Landscape Lens advice

[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

 

[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...

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

Um, subject matter within the telephoto field of view, gets compressed...yes from a distance far greater than framing with a wider angle lens. Duh...that's self evident, is it not?

 

[insanitybeard]

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...

f8-11 may be necessary for decent corners when zoomed out wide for the 17-40 on full frame, but used on crop it behaves better- the corners are decent by f5.6, even wide open isn't really a problem, though used for landscape, corner sharpness/detail for distant subjects is never completely stellar. Probably not helped by the pixel dense 7D sensor!

 

[Zv]

Only we photographers scrutinize corner sharpness. Most viewers just look at the image as a whole. The 17-40L is a fine lens if you have a tripod and shoot at f/8 and narrower (which is ideal for landscapes anyway).

Also, I use the corner softness and vignetting wide open to my advantage for close up of objects to create some subject isolation.

 

[CarlTN]

This is good to know, regarding the 17-40. Thank you all.

A friend announced to me yesterday, that he just bought the 16-28 Tokina, for his 7D. I hope to try it on my new 6D. Hopefully I will make the right choice. I have a feeling the right choice is to buy several lenses including a T/S, but I would rather not spend the money.

I wonder...does anyone ever try to correct rectilinear distortion? I guess I should google it. That distortion, is why people don't like shooting really wide angle. It's either that, or barrel distortion of a fish-eye...in some cases neither is preferable...which is where panoramas come in. But who has time to do stitched panoramas while visiting a national park or something? I would just wind up rushing it, and miss out on going to enough locations to take pictures. I'm always rushed...time is never on my side. Sort of like posting on here. I sign in to look around for 15 minutes, and an hour later I'm done.