Which lens to start with?

[mjardeen]

The f4 set for me is almost perfect. I do not shoot weddings or have a high need for a wider aperture. If I do then I have a couple Primes that do just fine for that. The only possible exception is a Tamron lens.

Basic lens
24-70 F4 IS L -- advantage is that it's a new lens then the classic, disadvantage is you lose some reach which limits it from being the perfect walk around lens.
24-105 F4 IS L -- this is my lens and the one I use the most
24-70 f2.8 VC -- Tamron delivers with a well priced lens that is tack sharp and gives you the extra aperture. I would take this over the 24-70 f4

Long lens
70-200 F4 IS L -- one of the sharpest lenses that Canon makes, it's compact, light and a breeze to use.

Wide lens
17-40 F4 L -- I love this lens and with Photoshops lens correction it gets rid of most of its only flaw, some distortion. I use this one all the time on my 5D and ever more as a standard lens on my IR converted body.

I own a bunch of primes of different types including the 50mm F1.8 mk I that I have had since 1989.
I also own a bunch of primes many with adapter mounts to use on Canon bodies.

 

[AlanF]

What, not a single recommendation for the Zeiss Otus? He'll need all the light he can get visiting Scotland in December, and f/1.4 is the minimum as well as making sure he doesn't get soft corners in landscapes.

The Otus not a lens to start with? Well, if you want to start with something cheaper and versatile, there is no better starter than the 24-105 L IS.

 

[AvTvM]

... I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.

So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200. So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses

A) Zoom
Assuming, you may want "the best" available WW-to-normal Zoom in addition to the 100L Macro and 70-200 tele, then the choice is easy -> 24-70 L II. Neither the 17-40 nor the 24-105 will cut it for pixel peepers.

or

B) Prime
Otherwise a light(er) "landscape lens". Focal length depends on your personal preferences. I'd most likely take the EF 24/2.8 IS, since I would shoot stopped down to f/8 most of the time anyway, with very little, if any visible difference to the 24 L II. But still the real advantage of having IS for longer slower shutter speeds. And a much better pricetag.

I don't know, what lenses Canon will bring next, but I would expect a 35/1.4 L II to come in 2014. But not a 24-70/2.8 L IS.

 

[zim]

Whatever you get make sure it's waterproof

......... oh yes and a pair of real warm gloves and a woolly hat, it's bleedin baltic here ;D

 

[StudentOfLight]

So instead of waiting on what lens will come out, price drops, researching, etc. I can happily shoot
with my 40 Pancake + 100L and get all the shots I need.

+1! I can second this sentiment, although I have the non-L macro. I have often travelled light with 40mm+100mm. Another advantage of the 40mm pancake is that it is so short, you can easily put on extension tubes to get much more magnification than 1:1 macro, although this is only practical for static subjects that won't get spooked because the working distance becomes quite close. If you need more working distance then the 100mm is a better choice. Either way the 40&100 combo is very versatile to walk around with.

 

[7enderbender]

If the main objective is landscape with wide angle I'd have a look at the the Distagons. Something like the 21mm would be very high on my list.

 

[RLPhoto]

I like the 17-40L. It's IQ is good and it's cheaper.

 

[nvsravank]

Why does no body recommend the original 24-70 lens?
While it is not as sharp as the MarkII it is sharper than the 24-105 lens i thought.
You can get some good copies on ebay.

 

[sdsr]

With regard to the "traveling to Scotland" aspect of your question, depending on where you're coming from and how you're getting there you may not want to be lugging around lots of heavy/bulky equipment, so as others have suggested I would recommend one or two of the more recent wide-ish primes to complement your 100L or, if that's not long enough an excellent zoom that's not too heavy/bulky. E.g.:

24mm IS + 35mm IS + 70-300L or 70-200L/IS/f4 or

28mm IS + 40mm pancake + either of the above zooms

24mm IS + 50mm 1.4 + 100L (you may want to add a 50 1.4 anyway if you venture into gloomy churches etc.)

or, depending on how wide you think you need to go, you could perhaps make do with just two: 28mm IS or 40mm + 100L or one of the zooms

If you want to spend a lot more and don't mind the extra weight and foregoing IS, the 24-70II + either longer zoom

If you don't want primes and do want IS and don't mind the extra weight, Tamron 24-70 + either longer zoom

If weight and price aren't issues, 24-70LII + 70-200 2.8 IS II + tripod.

(If it were me, I would probably take the second option, but it's not....)

 

[Random Orbits]

Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses

The OP's priority is landscapes/nature and doesn't think the 24-70II will be a good match for him. If he is serious about landscapes, then I'll assume that he'll be using a tripod most of the time. If so, then a TS-E 24 with a 1.4x might fit the bill. Add a 40mm or a 50 f/1.4 and/or a Rokinon 14mm, and he'll have most of the lower focal lengths covered.

 

[Don Haines]

What about the 40???

I agree with those recomending a tripod.... you tend to (or at least I do) take more time setting up your shot when on a tripod... and long exposure times change from being a problem to an opportunity...

 

[Jack56]

Wow. Very kind of you all to reply on my question. Not a fast answer, but with explanation why to buy a certain lens. really, I do appreciate this very much.
It gives me food for thought, that's for sure.
- Yes, I will bring some gloves and a woollen hat with me. Been several times in Scotland (Outer Hebrides) but not in winter. Do know that the days are short, but I can't wait to visit this beautiful part of the UK again.
- Yes, I've already got a tripod and I use it a lot. Also with the 100mm lens, it works fine for me.
- But now the lens to start with. The 70-200mm IS I love to buy and I think I will. It's not a lens that could be re-newed in 2014. A competitor is the 300mm. I've read on the net, that using a extender the 70-200mm will be slower and the IQ could suffer a bit.
What I told you, I am a pixel-peeper. And I like to invest in a good lens, but I don't want to not have the idea that next year a re-newed lens will come on the market (I realize that I can't predict the future). I've got a trauma since I bought an Imac years ago and a few months later Apple introduced the Intel-processor
A tilt-lens is not (at the moment) for me.
The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?
The 35mmL I love to buy, but for landscape?
Mmm, not easy. I will spend another night sleeping on it and again spend some time on the net.
Hopefully there will be a magic moment and the right decision will be made.
Thank you all once again!!

 

[Sporgon]

The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?

Oh yes. Don't let the price fool you. And don't forget your midge repellant !

 

[Hannes]

The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?

Oh yes. Don't let the price fool you. And don't forget your midge repellant !

He's not going to need much insect repellant at this time of year The winter climbing season just started in Scotland

 

[Ruined]

While they are all noteworthy & popular for other reasons, the 16-35L II, 17-40L, and 24-105L are not particularly sharp across the frame.

For strictly landscape, I'd recommend the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM or the 24mm f/1.4L II USM if you think you need the 1.4 aperture. Given most landscape is shot at least f/8+ range for proper DOF, though, I am not sure it is worth the extra money for the 24mm f/1.4L II.

I'd consider the following kit to cover all bases:
24mm f/2.8 IS USM - LANDSCAPE $549 (VERY LIGHT+SMALL)
35mm f/2.0 IS USM - GENERAL PURPOSE $549 (LIGHT)
70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM - TELEPHOTO (VERY HEAVY+VERY LARGE) $2199

or another option for same cash:
40mm Pancake f/2.8 - GENERAL PURPOSE (VERY LIGHT+VERY SMALL) $149
24-70mm f/2.8L II USM - GENERAL PURPOSE (LARGE+HEAVY) $1999
70-200mm f/4L IS USM - TELEPHOTO (VERY LARGE) $1149

All of these will provide sharp results. The advantage of the first set of lenses is that you get fast, high quality output from 24mm-200mm, but no zoom in the wide angle range. The advantage of the second set of lenses is that you have the flexibility of a super sharp standard zoom, though you lose f/2.8 in telephoto and IS in the wide range.

All of these lenses bolded above are quite sharp!

 

[mackguyver]

While they are all noteworthy & popular for other reasons, the 16-35L II, 17-40L, and 24-105L are not particularly sharp across the frame.

For strictly landscape, I'd recommend the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM or the 24mm f/1.4L II USM if you think you need the 1.4 aperture. Given most landscape is shot at least f/8+ range for proper DOF, though, I am not sure it is worth the extra money for the 24mm f/1.4L II.

I'd consider the following kit to cover all bases:
24mm f/2.8 IS USM - LANDSCAPE $549 (VERY LIGHT+SMALL)
35mm f/2.0 IS USM - GENERAL PURPOSE $549 (LIGHT)
70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM - TELEPHOTO (VERY HEAVY+VERY LARGE) $2199

or another option for same cash:
40mm Pancake f/2.8 - GENERAL PURPOSE (VERY LIGHT+VERY SMALL) $149
24-70mm f/2.8L II USM - GENERAL PURPOSE (LARGE+HEAVY) $1999
70-200mm f/4L IS USM - TELEPHOTO (VERY LARGE) $1149

All of these will provide sharp results. The advantage of the first set of lenses is that you get fast, high quality output from 24mm-200mm, but no zoom in the wide angle range. The advantage of the second set of lenses is that you have the flexibility of a super sharp standard zoom, though you lose f/2.8 in telephoto and IS in the wide range.

All of these lenses bolded above are quite sharp!

Agreed, the 24 f/1.4 II is amazing at f/1.4-2.8, but beyond f/4, it's not much better than the other lenses. That's not to say it isn't a great landscape lens, but unless you need L build quality and shoot a lot of large aperture shots, your money is best spent on other gear.

 

[Ripley]

The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?

Oh yes. Don't let the price fool you.

+1

All day long...

 

[wickidwombat]

The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?

Oh yes. Don't let the price fool you. And don't forget your midge repellant !

its also a great lens for shooting panoramas because its light, sharp corner to corner with very little distortion

 

[Sporgon]

The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?

Oh yes. Don't let the price fool you. And don't forget your midge repellant !

its also a great lens for shooting panoramas because its light, sharp corner to corner with very little distortion

Spot On !

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

The only issue I have with the lens is that is doesn't have a distance scale, but 95% of the time it is not a problem.

 

[bholliman]

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

Beautiful shot Sporgon!