If you could only use one lens for landscape photography, which one and why?

[steven kessel]

I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out. I've been absolutely blown away by this lens. It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly. I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40. For landscape photography I need nothing else.

 

[takesome1]

500mm L on 1D IV or 1D x.

I like animals in my outdoor landscapes.

 

[ejenner]

24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.

17 TS-E for me for exactly the same reasons (I get 17mm,24mm and 35mm), but I like to go even wider. I still do stitch the 17mm to get wider - often one for the sky and one for the ground.

 

[fugu82]

I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out. I've been absolutely blown away by this lens. It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly. I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40. For landscape photography I need nothing else.

+1 on the 16-35 f/4L. Best all-around landscape lens I've ever used. I dumped my 2.8 version of this and never looked back.

 

[tpatana]

Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?

Define 'better'. If you want wider than 24mm and scene motion precludes stitching, the 17mm is better. The 24mm is a bit sharper, but the 17mm does fine. The 24mm takes filters directly, the 17mm needs the Wonderpana setup (additional cost and much larger filters needed).

I like not having to pick, as I have both...

 

[KimH]

I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out. I've been absolutely blown away by this lens. It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly. I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40. For landscape photography I need nothing else.

+1 on the 16-35 f/4L. Best all-around landscape lens I've ever used. I dumped my 2.8 version of this and never looked back.

And another +1 --- I couldn't agree more.

Best Indoor and Outdoor choice in my bag.

 

[tayassu]

I see why people get UWAs for landscapes, but for me, I've created my best landscapes with a tele or supertele.
I love that compressed look and the possibility to separate a detail from the whole...
I sometimes even need a 400-500mm equiv., so for me it would be the 70-300L on my 7D for portability and FL reasons, which is what I actually use. A probably better, but also more expensive option would be the 5DIII and the 100-400II and the absolute dream combo is the D810 with the 80-400.

 

[Sporgon]

Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?

Due to the 1.5 x 1 format you get a lot of foreground and sky, with the rest of the landscape a tiny strip in the middle. That's fine if your landscape includes an interesting foreground - like at your feet in the case of the 17 mil, but this is often not the case. Narrower formats are often better adapted to many landscapes, so if you want to maintain resolution you have to stitch rather than crop top and bottom. Hence why I like the option of a longer focal length for landscape.

Also the 17 TSE has a huge bulbous front element that is all but impossible to shield when shooting across or towards the sun.

 

[Eldar]

Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?

Define 'better'. If you want wider than 24mm and scene motion precludes stitching, the 17mm is better. The 24mm is a bit sharper, but the 17mm does fine. The 24mm takes filters directly, the 17mm needs the Wonderpana setup (additional cost and much larger filters needed).

I like not having to pick, as I have both...

I´m in the same situation. I end up using the 17 TS-E without filters. It´s too much hassle. When I want filters and go that wide, I use the Zeiss 15mm/2.8 and sacrifice the tilt&shift.

My most used landscape lens this summer was probably the Zeiss 15mm, a phenomenal lens, but too wide to be my One lens for landscape. 24mm is my favourite focal length, so the 24 TS-E, with its fantastic optics and flexibility would have to be a top candidate. But since i´m only allowed to have one ... it may be that I would choose the 16-35 f4L IS. I did not get that until later this fall, so I have done much less with it. I lose T&S, but the quality and flexibility of that lens, including weather sealing, is so good that I might be willing to accept that (and probably regret it on the first trip ...). The 16-35 f2.8 L II would not have been a candidate. I never liked that lens, even though I had three copies of it, hoping to get a better one every time.

 

[symmar22]

+1 for the 24mm TS-E. I have the 17 TS-E as well, but too wide for general use, and much less universal IMHO. As mentioned before it takes the 1.4x extender brilliantly, and ND and Polarizing filters are somehow mandatory accessories for landscape. I am used to work with a 4x5 view camera, so I feel kind of "naked" when I do not have optical movements.

In real life, landscape with only one lens (prime) is a bit difficult, there's a lot of cases where a tele is required, that would be the 90 TS-E for me.

 

[LovePhotography]

I agree in principle with the 24mm TS-E. However, given the fact that my vacations are not just photo-safaris, but taking two impatient teenagers to see the world, I would choose otherwise for the time being. I just went to NYC last week to shoot "urban landscape", and it rained all week (making changing lenses impossible with an umbrella in one hand and millions of people bumping you on the street), and the aforementioned teenagers (who already walk faster than I do when I'm just walking) unwilling to stop while I composed a masterpiece. I took a big kit carry-on, including 6D, 8-15mm, 50mm 1.4 Art, 16-35mm 2.8 ii, 24-105mm Art, and 70-200 2.8 ii plus teleconvertors. But, the only lens I used all week (except for my iPhone6 + for panoramas and when it was just plain raining too hard to take a camera at all) was the Sigma 24-105mm Art. Would I have liked to take some longer shots? Sure (but in the fog and rain couldn't go too far down range). And, would I have liked to go 8mm on top of the Empire State Building? Sure. But, it just didn't happen. Sooo, practically, when the kids are gone, one lens only, the 24 TS-E. But, given what I just went through (endured?), I got a lot of memories with another choice.

p.s. I used to use the big white EF 35-350mm which was great, but sold it since DxO didn't have a module for it. Still a great single lens choice to get a little bit of everything. That plus the 24 TS-E for perfection. ))

A sampling of what I was able to accomplish with one lens for "urban landscape" in a week of rain/fog/and escorting teenagers. Not really the best shots, but they are more personal. Not great artistry, but a lot of memories, and some interesting shots. Unfortunately, it looks like Photobucket really down grades resolution. ( http://s1368.photobucket.com/user/brettbolte/media/New%20York%20City-%20Christmas%202014/IMG_7477_DxO_zps3c907ab9.jpg.html?sort=6&o=73

 

[candyman]

The 16-35 f/4 on a 6d may be kind of boring but it does a great job. I went on a week long canoe trip in Killarney pp last summer and its all I took. I never felt that I needed anything else.

Not boring. I use it as well on my 6D.
I agree: it does a great job. And it is light to carry

 

[candc]

The 16-35 f/4 on a 6d may be kind of boring but it does a great job. I went on a week long canoe trip in Killarney pp last summer and its all I took. I never felt that I needed anything else.

I love Killarney! what a wonderful place to paddle and take pictures!

My favourite landscape lens on a FF is the 24-70.... and on a crop camera the 17-55. Same logic for both, it gives me the best combination of flexibility and quality.

It is beautiful. I want to go back again and maybe go around phillip edward island too. I don't have a 24-70 but that might be better yet? The f/4 looks to be a good landscape lens.

where is phillip Edward island, or do you mean Prince Edward Island?

phillip edward island is in the georgian bay just south of kpp. it takes about 5 days to circumnavigate from what i have read. its popular with the sea kayakers but you can do it in a canoe because there are a lot of smaller islands to break the wind and waves. afaik its crown land now but may be annexed into the park along with some area to the southwest as well.

 

[RobertG.]

Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?

Define 'better'. If you want wider than 24mm and scene motion precludes stitching, the 17mm is better. The 24mm is a bit sharper, but the 17mm does fine. The 24mm takes filters directly, the 17mm needs the Wonderpana setup (additional cost and much larger filters needed).

I like not having to pick, as I have both...

I´m in the same situation. I end up using the 17 TS-E without filters. It´s too much hassle. ...

Hi! What kind of hassle do you mean? The LEE Filters adaptor ring of the TS-E 17mm lens works pretty well and is faster attached to the lens then a standard adaptor ring. The standard LEE filter holder and 100mm wide filters can still be used. But I have to admit that vignetting does occur with more than 5mm of shift.

I would choose the TS-E 24mm L II as my sole landscape lens, if I had no choice to take another lens. It is very sharp, has great resolution and contrast across the whole frame and has much less distortion than the TS-E 17mm. Stitching is easier with the 24mm lens than with the 17mm one. With the TS-E 24mm I can still use a pol filter and full shift with my standard LEE filters.

 

[Eldar]

Hi! What kind of hassle do you mean

In general I think the Lee filters are too much hassle. I may use them (I have a whole stack of them) when I go to a specific spot and spend a lot of time setting up for shooting just that one spot. But for 99% of my shooting I use screw-in filters and I limit filters to ND and CPL. Currently the 17 TS-E and the 8-15 zoom (plus the long whites) are the only ones I can´t use screw-in filters.

 

[Johan Eickmeyer]

Hi guys

For all you out there doing landscape photography; I'm very interested in hearing about what would be your choice if you could only use one lens for shooting landscapes. Whether it would be a super wide angle, telephoto, something in between, zoom, prime, or maybe a specialty lens such as a tilt shift or macro?

(One other point that is beneficial to note is what sensor size you would use that with; full frame, 1.3x crop, 1.6x crop.)

And to try to avoid this being just another thread where various people list all the lenses in Canon's lineup, I would be very interested in why you would choose that particular lens for your needs.

Hope this is not another dreadful repetition. I couldn't find anything like this in regards to landscape photography.

- Alex

To be a great landscape photographer these days, it's all about versatility and portability. Prime lenses are not both. Way back in the film days, primes were vastly better than most zooms, especially wide angle ones. Also, back in the film days, we needed TS lenses to make up for the lack of controls found on larger formats. There was very little in the way of digitally altering these photos before printing onto paper.

With the vastly better zooms and digital tools we have today, there is no reason to have a TS lens or even prime over a nice and versatile zoom for landscapes. If your goal is to go out and have fun with cool toys, then maybe it would be fun. If your goal is to go out and take the best photos you can with lots of versatility and creativity, then go zooms.

I personally think a 16-35 F2.8 or 14-24 f2.8 are the best options for a single lens landscape system on full frame. They offer great zoom ranges and are fast enough to do all types of night photography as well.

All of the images taken on my website were done with zoom lenses. I also often stitch and focus stack, so really no need for a TS lens. I also encounter some conditions that would not be suited for the open mechanics of the TS assembly.

http://www.JohanEickmeyer.com

 

[DominoDude]

If I had the means I would go for a TS-E 24mm on FF, but I have to settle for now with what I own - the EF-S 10-22mm on APS-C.
The challenge of stitching and properly utilizing the superb image circle of a TS would be fun and probably take me some time to master. I'll have to put it on my "if I ever"-account...

 

[ecka]

16-35mm F4 can solo landscaping decently well, yeap, something like Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS should be perfect .

 

[noncho]

I like telephoto lenses for landscapes, so I would have only 300L IS F4 or the new 100-400L
Example at about 400mm FF equivalent: