Which lens to start with?

[Ruined]

I totally understand the draw of the 40mm pancake, but I don't think it is a good lens to start with.

The Canon 35mm IS USM is a much higher quality lens and very close to the focal length of the 40mm, thus I would recommend the 35mm IS USM instead.

I.e. http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1086/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/966/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/0

 

[Sporgon]

Here's a panoramic shot with the 40mm. Sunrise at Flamborough Head on the Eastern coast of England.

Beautiful shot Sporgon!

Thanks bholliman ! Worth driving up there at 3 in the morning for, despite the fact my face was as long as a week due to the overcast sky - thought it was going to be a washout.

@Ruined; don't disagree with you. It's just the pancake is such good value, and that makes it very attractive to cheapskates like me !

 

[Jack56]

Thank you again for all your input.
I'm not lost anymore, but not convinced. I spent a lot of time on 500PX and (of course all sorts of lenses are used) the 17-40 mm is a well used lens. Ok, the pancake looks sharp, but not a lot of landscape images where made by this lens. I think I would love the 35mm, but again, when I had a look in the 35mm pool of Flickr, not a lens for landscape.
Oops, difficult. Are there any users of the 17-40 mm here who love this lens?

 

[Ruined]

Thank you again for all your input.
I'm not lost anymore, but not convinced. I spent a lot of time on 500PX and (of course all sorts of lenses are used) the 17-40 mm is a well used lens. Ok, the pancake looks sharp, but not a lot of landscape images where made by this lens. I think I would love the 35mm, but again, when I had a look in the 35mm pool of Flickr, not a lens for landscape.
Oops, difficult. Are there any users of the 17-40 mm here who love this lens?

For strictly landscape these are your best bets:

1) EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - Best for starry sky (low coma @ 2.8 ), fast aperture, overall probably best lens for landscape:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm

2) EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM - When not shooting the stars, comparable landscape results for 1/3rd of the price of the 1.4:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_2_8_is_usm

3) EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - The widest & most flexible landscape lens due to zoom ability, but by far least sharp of the three:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

For landscape, those are your best bets. Pick #1 for uncompromised quality, pick #2 for excellent quality that is more affordable & more portable, and pick #3 if you want the widest angle & flexibility but with reduced sharpness. Up to you really, but these are by far your best landscape bets IMO.

 

[Jack56]

great list, thank you for the information. Will have a look on the site.
And, sorry for throwing in other options, the Zeiss Distagon 21mm?
That one looks very sharp as well.

 

[Ruined]

great list, thank you for the information. Will have a look on the site.
And, sorry for throwing in other options, the Zeiss Distagon 21mm?
That one looks very sharp as well.

Yeah, but it doesn't have autofocus, so I'll pass.

 

[Loswr]

For strictly landscape these are your best bets:

1) EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - Best for starry sky (low coma @ 2.8 ), fast aperture, overall probably best lens for landscape

Pick #1 for uncompromised quality

While I agree that the 24/1.4L II is the best choice for a starry sky, I'd say the best lens for landscape in a 24mm focal length is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. About as sharp as you can get (better than the 24/1.4L II in that regard), and the tilt function lets you achieve deep DoF whne you have near and far subjects without stopping down to where diffraction costs you even more sharpness.

 

[Ruined]

While I agree that the 24/1.4L II is the best choice for a starry sky, I'd say the best lens for landscape in a 24mm focal length is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. About as sharp as you can get (better than the 24/1.4L II in that regard), and the tilt function lets you achieve deep DoF whne you have near and far subjects without stopping down to where diffraction costs you even more sharpness.

TS-E lenes definitely have a number of benefits such as controlling dof, lines, etc... Just as a starting point, if I were to pick between the two I'd go with the 24mm f/1.4. The faster aperture in addition to shooting the night sky opens up other general usage creative possibilities. One really needs to know how to use a TS-E lens and commit to that style of shooting in order for it to be worth the cost, hence why I veered away from this as a lens to start with.

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
Also because of the sharpness of the 100mm.
In december I will travel to Scotland and hope to make some nice landscapes images and know I need a lens for that.
I've got doubts over the 24-105 (cheap) and the 17-40. That's why I thought about the 16-35/24-70. But because of the new releases in 2014 I am more confused. What would you do? Primes? The 24-105 and wait till first Q of 2014? Thank you for reading my question.

There's some awesome recommendations here for sure.

For landscape photographs I'd recommend the 17-40mm L. I have quite a few Canon lenses, including the 16-35 and Nikkor 12-24, Nikkor 17-35 F4 (canon adapter) and the 17-40 is my favorite with regards to quality and weight.

Definitely pick up a 40mm 2.8 if you don't already have it, it's a good one for sure.

I also created a video for you and others here to see what I'm getting out of my copy of the 17-40. Shot this image a couple days ago, so it's after about 7 years with the 17-40. Check it out here: https://app.box.com/s/gve71fte4zrz9ppkoq0j (55MB)

Graham

grahamclarkphoto.com

 

[scyrene]

In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
Also because of the sharpness of the 100mm.
In december I will travel to Scotland and hope to make some nice landscapes images and know I need a lens for that.
I've got doubts over the 24-105 (cheap) and the 17-40. That's why I thought about the 16-35/24-70. But because of the new releases in 2014 I am more confused. What would you do? Primes? The 24-105 and wait till first Q of 2014? Thank you for reading my question.

I haven't used to other wide Canon zooms but the 24-105 is a very capable landscape lens at the wide end. Shooting at f/10 it's fine. I know some people who criticise the distortion/softness, but I don't find that a problem, although there can be a bit of chromatic aberration that needs cleaning up (not hard though).

I've attached a couple of shots taken with this camera/lens combo in Scotland to illustrate, hope that's okay.