Need lens advice mostly for landscape

[kirkcha]

I would like some help in deciding which lens to purchase next. I am an enthusiast who shoots mostly landscape/nature and travel (6D). I don't shoot indoors or portraits much and use a tripod much of the time and weight is a consideration. The main lenses I use are the 16-35 f4 and the 70-300L and they are always in my backpack. I recently sold my 24-105L as I have hardly used it since getting the 16-35 f4 and have a budget of around $2K.

I thought I would need something to fill the gap so I rented the 24-70 2.8 II but quickly realized I wasn't going to get the most out of this lens for what I shoot and think my money could be spent better elsewhere. 50-70mm is kind of no mans land for me so the gap seems manageable, especially if I throw the 40mm in the bag. I thought about selling the 70-300L for the 100-400 II for the reach but then I have a bigger gap/more weight and I love the 70-300L for the size and I can borrow the wife's SL1 to extend it if need be.

I don't have much faster than f4 so I am thinking a couple primes for creativity might be the most useful. The 100L macro seems like the next logical step and a very fun/versatile lens. I am thinking also the 35 f2. Sharpness is important but not sure the weight of the Sigma 35 Art is worth it. Is 35 too redundant and maybe I should consider something else? Filter capacity is needed.

Any other ideas or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Kirk

 

[monkey44]

IF you own the 16-35 f4 and the 70-300, and you hardly ever took out the 24-105, then why are you worried about the 35-70 range.

Personally, you already had the best combination -- but sold the 24-105, which I own (and the 16-35 f4 as well) ... and love 'em both. I'll never sell the 24-105, it has too much versatility ...

I too only shoot outdoors, and have never owned a prime lens ... all my work runs thru zooms. And I never have any problem getting what I need out of those. The print matters, not the math, so if you can get what prints you need from the zoom ranges, it makes less sense to go with a prime -- but that's just me.

That 16-35 is such a fine lens, I'd expect it will do most anything in landscape ... especially if you left the 24-105 in your bag, that kinda proves you don't need that range. Once you jump into the 70mm range, then you have it covered too ...

Others swear by primes --

So you might 'borrow' a couple primes and see how you like it before you dump money into a lens or two you may not like or use.

I will say tho' the 100-400 v2 is a superb telephoto, and well worth the money if you go with a mid-range lens above the 16-35, (24-70 f4 IS) and then skip up to that v2 ... very sharp --

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon 35mm F2 IS would be a great multipurpose option, and the 100mm F2.8 L can complement well your equipment.

I really like the Canon 100mm F2, which is very compact and lightweight.

 

[kirkcha]

That 16-35 is such a fine lens, I'd expect it will do most anything in landscape ... especially if you left the 24-105 in your bag, that kinda proves you don't need that range. Once you jump into the 70mm range, then you have it covered too ...

I will say tho' the 100-400 v2 is a superb telephoto, and well worth the money if you go with a mid-range lens above the 16-35, (24-70 f4 IS) and then skip up to that v2 ... very sharp --

I agree, the 16-35 is fabulous and made me realize I don't need 35-70 and there are probably better options than keeping 24-105.

The 100-400 is an interesting option that I have considered but like you mentioned the gap is too big and I would need the 24-70/24-105 along with it. I think for me a better option would be to get a 70D for the 70-300L, less weight, cheaper, more reach, second body, etc. Although I would rather invest in glass than bodies.

 

[candc]

what you have is the perfect travel landscape duo. don't feel you need to fill a gap just because its there. if you do then get a 50 f/1.8.

 

[DennyF]

I have the same trio of L zooms the OP had. For landscapes, nature and wildlife, I tend to agree with the OP about finding little use for the 24-105L zoom. But I chose to keep mine for general photography. I do use the 35/2 IS and the 100L macro IS and consider both essential to my kit. Also have a 50/1.8 that continue to hang onto just in case I decide to sell the 24-105.

 

[Oneand0]

Kirk,

I have read great things about the sharpness of your lens 16-35 f/4. If I were you I would just get a 50mm and call it a day. You only have 20mm of coverage missing that you can either shoot with the 50 and crop to get your desired frame. Or shoot at 70mm and take 2 or 3 shots and pano what you needed to get between the 50mm and 70mm you don't have. Both ways are creative and will work.

Personally I shoot my landscape with a 14mm and 21mm primes for sharpness in my prints, for when I blow them up to sell or hang for myself. I have the 24-105 and like to shoot at f/9 with it and it's clear and sharp enough to print large. I love that lens for making panos, or use my 40mm 2.8 pancake for panos. For my zoom I do carry the 100-400 but would be just as happy with your 70-300mm. Sometimes the light that shows up at that crucial moment is across a lake or only in one section of an area that you have to reach out to and comp, if there is a comp worth capturing at the moment.

Happy shooting!

Mario

 

[chas1113]

I have the same trio of L zooms the OP had. For landscapes, nature and wildlife, I tend to agree with the OP about finding little use for the 24-105L zoom. But I chose to keep mine for general photography. I do use the 35/2 IS and the 100L macro IS and consider both essential to my kit. Also have a 50/1.8 that continue to hang onto just in case I decide to sell the 24-105.

+1

I have the 35/2 IS and the 100L as well as the 50/1.4. Between the 16-35 IS and the 70-300L, I can't remember the last time I used my 24-105L. And yet I have held onto it. At f/8 it is about as sharp as the other two zooms. But at f/4 the other two zooms are better. I think a lightweight 50mm would serve you well. However, the 35/2 IS is my favorite focal length. That and the 100L are a very nice prime pair. I also have an SL-1 to extend the reach of the 70-300L. One more thing to consider: filters. The 70-300L, 100L and 35/2 IS all share 67mm threads. It's a really nice trio; add the 16-35 IS and it's a terrific foursome.

—chas

 

[quod]

My suggestion is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. It has unique features for landscape work, such as the ability to raise the horizon while maintaining verticals and shift panoramas. It also takes screw filters and it is very sharp edge-to-edge. My landscape kit includes it, the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, and the 40mm pancake. I just added the 16-35mm f/4L IS, but the TS-E still my go-to landscape lens. Try to find a clean used copy and save some cash. You could get a used copy and a used 100mm macro (non-L) for $2,000.

 

[Random Orbits]

what you have is the perfect travel landscape duo. don't feel you need to fill a gap just because its there. if you do then get a 50 f/1.8.

+1. If you're not into large/heavy lenses it might be better to just wait and see what the rumored Canon 50mm prime will be. In any case, I think a fast 50 would make more sense than a fast 35 based on what you already have. If you are going to be carrying around a 3rd lens, it'd make sense for it to have both a unique focal length and a aperture advantage. The 35 f/2 only gives you one of those.

One other consideration is to upgrade your landscape gear to be pano capable (if you don't already have that capability), but the 100L is also a great choice.

 

[kirkcha]

My suggestion is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. It has unique features for landscape work, such as the ability to raise the horizon while maintaining verticals and shift panoramas. It also takes screw filters and it is very sharp edge-to-edge. My landscape kit includes it, the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, and the 40mm pancake. I just added the 16-35mm f/4L IS, but the TS-E still my go-to landscape lens. Try to find a clean used copy and save some cash. You could get a used copy and a used 100mm macro (non-L) for $2,000.

Appreciate all the good advice so far. I do find the TS-E 24mm an interesting option and have no doubt I will own this lens at some point. I am just a little unsure it should be the next lens I get. Since I shoot from a tripod so much the manual focus does not worry me too much and I really like 24mm focal length so it is doable. I know there is probably a pretty steep learning curve but after that does it take a lot of time to set up the tilt properly?

I do think having the 40mm 2.8 makes me pause about getting the 35 f2 or a 50mm and I would wait to see what the rumored 50 is.

I do have basic pano capabilities but do need a nodal slide.

 

[Random Orbits]

My suggestion is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. It has unique features for landscape work, such as the ability to raise the horizon while maintaining verticals and shift panoramas. It also takes screw filters and it is very sharp edge-to-edge. My landscape kit includes it, the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, and the 40mm pancake. I just added the 16-35mm f/4L IS, but the TS-E still my go-to landscape lens. Try to find a clean used copy and save some cash. You could get a used copy and a used 100mm macro (non-L) for $2,000.

Appreciate all the good advice so far. I do find the TS-E 24mm an interesting option and have no doubt I will own this lens at some point. I am just a little unsure it should be the next lens I get. Since I shoot from a tripod so much the manual focus does not worry me too much and I really like 24mm focal length so it is doable. I know there is probably a pretty steep learning curve but after that does it take a lot of time to set up the tilt properly?

I do think having the 40mm 2.8 makes me pause about getting the 35 f2 or a 50mm and I would wait to see what the rumored 50 is.

I do have basic pano capabilities but do need a nodal slide.

The learning curve is not that steep if you shoot from a tripod and use MF a lot. Using shift is natural to get panos and to correct converging verticals because you can see it's effects quickly in the viewfinder or rear display. It'll take more time to master tilting the focal plane to exactly where you want it, but if you're already set up on a tripod anyway, it's not that much more work and you can take your time. A lot of the time is spent checking the corners of the magnified view that you got the tilt you wanted.

 

[RobertG.]

Hi, you mentioned a lot of lenses. But what should be the main purpose for the next lens? If your main subjects are landscapes, the TS-E 24mm L II is your best choice. As mentioned before, try to get a used one and save some money. The TS-E 24mm L II is my main lens for landscapes followed by the TS-E 17mm and TS-E 45mm. The TS-E 45mm I would trade in any time for an updated version. It performs roughly as well as the EF 50mm f1.4 but with tilt and shift. I use shift for almost all landscape shots, so the EF 50mm f1.4 stays at home for portraits.

For travel and street photography a fast 35mm lens would be pretty useful, too. I like the EF 35mm L but have not used it since I bought the Tamron 24-70mm a year ago. I don't use the Tamron for landscapes. It would be a really poor choice in comparison to the TS-E lenses. But for street photography the stabilization of the Tamron works well and the weak corner resolution doesn't matter much. The EF 35mm L has the better optics but the zoom with its stabilization is more versatile.

I can't comment on the EF 40mm because I have not used this lens yet and I don't have any use for it. You already have the EF 16-35 f4, so a stop more light and +5mm focal length won't make a big difference. A 50mm prime is the better choice. The EF 40mm is small but that doesn't matter much with a ff DSLR. If you like to travel really light, get a P&S or the SL1 with the EF-S 24mm pancake.

 

[Ruined]

I would like some help in deciding which lens to purchase next. I am an enthusiast who shoots mostly landscape/nature and travel (6D). I don't shoot indoors or portraits much and use a tripod much of the time and weight is a consideration. The main lenses I use are the 16-35 f4 and the 70-300L and they are always in my backpack. I recently sold my 24-105L as I have hardly used it since getting the 16-35 f4 and have a budget of around $2K.

I thought I would need something to fill the gap so I rented the 24-70 2.8 II but quickly realized I wasn't going to get the most out of this lens for what I shoot and think my money could be spent better elsewhere. 50-70mm is kind of no mans land for me so the gap seems manageable, especially if I throw the 40mm in the bag. I thought about selling the 70-300L for the 100-400 II for the reach but then I have a bigger gap/more weight and I love the 70-300L for the size and I can borrow the wife's SL1 to extend it if need be.

I don't have much faster than f4 so I am thinking a couple primes for creativity might be the most useful. The 100L macro seems like the next logical step and a very fun/versatile lens. I am thinking also the 35 f2. Sharpness is important but not sure the weight of the Sigma 35 Art is worth it. Is 35 too redundant and maybe I should consider something else? Filter capacity is needed.

Any other ideas or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Kirk

If you want to add a little artful creativity to your shots, I greatly recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.2L for the following reasons:

1. It has fantastic draw with dreamy, artful look wide open. And if you stop it down, it has very good IQ.
2. It is a focal length you don't already have.
3. It is fully weather sealed as long as you put a clear filter on the front, so good for outdoors.

The 50L is not the sharpest lens wide open, but you already have two super sharp lenses. Instead, it will provide you with some artistic flare and a unique look - plus a focal length you do not have. You can either use it as a walkaround 50mm and also use it for some shallow DOF shots to complement your deep DOF shots.

 

[jeffa4444]

Funny how life goes!
I went on a workshop with a very famous Landscape Photographer to Snowdonia, Wales who prefers to use primes but said if you only take one lens make sure its the EF 24-105mm f4L for full frame. On the three days of the workshop I used it 90% of the time, with the EF17-40 f4L and the EF100 f2.8L used about 5% each. I never used the 70-200 or the 70-300 I also had on the trip.
Checking the files the photographs were fairly evenly split between 24 - 105mm and certainly not biaised to the wide end obviously subject matter affects this and it was a mixture of vistas, rivers & waterfalls and specific details. What it did tell me however is the EF24-105 f4L is truly a versatile lens and for good reason sometimes the only lens people buy for full frame cameras.

 

[NancyP]

Same situation, building my full frame kit. I started with the 60D and EF-S 15-85 f/variable, a great one-lens-solution for landscape photography. I was not sure what to get for the 6D. I had the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because I love shallow depth of field and also used the lens for astro-landscape. I had planned to get the 24-70 Tamron along with the 6D body, but happened on a used Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (same price as new Tamron) at the dealer, made the mistake of putting it on the 6D, and wandering around the store and parking lot with the combo - out goes the 24-70 plan, and the 21mm went home with me. Sweet!

What to do for "normal" lens? About at this time, my dad cleaned house and gave me some old all manual Nikon lenses (no camera). After a bit of research I bought a good adapter, and now I can use either the Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2 or the 55mm f/3.5 1:2 macro (1:1 with extension tube). These forty plus year old lenses are actually pretty good. The f/1.2 is fun at f/1.2 (the aberrations are a feature) and quite respectable at f/2.8 to f/8. The macro lens is fine at f/4 to f/8. I like shooting at a "normal" focal length, I like handling manual focus lenses for landscape. There's a bit of nostalgia in using my dad's lenses. So maybe I will break down and buy a modern 50mm, but currently I am having fun.

 

[Sporgon]

Funny how life goes!
I went on a workshop with a very famous Landscape Photographer to Snowdonia, Wales who prefers to use primes but said if you only take one lens make sure its the EF 24-105mm f4L for full frame. On the three days of the workshop I used it 90% of the time, with the EF17-40 f4L and the EF100 f2.8L used about 5% each. I never used the 70-200 or the 70-300 I also had on the trip.
Checking the files the photographs were fairly evenly split between 24 - 105mm and certainly not biaised to the wide end obviously subject matter affects this and it was a mixture of vistas, rivers & waterfalls and specific details. What it did tell me however is the EF24-105 f4L is truly a versatile lens and for good reason sometimes the only lens people buy for full frame cameras.

I would agree with that with one caveat; avoid 24mm if you can, the lens is much improved from 28 despite only being about a two mm twist. In fact at around the 30 to 40mm mark and quite wide on the aperture, say f4.5 to 5.6 it is really quite good. At the longer end I find it's better stopped down a little further.

I got the 24-70 f/4 IS with the intention of ditching the 24-105 but I find that I really use the 71-105 range a great deal.

 

[kirkcha]

Funny how life goes!
I went on a workshop with a very famous Landscape Photographer to Snowdonia, Wales who prefers to use primes but said if you only take one lens make sure its the EF 24-105mm f4L for full frame. On the three days of the workshop I used it 90% of the time, with the EF17-40 f4L and the EF100 f2.8L used about 5% each. I never used the 70-200 or the 70-300 I also had on the trip.
Checking the files the photographs were fairly evenly split between 24 - 105mm and certainly not biaised to the wide end obviously subject matter affects this and it was a mixture of vistas, rivers & waterfalls and specific details. What it did tell me however is the EF24-105 f4L is truly a versatile lens and for good reason sometimes the only lens people buy for full frame cameras.

If I could only take one I would probably choose the 24-70 2.8 II or f4. I think I could probably crop the 70 to 105 and get good results while having a better 24mm.

For me I need at least two lenses. I find the 24-35 of the 16-35 f4 quite a bit better than my copy of the 24-105 and the 70-105 of the 70-300L at least as good if not better than my 24-105. Don't get me wrong, I liked the 24-105 a lot but if it just sits in the bag I think there are better options for me now. In addition to shooting wildlife I find the 70-300L very useful in compressing the landscape so I always carry it.

Really appreciate all the advice. I think I am now leaning towards the TS-E 24mm for all the possibilities and IQ and adding the 100L macro in the near future. Now if I can find a refurb or used one since the rebates just expired. I have yet to catch a TS-E 24 in the canon refurb site so I might just have to bite the bullet as I need by June.

 

[mackguyver]

Funny how life goes!
I went on a workshop with a very famous Landscape Photographer to Snowdonia, Wales who prefers to use primes but said if you only take one lens make sure its the EF 24-105mm f4L for full frame. On the three days of the workshop I used it 90% of the time, with the EF17-40 f4L and the EF100 f2.8L used about 5% each. I never used the 70-200 or the 70-300 I also had on the trip.
Checking the files the photographs were fairly evenly split between 24 - 105mm and certainly not biaised to the wide end obviously subject matter affects this and it was a mixture of vistas, rivers & waterfalls and specific details. What it did tell me however is the EF24-105 f4L is truly a versatile lens and for good reason sometimes the only lens people buy for full frame cameras.

If I could only take one I would probably choose the 24-70 2.8 II or f4. I think I could probably crop the 70 to 105 and get good results while having a better 24mm.

For me I need at least two lenses. I find the 24-35 of the 16-35 f4 quite a bit better than my copy of the 24-105 and the 70-105 of the 70-300L at least as good if not better than my 24-105. Don't get me wrong, I liked the 24-105 a lot but if it just sits in the bag I think there are better options for me now. In addition to shooting wildlife I find the 70-300L very useful in compressing the landscape so I always carry it.

Really appreciate all the advice. I think I am now leaning towards the TS-E 24mm for all the possibilities and IQ and adding the 100L macro in the near future. Now if I can find a refurb or used one since the rebates just expired. I have yet to catch a TS-E 24 in the canon refurb site so I might just have to bite the bullet as I need by June.

The TS-E 24mm is an excellent lens and I was lucky enough to score on during a refurb sale (apologies to another member of CR who just missed it that day!). It's great for windy conditions because the tilt will allow you to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 and get better (DOF results) than shooting at f/11 or f/16. Those extra stops can be key. It also allows you to raise and lower the horizon without getting the bent trees on the sides that come from angling a normal 24mm up and down to get similar framing. And then there's all the other stuff you can do with it... The only bad part is that you'll find yourself wishing all of your lenses had tilt/shift!

 

[quod]

My suggestion is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. It has unique features for landscape work, such as the ability to raise the horizon while maintaining verticals and shift panoramas. It also takes screw filters and it is very sharp edge-to-edge. My landscape kit includes it, the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, and the 40mm pancake. I just added the 16-35mm f/4L IS, but the TS-E still my go-to landscape lens. Try to find a clean used copy and save some cash. You could get a used copy and a used 100mm macro (non-L) for $2,000.

Appreciate all the good advice so far. I do find the TS-E 24mm an interesting option and have no doubt I will own this lens at some point. I am just a little unsure it should be the next lens I get. Since I shoot from a tripod so much the manual focus does not worry me too much and I really like 24mm focal length so it is doable. I know there is probably a pretty steep learning curve but after that does it take a lot of time to set up the tilt properly?

I do think having the 40mm 2.8 makes me pause about getting the 35 f2 or a 50mm and I would wait to see what the rumored 50 is.

I do have basic pano capabilities but do need a nodal slide.

Tilt takes time to get used to. As someone else mentioned, it's mostly looking at the corners while in LiveView to ensure that the entire frame is sharp. Additionally, as previously mentioned, it allows you to alter your depth of field so that you can shoot at lower apertures (the TS-E is super sharp at f/3.5 to f/5.6). You don't always have to use the tilt function and I often do not. Shift is easy and it is very useful in landscapes. For example, if you have a beautiful shot but you don't want the horizon down the middle and you don't have foreground interest such as a flower or rock, you can shift up the lens to get a standard rule of thirds shot that de-emphasizes the need for something in the foreground... and any trees or straight lines will stay straight. Only tilt-shifts can do that.

I love the 40mm pancake. My copy is very sharp and I often use it when I want a quick sharp shot. The TS-E takes a little more thought and time.

Someone mentioned the 24-105mm. I have that lens, too, and I have used it for landscapes. It is image stabilized, weather sealed, and it is a good all-around lens. I plan to get the 24-70mm f/2.8 II because my 24-105mm is not very sharp. For example, I took some gigapan tests with the 70-200 f/2.8 II against the 24-105mm at 100mm and the 70-200mm absolutely killed it in sharpness and resolution.