when hiking);
• They are (much) cheaper (the possible savings could bring a 5DmkIII in reach, but likely be spend on more glass);
• They offer IS (which I don’t care about, but could be good for filming).

Am I missing something, or is this actually a viable option? Any good experiences using these Canon lenses for landscapes?

OP: You are making a common mistake when looking at lenses - looking at only one optical benchmark (sharpness).

You stated you wish to photograph landscapes. Odds are, those landscapes will have a lot of light. They might even have the sun in the picture! Did you investigate lens flare, which will then be your biggest enemy? Using the same site's lens flare test, we can see that the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS that you were skeptical above is actually the best in terms of lack of lens flare at smaller apertures.

Which is another point, your landscape shots will generally be f/8-f/16. The Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS while not the sharpest of all at f/2.8 is just as sharp if not sharper at f/8-f/16.

Going back to lens flare,
The Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS has significantly less lens flare than the below lenses:
* Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L
* Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

Proof:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

This is largely due to the much smaller front element on the 24mm f/2.8 IS.


And the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART is an utter mess in terms of lens flare so I wouldn't count on the 24mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7


So, sometimes the cheaper option is actually the better option.

If not obvious already, I recommend the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS for landscape work, due to its classic 24mm landscape focal length, very low lens flare and high sharpness at typical landscape apertures.

 

[scaptic]

OP: You are making a common mistake when looking at lenses - looking at only one optical benchmark (sharpness).

You stated you wish to photograph landscapes. Odds are, those landscapes will have a lot of light. They might even have the sun in the picture! Did you investigate lens flare, which will then be your biggest enemy? Using the same site's lens flare test, we can see that the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS that you were skeptical above is actually the best in terms of lack of lens flare at smaller apertures.

Which is another point, your landscape shots will generally be f/8-f/16. The Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS while not the sharpest of all at f/2.8 is just as sharp if not sharper at f/8-f/16.

A very good point; the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS is looking better and better.

Additional bonus: bringing this lens, a 35mm f/2.8 IS and a 6D on a hiking trip would actually save a little weight compared to a 60D and a 17-55.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Ultra-Wide angle shots can look weird depending on what objects are in the foreground. Do you have a Pan head? You could use any standard focal length on a pan head, even the 40mm pancake.

Samyang has some cheaper manual focus offerings like the 14mm f/2.8, which is sharp but heavily distorted. Samyang also has the 24mm f/1.4 which many rave about. I haven't used it myself but it is worth looking into. Apparently the 24mm has no coma wide open which is ideal for astrophotography.

Shift+Stitch with the TS-E 24mm-II will give you an effective sensor area of 48x36mm on full frame. With the 6D shift-stitched pictures will give you an image of about 40Mpx with excellent corner to corner IQ.

 

[ray5]

Whenever I go landscape, I carry my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and my Canon 70-200mm (with a 1.4x extender thrown in, just in case). I tend to either want to see everything, or things far away. The 70-200 is excellent for stitching together a few photos for a panorama. Here's a couple sample shots from my trip to Utah in February:

Stitched Panorama:
PotashCanyonPanorama2 by yorgasor, on Flickr

Zeiss 21mm
Utah Valley Car Lights by yorgasor, on Flickr

Just remember to turn of the !#@$ IS when taking shots if your 70-200 has IS. I ruined a spectacular night panorama because I didn't notice the jitter when previewing the photo on the back of the camera

Stunning! Sent you a PM.

 

[CarlTN]

Apparently the 24mm has no coma wide open which is ideal for astrophotography.

First I've seen of that. I thought some of the tests I saw, showed significant coma wide open. Also it suffers from quality control issues, many are decentered. Also it's got fairly severe barrel distortion of 3%, not good for stitching or architecture. Also, wide open, the vignetting is at 3 stops. This is easily the most severe vignetting of any 24mm lens in current production. Also, it's fully manual, with manual aperture, does not record aperture or focus info in exif data. That means for shooting landscape at closed down aperture, it will either give a very dark view through the viewfinder when manually focusing, or else you would have to focus with the aperture open wider, and hope for the best once you close it down. Also, this test shows moderate field curvature.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/769-samyang24f14eosff?start=2

And I quote:

"However, the contrast is a bit soft at these settings (f/1.4 to f/2) so the image quality is not perceived as very sharp (sharp = high resolution + high contrast). There's a significant boost in quality at f/2.8."

That does not bode well for astrophotography. Not saying it's not possible, but it does not look like the best choice at all to me. As for flare, according to Photozone, there is significant flare and ghosting in the 24mm Samyang.

"Admittedly, the 24mm f/1.4 suffers from slightly lower contrast at large apertures but the resolution is already pretty high here and that's including the difficult outer image regions. The results get more snappy at f/2.8 and beyond the lens is very sharp indeed. Typical for such lenses, the Samyang produces a heavy amount of vignetting at large aperture settings so it's advisable to correct the issue during post-processing or by stopping down to at least f/4. The barrel distortion is a bit stronger than average albeit not extreme. While we didn't really test the quality of the bokeh formally this time, the field results look pretty good - normally ultra-wide lenses are somewhat on the rough side here. There is some visible bokeh fringing at large apertures but this is, again, nothing out of the ordinary. The weakest aspect of the lens is possibly its rather limited protection against back light, especially sided light. We have seen some higher than average glare and ghostings so you should always mount the supplied lens hood in difficult scenes although this will not always help, of course."

Given the presence of field curvature, that usually goes hand in hand with periphery coma (and/or astigmatism) at infinity focus. This is why I bought the Sigma 24mm instead. Overall, I feel it's a better lens, autofocuses, yet costs less when new than the Samyang! It has far lower barrel distortion, too, as well as far less vignetting at its widest f/1.8. Also it doesn't seem to be subject to such low production standards as the Korean lens. My copy is very well centered, at least. Made in Japan should still mean something. It doesn't always, I admit. And also, yes, it does have some coma in the outer 50% of the image. Has almost zero coma in the inner 50%, though, even at f/1.8. It's mostly gone in the periphery by f/4.5, as well.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/756-sigmaex2418fx

Wide open, especially in this test, the border and corner do look soft. But they don't appear this soft in real world use to me, especially for daytime shots on my 6D. Keep in mind this test is on a Nikon D3x, 24 megapixels, more than any Canon body (so far...thus the CA appears larger than it would on a Canon.). Their MTF50 test at F/8 is found to be 3558 center, 2774 border, and 2709 extreme (corner). That is not too shabby on a D3x. The above test of the Samyang, was on a 21 MP 5D2. F/9 is the real sweet spot in my experience with the lens, which is a typical setting for much of landscape shooting. They admittedly conclude it's not a good choice for landscape. I do admit it's a better choice for wide angle portraiture (and macro), obviously, especially since that appears to be what it was designed for. But it definitely can work for landscape on a 6D. On a D800? Definitely not.

Like I said, it was an easy choice for me, between this lens and the Samyang 24mm. But if the choice (and the funds exist for it) is between a Sigma 35mm Art, obviously there is hardly any comparison (other than the low barrel distortion). At around 24mm, the only real choices for Canon, for the least optical compromise, are the Canon T/S, or the Zeiss Distagon (as I mentioned above). And the Zeiss would really be better served on a D800. However, the D800 might actually out resolve the Zeiss...which is why hopefully they will make an "Otus" wide angle lens at some point. When they do, that's what every landscaper will go after if they can.

I'll admit the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS appears to be a good choice too, however it costs a smidge more when new (and almost double what I'm offering my used Sigma for). And sometimes you want a faster aperture than f/2.8...or the ability to shoot macro wide angles. Image stabilization is a very nice feature, but if you take time with your landscapes and use a tripod, the IS is useless there.

 

[timmy_650]

Have you thought about the New sigma 24-105mm F/4 OS? It is better than the canon at 24mm and that is where you shoot most. The week spot is the 105mm but i thought you said you had a 70-200.

 

[scaptic]

The Sigma 24-105 ART lens looks like a nice lens as well, but backed up with some very good arguments in this thread the primes route feels better to me.
The Sigma 24-105 is quite heavy and the 82mm would require new CPL and ND filters as well.

Note: I don’t mind lugging around heavy equipment. If I just go shooting I have close to 10kg of gear already. I mainly want to option to go “light” when I go trekking.

 

[Sporgon]

The trio of IS primes are all excellent for landscape. They offer virtually the best across the frame sharpness with IS for hand holding late evening / early morning shots with small apertures and low ISO.

However the 24-70 f4 IS is also excellent, much better than the early reviews gave it credit for. I have no idea why this happened; the 70-300L also suffered in the same way.

If you want lighter, cheaper ( individually ), smaller then the primes are the way to go although the 24-70 IS is noticeably smaller than the 24-105L in actual use, and goes well on the 6D.

Here are a couple of landscape shots taken on the 24-70 f4 IS. If you want to see a large size have a look on my website.

 

[scaptic]

The trio of IS primes are all excellent for landscape. They offer virtually the best across the frame sharpness with IS for hand holding late evening / early morning shots with small apertures and low ISO.

However the 24-70 f4 IS is also excellent, much better than the early reviews gave it credit for. I have no idea why this happened; the 70-300L also suffered in the same way.

If you want lighter, cheaper ( individually ), smaller then the primes are the way to go although the 24-70 IS is noticeably smaller than the 24-105L in actual use, and goes well on the 6D.

Here are a couple of landscape shots taken on the 24-70 f4 IS. If you want to see a large size have a look on my website.

Gorgeous shots…

 

[docsmith]

All the data on the internet is an interesting thing. Stare at it too long and you'll lose perspective and go blind. It allows you to evaluate subtle differences in lenses beyond the point that you would actually be able to perceive. Also, much of the available data is based upon a single copy of a lens when it is well established that there is significant copy variation. I am not saying you don't learn something and that it isn't valuable, but I think you need to evaluate charts with some perspective.

My recommendation is that you start to think in broader terms such as "unacceptable," "acceptable," "good," "very good," "extremely good," and "elite." Each of these is in the eye of the beholder, but I want to emphasize that evaluating internet data tends to push everyone to the "elite" lenses when many amateurs would be very happy once you get past good (some with acceptable).

I do this because earlier you dismissed what is likely the perfect lens for you. You say that you want a landscape lens and are on a budget....the EF 25-105 f/4 is absolutely the best bargain "L" lens right now. But it in your kit when you get your 6D and wait for a deal that pops up and you can get it for $400-$600. That is a steal. Practically speaking, the lens is good at f/4 (all this talk of it being "soft" is highly overrated IMO), but it is very good to extremely good from f/5.6-f/8. It is about as good as any lens once diffraction kits in (which is still very good to extremely good) from f/8-f/16. It is a great landscape lens for the budget. Are there better out there, yes, absolutely. The charts show it and several lenses are even perceivably better. But it is good enough for most amateurs.

So, my recommendation would be to pick up the EF 24-105 in a kit, or maybe the EF 24-70 f/4 IS in a kit (depending on price) and then pick up a prime such as the Sigma 35A, or one of Canon's trilogy of 24 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, or 35 f/2 for lower light photography. If you want astrophotography, that does change things. The value lens you can get is the Samyang/Rokinon 14 f/2.8 UMC. You can get by with f/2.8 at 24 mm (I've seen great shots even at f/4), but typically need f/2, by 21 mm or 14 mm, you can increase your shutter speed enough that you can get great shots with f/2.8.