Lens choices for landscapes - too much choice!!

[Mikehit]

I am going to New Zealand for 3 weeks in March next year and looking at what lenses to take for landscape.

I am not an avid landscape photographer but from when I was there 20 years ago I want to make the most of it and get the best possible images. I last went there as part of a 2-year backpacking excursion and in that time went from Himalayas to Australia/NZ with my widest lens being 28mm and not once have I looked at my photos and wished I had used something wider (in my limited experience wider images need careful composition to avoid mediocre results). But I have recently been thinking I really ought to expand my subject matter so landscape is on the agenda anyway.

That's the background.
My current bodies are 6D and 7Dii and I will be taking the 24-105 LIS, 70-200f4LIS, 100-400 MkII. I also have the 17-55 EF-S but knowing the NZ weather would prefer to have the option of FF for landscapes.

I am starting to really put the 24-105 through its paces for landscapes but at the moment am thinking about a more dedicated landscape lens. I am not bothered about f2.8 (I am not a shallow-DOF fiend and this will be primarily a landscape lens) so I was wondering people's comments on the lenses available:
17-40 f4L -

• a great stalwart of a lens but for me its downside is lack of IS. I will be travelling with my wife and I want the option of not having to set up a tripod
  16-35 f4 LIS - this seems to be the benchmark and covers the 24/28mm range I am already used to but gives the option of wider if I want
  24-70 f4LIS - Keeps the 24/28 minimum that I need and seems to be superior to the 24-105 at 24mm (quality dips in the middle of the range by the reviews I have read). Being a 'standard walkabout' range it may well replace the 24-105 if I get it. I guess if I want wider I can always stitch a panorama.
  Third party zooms - cheaper than Canon but seem to be heavier, not quite matching Canon quality, or quality is variable. I cannot be bothered with testing/swapping for a good copy. Maybe I am being unnecessarily pessimistic.
  Keep the 24-105 and get a prime in the 16-20mm regi

on

I know a lot of this comes down to personal preferences but any thoughts on why you made the choice you did will be gratefully listened to.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Mike!

I am no dedicated landscape photographer, too.
So maybe my advices will be corrected by others. But I am also interested to learn something more.

Having the 24-105L and the 70-40L I can at least tell you a little bit about my thoughts.

So I wouldn't take the 24-70 f/4L over the 24-105. It might be slightly better at the wide end and of course it is smaller, but I wouldn't trade that for losing the 71-105 mm on the long end.
The 24-105 is so versatile. The little flaws can be corrected easily in post, if necessary.

The 17-40L delivers UWA where the 24-105L just touches that area.
It is small and relatively inexpensive but IMO it is optically not better than the 24-105.
So take this only into account if you feel the need for inexpensive FL shorter than 24 mm.
But as you said - and I can opt that - UWA needs real skills to get better than mediocre results.

The 16-35mm f/4L is something much better. In IQ, in having IS. But you'll have to pay for that.
I was looking at that lens really close, wanting it, but I was not able to justify it for my amount of UWA and already having the 17-40L.

So my conclusion:
If you really want to spend some money, get the 16-35mm f/4L. This is THE landscape lens to me.
If you prefer to stay rational then save money, keep your kit small and simple and take the 24-105 with your 6D. Of course tele will also be nice, for animals and even landscape sometimes, especially from hills. So take either the 70-200 or 100-400 with you, depending on preferences: weight/size or reach.

And take your time not only looking through the viewfinder
Enjoy your trip.

 

[drob]

My go to lens for landscape is the 16-35mm F4L IS. I got it refurb'ed on Canon website at a good price. I even use it for astro in a pinch if I don't have my 14mm F2.8. I guess the only drawback with it is that you have to be careful with a circular polarizer to avoid uneven polarization on the wider side of the lens.

 

[BillB]

I am going to New Zealand for 3 weeks in March next year and looking at what lenses to take for landscape.

I am not an avid landscape photographer but from when I was there 20 years ago I want to make the most of it and get the best possible images. I last went there as part of a 2-year backpacking excursion and in that time went from Himalayas to Australia/NZ with my widest lens being 28mm and not once have I looked at my photos and wished I had used something wider (in my limited experience wider images need careful composition to avoid mediocre results). But I have recently been thinking I really ought to expand my subject matter so landscape is on the agenda anyway.

That's the background.
My current bodies are 6D and 7Dii and I will be taking the 24-105 LIS, 70-200f4LIS, 100-400 MkII. I also have the 17-55 EF-S but knowing the NZ weather would prefer to have the option of FF for landscapes.

I am starting to really put the 24-105 through its paces for landscapes but at the moment am thinking about a more dedicated landscape lens. I am not bothered about f2.8 (I am not a shallow-DOF fiend and this will be primarily a landscape lens) so I was wondering people's comments on the lenses available:
17-40 f4L -

• a great stalwart of a lens but for me its downside is lack of IS. I will be travelling with my wife and I want the option of not having to set up a tripod
  16-35 f4 LIS - this seems to be the benchmark and covers the 24/28mm range I am already used to but gives the option of wider if I want
  24-70 f4LIS - Keeps the 24/28 minimum that I need and seems to be superior to the 24-105 at 24mm (quality dips in the middle of the range by the reviews I have read). Being a 'standard walkabout' range it may well replace the 24-105 if I get it. I guess if I want wider I can always stitch a panorama.
  Third party zooms - cheaper than Canon but seem to be heavier, not quite matching Canon quality, or quality is variable. I cannot be bothered with testing/swapping for a good copy. Maybe I am being unnecessarily pessimistic.
  Keep the 24-105 and get a prime in the 16-20mm regi

on

I know a lot of this comes down to personal preferences but any thoughts on why you made the choice you did will be gratefully listened to.

The only arguments against the 16-35 f4 that I can think of are weight and cost. I had the 17-40, didn't use all that much and swapped it for the 16-35 as soon as it came out. I now feel very restricted if I can't go wider than 24 and my favorite 2 lens combinations are the 16-35 with either the 85 f1.8 (for light weight) or the 70-200 (if weight is not an issue).

You are right about composition though. Shooting wide means that you have to learn how to fill up the frame and make use of depth of field, and a long trip might not be the best way to learn to live with a 16-35. With the 16-35 I am rarely focussing at infinity or at least it seems that way, even with "landscapes".

 

[Maximilian]

...
I guess the only drawback with it is that you have to be careful with a circular polarizer to avoid uneven polarization on the wider side of the lens.

+1 with any UWA lens + CPL. Thank you for pointing out, drob.

 

[lion rock]

Bring wide and ultra wide. The landscape is just truly beautiful. There are lots of waterfalls in NZ., so bring a set of ND and GND filters.
I did not use my 70-200 much as I didn't see many wildlife, birds or animals. Those farm animals, sheep, cattle (the locals are raising more cattle for milk and meat, a shocking change in 2 years time) and deer can be shot close enough with a zoom 24-70 or 24-105. There may be whale watching tours, so a long lens is useful there. Though the high way going there was blocked by landslide and had to detour in order to go there in the South Island, so we did'n go. I don't know if whales would be there because the season is just starting to turn winter.
Bring tripod, too. For long exposures (waterfalls) and landscape panos. Many places are sparsely populated with less artificial lights allowing for dark skies. Night star shoots and milky way shots are possible, but is limited by clear night skies weather. I was only able to shoot one night, the rest of the times were overcast.
Be there and enjoy the trip. Come back with photos and narration.
-r

 

[snoke]

I am going to New Zealand for 3 weeks in March next year and looking at what lenses to take for landscape.

What you make photo from?

Mountains? Need > 100mm.

Church of good Shephard.
24mm: http://goo.gl/6rQvH1
400mm: http://goo.gl/pkQTnn

 

[Random Orbits]

Another vote for the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's perfect for travel. Smaller and lighter than the 16-35 f/2.8 III and 11-24.

 

[ahsanford]

+1 for the 16-35 f/4L IS:

• Lighter than f/2.8 options
• IS -- not a benefit for tripod work but great for night handheld cityscapes, inside of structures, etc.
• 16mm is perfectly wide enough for 95% of landscape work
• It's terrifically sharp, far better than your 17-40 option, esp. if you aren't shooting landscapes (using wider apertures) with it
• If you use 4x4 / 4x6 filters, it's front filter ring is well designed to be tucked in super tight to the front element, which is a key consideration for vignetting on UWA focal lengths
• When you aren't shooting landscapes, pop it on your 7D2 for a very sharp standard zoom.

I'll add that all the L UWA zooms you might be considering (16-35 2.8 / 16-35 4 / 17-40) are potentially better for messy environments with blowing sand, splashing waves, etc. than the various 24-somethings. The 16/17-something L lenses don't have protruding inner bits that telescope beyond the outer barrel of the lens, while every 24-something L lens does. (It's a small consideration, in fairness.)

The only downside of the f/4L IS is that (obv) it's f/4. So astro is possible with it but not ideal with it. If astro is a big deal for you, consider the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC or (better) go get a fast UWA prime.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And as for the subject title, thank your lucky stars it's 2017.

In the last few years, one of Canon's weakest arms of the EF portfolio has become arguably its strongest. We now have a terrific landscape instrument in the 16-35 f/4L IS, a terrific event/sports lens with the 16-35 f/2.8L III, and a mindbending rectilinear 11-24 f/4L.

There used to be posts here about folks bouncing to Nikon just for their 14-24 f/2.8 to shoot landscapes. Not so much anymore. On top of all that, third parties have been churning out impressive instruments as well.

Other than a some legendary instrument for astro -- where Canon (and just about everyone else) struggles to make a lens simultaneously very fast, very wide, and coma/vignetting controlled -- there's little to want for on the UWA end these days.

So yes, it's a lot to choose from, but that's a very good problem to have.

- A

 

[bholliman]

Another vote for the 16-35 f/4 IS! Awesome lens for landscapes and many other uses. When I first bought it I struggled with UWA compositions, but I've learned over time.

If money is an issue, the venerable 17-40L is nearly as good when stopped down to f/8 and narrower apertures used for the vast majority of landscape pictures.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is a terrific lens as well, but 24mm just isn't wide enough for me. Sure, you can create panoramas, but for my use, 16-35mm is an ideal focal length range for most landscapes.

Sounds like a fun trip. Be sure to post some of your images when you get back!

 

[Ozarker]

Any lens can be a landscape lens. The problem with UWA lenses is that they tend to make the background shrink. Mountains end up looking like mole hills. That isn't a problem for close subjects.

I have the Tamron 15-30. Excellent lens. However, looking at my own inventory I wouldn't take it. I'd just take my 24-70 and maybe the 70-200. I would think your 24-105 zoom would be fine... but Canon's 16-35 f/4 gets great reviews if you think you need a wider angle.

Have a great trip!!!

 

[ahsanford]

If money is an issue, the venerable 17-40L is nearly as good when stopped down to f/8 and narrower apertures used for the vast majority of landscape pictures.

+1. If it's sitting on a tripod at f/8 - f/14, the extra money you'd spend on the newer L ultrawides may not be warranted. But that extra money for the 16-35 f/4L IS is well worth it if you leave the tripod, shoot towards the wide open end, want a more general use instrument, etc.

This, like in the 70-200 space, is in a place where being with Canon gives you a wealth of options at various price points. Pick the one that makes the best sense for you.

- A

 

[candc]

I have a lot of wide and uwa lenses and I think the 16-35 f/4 is the most useful fl and the "is" lets you shoot handheld 1/2sec to get nice water motion blur. Iq is excellent and you can use screw on filters.

 

[stevelee]

This lens sounds like an excellent choice for my first full-frame wide-angle lens. Thanks for the helpful comments.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You always have the option of stitching multiple shots, Lightroom does a good job with them. That way, you can later crop shots that are too wide to get the composition you like. I've been able to stitch shots from multiple hand held images that cover a far wider range than a 16-35mm lens. Put the camera in portrait mode and tale 7 or 8 overlapping images, be careful to hold the camera reasonably close to the same angle as you pan. Obviously, a tripod or monopod works even better.

The other advantage of stitching is that your final image has more detail. The file is also much larger.

 

[ahsanford]

You always have the option of stitching multiple shots, Lightroom does a good job with them. That way, you can later crop shots that are too wide to get the composition you like. I've been able to stitch shots from multiple hand held images that cover a far wider range than a 16-35mm lens. Put the camera in portrait mode and tale 7 or 8 overlapping images, be careful to hold the camera reasonably close to the same angle as you pan. Obviously, a tripod or monopod works even better.

The other advantage of stitching is that your final image has more detail. The file is also much larger.

(MSP, I think you mean Portrait orientation, not Portrait mode above -- correct? Shoot a pano with vertical frames?)

+1, handheld panos are great in a pinch, even if you are just messing around on a friend's porch.

This is a 24-70 f/4L IS shot in portrait orientation to get a much wider FOV. Consider losing the polarizer for these shots and tweak color in post instead -- wide FOV + CPL + clear sky = bad mojo as I'm guessing you know.

Though I'm generally an Av shooter, I typically shoot handheld quick/crude panos in M for even exposure across the pano. I set an appropriate aperture for the FOV, and then I 'tinker' with shutter. (When I think I'm close, I swing the camera through the FOV looking through the VF and I watch the Exposure needle move across the entire vista. Depending on which way the needle dances, I season to taste per my personal histo goals/preferences.)

I also recommend taking them in either RAW or a set WB. Using an JPG + AWB may color cast the shots differently.

- A

 

[ethanz]

If you are looking for light traveling, I would recommend just the 16-35 f4 and the 70-200. It handles well at 35mm. I've never used the other lenses besides the 24-70 f2.8 so I can't provide much more. The 16-35 f4 doesn't feel heavy to me, but considering my other lens that might be why.

 

[monsieur_elegante]

Just wanted to chime in here about my good experience with the 16-35 f/4L.

I don't own it, but I rented it for a trip to Kyoto, Japan last year to use with my 6D. I was quite impressed by the image quality, but even more so by its versatility. The IS works extremely well and opens up a lot of options for general walk-around/handheld photography.

I also used the 16-35 f/2.8 II before; between the two, for traveling, I would pick the f/4L over the f/2.8L II 10 times out of 10. The f/2.8 is heavy, surprisingly long, and lacks IS.

I did notice, though, that I stayed within the 24-35mm range for probably 95% of my shots, which is why I never ended up buying the 16-35. Nowadays I just travel with my 24-70 f/4L -- there are times when I wish I had the wider focal lengths available, but those times are rare. But this is more a personal preference more than anything.

I attached some shots taken with the 16-35 f/4L for your reference. All of them were taken @35mm. First shot was handheld at 1/6 sec; second shot handheld at 1/10 sec; third shot handheld at 1/40 sec; and fourth one handheld at 1/30 sec.

 

[Mikehit]

Thank you all for your input.
I am tempted by the 16-35 and to hear all the good comments about it makes it more tempting. I am thinking the 16-35 with the 70-200 as an ideal pairing and forget the gap. I have the 50mm plastic fantastic for anything in between.

I can see a lot of fun experimentation in the next 6 months...tough life, eh? ;D