zooms vs primes for landscape

[growler]

Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

 

[takesome1]

Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.

 

[growler]

Thanks takesome1 for the advice. I agree 24mm is the best general landscape focal length. The recommendation for the 1.4L over the 2.8 IS is based upon IQ I presume?

Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.

 

[Loswr]

+1 on the TS-E 24L II for landscapes...

 

[Canon1]

Sell the 24-105. Get a 24-70ii. (With this lens you can forget about primes in this focal length for landscape photography.

Sell the sigma and pick up the f4 70-200. (1.4x works well with this lens)

Get the 100 macro (either L or non L)

Get a rokinon if you need wider then 24mm. I rarely wish I could go wider then 24mm on ff.

 

[wayno]

I agree. The 24-70ii is great for landscapes. No doubt the 24 TS is the purist choice but I tend to far prefer zooms for landscapes and not every landscape looks good in wide angle. When the difference between 24 and 70 can maybe mean a kilometre's walk (if not longer), I use zooms. Primes are unbeatable for people as you can step back or forward with relative ease. But then the 24-70ii is good for that too!

 

[wayno]

And personally I would rather be landscape trekking around with one or two lenses than a set of primes. But that's just me.

 

[Sanaraken]

Get the TS-E 24L or 24-70 mk2 and just add the 100L macro and 70-200 f4 IS and your set. No need for all those primes.

 

[Zv]

Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

Plan 2. Is very similar to what I have - 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200f/4L IS. Add the 100 for macro instead of my 135 for portraits and you've got yourself a very solid package.

As someone mentioned about walking a kilometer - a zoom is ideal if you are going to be walking around a lot in a short space of time. If you have all the time in the world and are only shooting say one thing at a time then a prime would make more sense, that way you set up your framing and composition just right, which takes time.

My thoughts on the 17-40L - at the wider focal lengths, stopped down around f/8-11 it is really good. The extreme corners may be a little soft but depends on subject matter. For example sky and water makes no difference. I publish to web so none of that is an issue. 95% is good enough for me. Regular people will not notice or care.

Also I prefer the 17-40 to the 24-105 for landscapes. The 24-105 has a lot of distortion at the wide end.

If I didn't like the ultra wide look so much I would have went with the 24mm IS. It sounds like the perfect solution for landscapes.

Oh and +1 on the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (this and 24IS could be a good alternative to the 17-40L)

 

[K13X5C]

Where are you shooting landscapes at ?
If you're out west with wide open vistas focusing on a wide angle kit with the 100 L Macro for the longest FL is probably the way to go. On the other hand, my backyard is the Ozarks which are densely forested and often difficult to get around in, so I find my best images are more narrowly composed shots and mostly from longer FLs. I like f/4 zooms when I'm hoofin' it for a broad focal range and lightweight kit and the 17-40 is light, reliable and routinely brings home stellar images. It's the workhorse for many great landscape pros who shoot Canon. Add the 70-200 f/4 L IS for pulling in tighter shots and your set. Add the 100 L Macro if needed, or a wide angle prime or two, for some variety.
How much are you willing to lug around ?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I did a photo trip to Slovenia taking only primes (plus a 16-35) and I had the heaviest kit bag and was the slowest operator on the workshop....but the results were optically better.
At the time, my kit bag was geared towards british available light weddings and not landscapes and they were REALLY heavy shlepping up the side of mountains in the icy cold.
On my return I bought a 70-200 f4 LIS and made my bag a lot lighter.
Lenses used, 16-35IIL, 24 f1.4 L, 35 f1.4 L, TS-e 45, 85 f1.2 IIL, 100L macro, 135L, 200IIf2.8L and a 2x and 1.4 x tele-converters. Most of the heavy stuff was at the long end, 85/100/135/200. Each lens is fairly light, but the combination of them was heavy. It's one of my arguments with primes vs 70-200. If you need the focal range, the zoom is actually lighter than a bag full of primes.
At the long end, the Zooms are as sharp as the primes. Especially if you consider that you'll be stopping down to maximise Depth of field.
It often makes me laugh when landscape photographers talk about comparing wide lenses at their maximum open aperture, especially viewing lens review web sites (which are usually tested wide open). When most of them will stop down to f11/16 anyhow...and most lenses perform much better at those apertures. Even quite modest kit can perform surprisingly well.

 

[takesome1]

Thanks takesome1 for the advice. I agree 24mm is the best general landscape focal length. The recommendation for the 1.4L over the 2.8 IS is based upon IQ I presume?

Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.

Yes IQ not the faster stop. If you are serious about one type of photography it is my belief that a person get the best tool for that job. The TSE would be the better overall Canon choice, but if you are not using the TSE function the difference are slight. The 24mm f/1.4 is a bit sharper in the center but not much. The TSE is sharper on the edges, has a less distortion and chromatic aberration.

I own both the 24mm f1.4 and the 24-70mm II. While the resolution is about the same out of the two the 24mm f1.4 still wins in other IQ areas. The 24-70mm II would be a good one size fits all lens but it wouldn't be my choice if I wanted the best landscape lens. Although when we are talking "best" it can be defined more than one way. I just gave you the answer how I see it.

 

[growler]

Thanks to all who have responded. Many very good points have been made. I'm going with the 70-200 f4L IS to take care of the longer focal lengths, the 100 f2.8L IS for macro/portrait, the 17-40 f4L and the 24 f1.4L for wide angle/landscape. On longer hikes where weight is a big concern, I will only take the 17-40 and 24 f1.4. I appreciate all of your insights and comments.

 

[gigabellone]

Thanks to all who have responded. Many very good points have been made. I'm going with the 70-200 f4L IS to take care of the longer focal lengths, the 100 f2.8L IS for macro/portrait, the 17-40 f4L and the 24 f1.4L for wide angle/landscape. On longer hikes where weight is a big concern, I will only take the 17-40 and 24 f1.4. I appreciate all of your insights and comments.

If you're going to use a tripod for shooting landscapes, 17-40 and 24L are redundant, i'd advice you to pick one only. The zoom will save you a bunch of money and give you several focal lengths, the 24L will allow you to shoot handheld in low light, and will give you some subject separation, if you need. You can also halve the expenditure for the telephoto lens by picking the 70-200 without IS, which you're not going to use on a tripod.

 

[surapon]

+1 on the TS-E 24L II for landscapes...

+ 1 for me too.
Surapon

 

[Albi86]

Thanks takesome1 for the advice. I agree 24mm is the best general landscape focal length. The recommendation for the 1.4L over the 2.8 IS is based upon IQ I presume?

Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.

Yes IQ not the faster stop. If you are serious about one type of photography it is my belief that a person get the best tool for that job. The TSE would be the better overall Canon choice, but if you are not using the TSE function the difference are slight. The 24mm f/1.4 is a bit sharper in the center but not much. The TSE is sharper on the edges, has a less distortion and chromatic aberration.

I own both the 24mm f1.4 and the 24-70mm II. While the resolution is about the same out of the two the 24mm f1.4 still wins in other IQ areas. The 24-70mm II would be a good one size fits all lens but it wouldn't be my choice if I wanted the best landscape lens. Although when we are talking "best" it can be defined more than one way. I just gave you the answer how I see it.

+1

Zooms offer versatility, but it always comes at the price of compromising on IQ - in one way or another.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Thanks to all who have responded. Many very good points have been made. I'm going with the 70-200 f4L IS to take care of the longer focal lengths, the 100 f2.8L IS for macro/portrait, the 17-40 f4L and the 24 f1.4L for wide angle/landscape. On longer hikes where weight is a big concern, I will only take the 17-40 and 24 f1.4. I appreciate all of your insights and comments.

Remember to get the tripod collar for it too, the Canon one. The Chinese ones fall apart quickly. Cost in a 1.4x TC too, it's great on this lens.
I prefer the 16-35IIL, it's got an extra stop, it's slightly wider, it flares slightly less in sunrise / sunsets and the sun star is far nicer.

 

[growler]

Thanks for your feedback. Most of the time I will have a tripod. In cases where I don't I will probably take the 24 f1.4 and 24-105 IS with me. Using Lightroom and looking back at the focal lengths that I shot with my old 60D and converting them to full frame focal lengths, I can see that I seem to like 24 mm. The reason for buying the 17-40 is to give me the flexibility of other focal lengths and the convenience when needed of not having to move my position to get a shot. As for the 70-200 f4L IS, I certainly noticed the huge price difference between the IS and non-IS version. I guess that my rationale is that there may be times where IS would be handy for candid people shots. On the other hand, the 100 2.8L will probably be good enough for that job, so saving $500 on the non-IS version may make sense.

If you're going to use a tripod for shooting landscapes, 17-40 and 24L are redundant, i'd advice you to pick one only. The zoom will save you a bunch of money and give you several focal lengths, the 24L will allow you to shoot handheld in low light, and will give you some subject separation, if you need. You can also halve the expenditure for the telephoto lens by picking the 70-200 without IS, which you're not going to use on a tripod.

 

[RobertG.]

Thanks to all who have responded. Many very good points have been made. I'm going with the 70-200 f4L IS to take care of the longer focal lengths, the 100 f2.8L IS for macro/portrait, the 17-40 f4L and the 24 f1.4L for wide angle/landscape. On longer hikes where weight is a big concern, I will only take the 17-40 and 24 f1.4. I appreciate all of your insights and comments.

Hi, if you are really into landscapes, the 17-40 f4 is disappointing. OK, it is cheap and very versatile but that's all. The corners are quite soft and lack resolution. The same is also true for the slightly better 16-35 f2.8 in my experience. The 24mm f1.4 would be a waste of money and effort IMHO. If you like the shallow depth of field, get the 35mm f1.4 or 35mm f2 IS instead. 35mm is a much better focal length for street photogrpahy.

I prefer the TS-E 24 L II for landscapes. The resolution is much better than the zooms and wider angles can easily be stiched together. The optics are probably the best wide angle you can get for a Canon body. The shift and/or tilt mechanism is used in almost all my landscape photos. I use 24mm in about 60-70% of my landscape shots, 35-50 mm for about 20-30% of all shots and 70-100 mm for the rest.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I prefer the 16-35IIL, it's got an extra stop, it's slightly wider, it flares slightly less in sunrise / sunsets and the sun star is far nicer.

+1