-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation for landscape lens on 5DMk111.
- Thread starter darash
- Start date
- Status
If money is no object, and you're shooting with a 5DmkIII, you might want to toss in a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. Sometimes in landscape photography you want to zoom in rather than going wider, and this lens would be a great focal range for that purpose.
Upvote
0
darash said:
TS-E 24mm II and TS-E 17mm if money really is not an issue. These are truly awesome and show you what Canon is capable of.
But honestly, for landscapes, you are going to be stopping down and often using tripod anyway. There are many lenses out there that will capture nice images at much lower prices.
Upvote
0
darash said:
If you want AF and focal length versatility, then the 16-35L II is a great choice. The TS-E 17 and 24 are both better than the 16-35L II, but they're both manual focus only and making the adjustments are much easier on a tripod. If you're serious about landscapes, then a TS-E is the way to go. If you want something for use when traveling and sightseeing, then the 16-35L II is a better choice.
Upvote
0
Every single lens mentioned here so far would be perfect. All top quality glass that you'll get great landscapes with. But only you know your shooting style. Some shooters will produce their best landscapes exclusively with a 24 TS-E, others will produce their best landscapes with beautifully compressed compositions shot with a 600.
Your choices of the 16-35 f/2.8II & 24 TS-E suggest you like the wide look, but they both go across the same focal length range. I'd like to see you drop the 24 TS-E and direct your $$ to the very highly rated, light weight 70-200 f/4is. For travel work, it's not going to be all 16mm landscapes, you'll appreciate the reach of a peerless 70-200 in ways that you possibly have not even anticipated. The 70-200 f/4is has long been a constant inclusion in travel/landscape shooters kits.
PW
Your choices of the 16-35 f/2.8II & 24 TS-E suggest you like the wide look, but they both go across the same focal length range. I'd like to see you drop the 24 TS-E and direct your $$ to the very highly rated, light weight 70-200 f/4is. For travel work, it's not going to be all 16mm landscapes, you'll appreciate the reach of a peerless 70-200 in ways that you possibly have not even anticipated. The 70-200 f/4is has long been a constant inclusion in travel/landscape shooters kits.
PW
Upvote
0
Adding to the voice for adding a telephoto for more options, here's an example, albeit with a 135mm. Sometimes you might want even more than that, I've ssen good landscapes with a 400+mm.
Mountain Layers by Kernuak, on Flickr
Mountain Layers by Kernuak, on Flickr
Upvote
0
akiskev said:
I second that. Zeiss 21mm. Wonderful edge-to-edge sharpness, color rendition. Magical.
But I will also note Kernuak's answer... my 70-200 IS USM II rocks for many other landscape situations. Strangely, I dont use the middle ground too much.
The TSE's are also nice for their purpose.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
