Landscape prime

[starcam]

Hi,

Currently shoot my landscapes with the 24-105mmL and looking to upgrade to a decent prime. Had my eye on the 24mmL II for awhile. Any landscape shooters have a good experience with this lens?

Anything else I should consider? If I'm gonna spend this much money, I want to make a good decision. Not really interested in tilt/shift or something with a protruding front element.

Thanks!

 

[Menace]

What camera body do you have? Have you tried any WAs inc the 24 II previously on your own camera body especially in the conditions you normally shoot?

Btw, 24II is an excellent lens.

Cheers

 

[Loswr]

I know you said no TS, but the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is one of the best landscape lenses available if 24mm is wide enough for your style. It's very sharp, it gives you the ability to get a very deep DoF without stopping down so far that you start to lose sharpness to diffraction, and it takes front filters.

 

[starcam]

I shoot on a full frame. Haven't used any other WA's other than my zoom at 24mm.

 

[Kernuak]

A few years ago, I was considering a similar decision. My choices were the 24 TS/E MkII, the 24 f/1.4 MkII and the Zeiss 21 Distagon. At the apertures I would be using them (for landscapes), the sharpness was very similar. The only caveat would have been, that the TS/E would have allowed a wider aperture at similar sharpness, due to the change in the focal plane, allowing faster shutterspeeds in certain conditions. In the end though, it wasn't traditional landscape photography that made the decision for me. About 15 months ago, I was going on my first expedition to chase the Northern Lights and I needed the ability to use a wider aperture to keep the exposure time and ISO as low as possible, so the choice was the 24 f/1.4 MkII. Had it not been for that, I would have been very tempted by the TS/E, but also the "look" of the images from the Zeiss also appealed. If you definitely don't want to learn about tilt and shift, then it is a straight choice between the Zeiss and the 24 f/1.4 and there isn't really a wrong answer, as they are both well-regarded lenses. It then boils down to whether or not you want the Zeiss "look" or the ability to autofocus and whether you would prefer something a little wider than 24mm.
Btw, have a look through this thread, there are a number of landscapes posted of varying degrees of quality.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=304.0

 

[Axilrod]

24mm may not feel wide enough for landscapes. If you're on a budget check out the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. As much as it pains me to say it as a 14mm f/2.8LII owner, it's sharper than the Canon 14L that is 5x the price. Distortion is much worse, but easily corrected in post. But it's certainly an excellent lens. The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is also great, super sharp and built like a tank, but very expensive.

 

[pwp]

It's just the 17 TS-E that has the vulnerable bulging front elephant...err...element. Why not rent the 24 TS-E and have a meaningful test drive. It really is the Gold Standard for FF landscape shooters. As I'm sure you are completely aware, the 24 f/1.4II is a remarkable lens and worth considering. The new 24-70 f/2.8II has had glowing reviews, and my 48 hour test drive with one confirms the assertion that it is an IQ match for the 24 f/1.4II. Not bad! And you still have the flexibility of a compact zoom. You're spoiled for choice really.

-PW

 

[wayno]

I have both the 24-70 ii and the 24 ii. I think the zoom has the edge (just) in IQ at 24. Remarkable lens and I'm finding myself using it along with my 17-40 (which feels just OK now in comparison).

I like the 24 ii for portraits etc and some specialist landscapes but I would always take the zooms for most landscape work now.

The more I shoot, the more I find zooms far more useful for landscape, anyway - reduce the need for cropping and the difference between 24 and 70 might be a couple of kilometres. With portrait primes, the difference between 50 and 85 might be a couple of metres....

 

[starcam]

Thanks for all the feedback. I really want something great, and maybe I would consider the 24 T/S if it's that good. I've also thought quite a lot about the Zeiss 21mm, but after reading so many forums about that lens, I got a little paranoid about my manual technique. Funny how I don't hear too many people mention manual shift as a con about the 24 T/S, am I missing something? I occasionally use manual shift with my current zoom and haven't noticed anything lacking in my finished product. Maybe we are just spoiled with AF these days.

 

[crasher8]

If I had disposable income I'd get both the 18 and 21 Zeiss. Since I do not I have the 16-35, 24-105 and will one day save for the 17TS-E.

Manual focus for landscape is the way to go. Are you familiar with hyperfocal distance focusing?

 

[starcam]

crasher8,

I am familiar with hyperfocal distance focusing, but not something I've practiced often. Would not have a problem putting that into practice more often.