zooms vs primes for landscape

[Loswr]

mitigates or eliminate? Of course a few clicks of the mouse correct distortion in LR.

The post-processing correction is usually capable of eliminating the distortion. Starting with a higher resolution image, and the corresponding need to downsample for most output, mitigates the consequences of eliminating that distortion, but doesn't necessarily eliminate them, depending on how much resolution you start with and how much you need to downsample. Consider the extreme example of defishing a fisheye image - the corners will be very soft. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the 17-40, where the corners aren't sharp to begin with, and distortion correction makes it worse.

Someone could make the same argument that you really do not need the Tilt Shift with todays technology. LR can simulate much of what a TS can do.

Keystoning can be corrected in post. Like distortion correction, there's a loss of sharpness, and you also have a lower MP image meaning less downsampling, since correction of keystoning results in significant cropping. Doing that also requires that you plan ahead and frame very loosely, and you need a lens wide enough to allow that loose framing.

I don't know of any software that can replicate the effect of tilt to increase DoF (in effect, technically it's not). Tilt means you don't have to stop down to apertures where diffraction softens your image. I suppose you could focus stack, but with moving subjects (trees in a breeze, clouds in the sky) that's not really feasible. The use of tilt to increase apparent DoF is the main use of a TS lens in landscape photography, make the argument that the TS effects can be duplicated in post particularly weak in this case.

I do not know about you but I would rather have fewer things to correct in PP no matter how rare or insignificant they are.

Given that my RAW converter (DxO) automatically and effectively corrects vignetting and distortion, with no action required on my part during the workflow, I don't find it to be onerous at all.

It really is subjective, why spend thousands of dollars on this equipment if we are not looking at using it at its limits.

That statement is a strong argument against getting the 24mm f/1.4L for landscape use, since it's primary advantage is the f/1.4 aperture...something not generally needed in landscape shooting.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?

An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

 

[takesome1]

It really is subjective, why spend thousands of dollars on this equipment if we are not looking at using it at its limits.

That statement is a strong argument against getting the 24mm f/1.4L for landscape use, since it's primary advantage is the f/1.4 aperture...something not generally needed in landscape shooting.

Not generally needed? I have found reason many time to shoot landscape less than (wider than) f/2.8. Most landscapes are generally shot with camera phones and P&S.

By the way I believe you own all three, the 24mm f/1.4L, 24mm TSE and the 24-70mm II as do I.

I find a use for each. As for the OP I think if he is serious about landscapes he should head toward the TS.
If he want's versatility go for the 24-70 II.
If he doesn't need a TS he could save a few bucks and get the 24mm II.

 

[takesome1]

The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?

An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?

An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.

The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.

P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.

 

[takesome1]

The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.

P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.

To say the 24mm f/1.4 is appalling could be seen as a trollish comment. Since it is one of Canon's best primes and you made the comment on a Canon forum.

Really it is money and versatility;
The 24-70 II is a great lens that usually cost close to 2K. If you are going to spend that much on a landscape lens and you want the best then IMO the 24mm TSE is the choice no doubt, can the OP afford that one?

The 24mm F/1.4 cost less, and if you are not using the TS functions the differences between these tow lenses IQ isn't that great.

I have owned the 24-70mm II over a year now, if I want a wide lens for a landscape shot I put the primes on. Honestly
I read all the reviews, debates, opinions and discussions but in the end I make the final choice by the final results.

Comments that this aspect doesn't matter or that doesn't matter, or you can correct this or that in PP a bit useless. Unless you know that the person you are addressing takes the same type of shots and PP just like you do you really do not know if those aspects matter or not to that person.

 

[tcmatthews]

The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?

An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.

The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.

P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.

I agree the 24 f1.4 MkII is a fantastic lens but I would not get it for landscape. The only time that 1.4 could be useful is for astro-landscape but it has been reported to have coma so it is not good for that. It is a rather large lens if the goal is "24mm and to stay light" get the 24mm 2.8 IS. If not get the 24-70 f2,8, TS-E 24mm L or Zeiss 21mm.

I would chose plan 2. I wish I had bought the Canon 70-200f4 IS instead of the non IS. I chose to supplement my 70-200f4 with a Tamaron 70-300 f4-f5.4 VC when IS is needed.

 

[Loswr]

To say the 24mm f/1.4 is appalling could be seen as a trollish comment. Since it is one of Canon's best primes and you made the comment on a Canon forum.

If you think that's what he said, you need to read more carefully. He called it an appalling choice as a dedicated landscape lens. A Toyota Tundra is a very nice full size truck, but it's an appalling choice for parking on the streets of San Francisco. There are many options for a dedicated landscape lens covering 24mm, and the 24/1.4L is the last one of then I'd pick.

 

[Sporgon]

It may be worth mentioning that Colin Prior, one of the best know UK based landscape photographers uses zooms when on digital FF. 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 II to be exact, and this is someone who was well known for medium and large format work. If the use of a zoom doesn't compromise quality then the advantage of flexibility is overwhelming.

 

[growler]

As the OP, I sure got more than I bargained for, but I do appreciate the info here - lots to think about. If money were no issue, I would gladly get the 24 TSE. The consensus here is clearly that it is the best tool for serious landscape work. If my livelihood depended upon getting the absolute best IQ then there would be no question. However, I am an amateur and while I have pixel peeping tendencies, the fact is that I make prints for framing very rarely for myself or others. That being the case I am going to first try out the 24 2.8 IS and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, I think I will be able to get most of my money out upon resale. I'm still settled on the 70-200 f4L IS and the 100 f2.8L IS.

 

[bholliman]

I am going to first try out the 24 2.8 IS and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, I think I will be able to get most of my money out upon resale. I'm still settled on the 70-200 f4L IS and the 100 f2.8L IS.

I believe these are great choices. Here is my opinion on the 24mm options for landscape work:

24 2.8 IS - Best choice for small size/weight and very good IQ, best budget option
24 TS-E - Best IQ, best prime option
24-70 2.8 II - Best choice for combination of IQ and versatility

The 24 TS-E and 24-70 2.8 II are $2K lenses while the 24 2.8 IS sells for 30% of that. A terrific value. There is very little IQ difference between the 24 2.8 IS and the 24 1.4L according to the TDP comparison tool:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

 

[optikus]

Hi,

from my point of view the discussion should not be limited to the Canon-Portfolio only - for landscape work I'd prefer primes,

a good line of wide angle lenses with fast aperture for insulation of objects, the option of stepping down is easier to have then the other way,

a very good standard lens, F1.4 or 1.2

and two longer lenses, 85 - 110 mm and a 135.

If IS is a really advantage can be discussed, for composing landscane scenes I for me use the tripod for accuracy.

My "ideal" set would be:

• 
  Distagon 2,8 15
  Flektogon 2,8 20
  Distagon 2,8 25
  Distagon 1,4 35
  Planar 1,4 50 // alt. Distagon 1,4 55 // Color Ultron 1,4 55
  Planar 1,4 85 // Apo Lanthar 90
  Planar 2,0 110
  Apo Sonnar 2,0 135

Some are only new availlable as ZE lenses, some alternatively used also with Contax/Yashica mount. the 110 is only availlable used from Hasselblad. apo Lanthar and Color Ultron are Voigtländer brands.

The mess with the actual canon lenses is, that in my mind the colors change with the technology-standard the lens is on, an effect I did not see using the Zeiss lenses. The extremely expensive ones from Zeiss can be rented, a good choice, the rest I use when ever to get used with C/Y-Mount and Leitax-Adapters with correct infinity warranted.

From Germany

Joerg

 

[christianronnel]

To the OP: While most of the comments and responses here talked about lens IQ. There's more to landscape than image sharpness. The most important I think are perspective, light flare control and evenness of the sharpness across the frame.

I shoot mostly landscapes and I was in the same shoes as you when I switched to full frame. I immediately purchased the 16-35II (after comparing with 17-40) and it took me a while to learn how to shoot that wide. The perspective is really that extreme. You'll also loose quite a bit of depth of field on full frame. I find myself shooting more in the 20-24mm range. Light flare control with this lens is very good. I was never happy shooting it pass f8. The image center is very sharp while the borders are quite soft, so sharpening an image takes quite a bit of work with masking.

I eventually got the 24-70, yes this lens is evenly sharp across the frame. 24mm is also wide enough for most scenes but could be a bit wider. I wish canon makes a decent 20mm lens (Zeiss cost too much money). The issues I have with the 24-70 is light flare control. It's really bad with bright light source, and doing landscape as you know, we normally shoot facing the sun.

I have had the chance to use TS-E 24mm for a few days. I agree with all the folks who recommended this lens. While it's slower to use, it gave me more chance to think about the image and get better composition. I was also able to reproduce the same field of view of 16mm, by stitching 2 images, without the extreme perspective that I usually get with the 16-35. Since I can shift (or swing the lens), I also didn't to go beyond f5.6 to get the DoF at f16 so the images are very sharp. I'm now in the process of selling the 16-35 to purchase the TS-E24mm. I may still get this focal range for when I want the extreme perspective but I have to wait for Canon (or Sigma) to release a better lens. One concern I have with TS-E lens is the lack of weather sealing. I shoot a lot of seascape so only time will tell how it stands up against the salty mist.

Good luck

(Edited to include some images)

Here's how the flare looks with the 24-70

sunrise at the valley of the rocks by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

The 16-35 is easier to use with bright light sources

9 by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

 

[takesome1]

To say the 24mm f/1.4 is appalling could be seen as a trollish comment. Since it is one of Canon's best primes and you made the comment on a Canon forum.

If you think that's what he said, you need to read more carefully. He called it an appalling choice as a dedicated landscape lens. A Toyota Tundra is a very nice full size truck, but it's an appalling choice for parking on the streets of San Francisco. There are many options for a dedicated landscape lens covering 24mm, and the 24/1.4L is the last one of then I'd pick.

I can read fine thanks. He said the word appalling, I think that is a bit strong in the context of what he said. Saying there are better picks then yes I agree. There are many fine landscape shots that have been taken with the 24mm f/1.4L II.



I would find it appalling to even be seen in a Toyota Tundra. Recently at Bass Pro they were giving away $10 store credit to take a test drive, I told them it would cost $100. Any way I didn't drive it. But if for some reason I find myself in San Francisco I will find a way to park my Chevy High Country and be happy doing it.

 

[christianronnel]

I don't know how I missed this response. Neuro explains perfectly the practical things and why you need Tilt-shift for landscape. Although I would add that the f1.4 would be beneficial for landscapes with Milky Way in the absence of star-tracking tripod mount.

mitigates or eliminate? Of course a few clicks of the mouse correct distortion in LR.

The post-processing correction is usually capable of eliminating the distortion. Starting with a higher resolution image, and the corresponding need to downsample for most output, mitigates the consequences of eliminating that distortion, but doesn't necessarily eliminate them, depending on how much resolution you start with and how much you need to downsample. Consider the extreme example of defishing a fisheye image - the corners will be very soft. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the 17-40, where the corners aren't sharp to begin with, and distortion correction makes it worse.

Someone could make the same argument that you really do not need the Tilt Shift with todays technology. LR can simulate much of what a TS can do.

Keystoning can be corrected in post. Like distortion correction, there's a loss of sharpness, and you also have a lower MP image meaning less downsampling, since correction of keystoning results in significant cropping. Doing that also requires that you plan ahead and frame very loosely, and you need a lens wide enough to allow that loose framing.

I don't know of any software that can replicate the effect of tilt to increase DoF (in effect, technically it's not). Tilt means you don't have to stop down to apertures where diffraction softens your image. I suppose you could focus stack, but with moving subjects (trees in a breeze, clouds in the sky) that's not really feasible. The use of tilt to increase apparent DoF is the main use of a TS lens in landscape photography, make the argument that the TS effects can be duplicated in post particularly weak in this case.

I do not know about you but I would rather have fewer things to correct in PP no matter how rare or insignificant they are.

Given that my RAW converter (DxO) automatically and effectively corrects vignetting and distortion, with no action required on my part during the workflow, I don't find it to be onerous at all.

It really is subjective, why spend thousands of dollars on this equipment if we are not looking at using it at its limits.

That statement is a strong argument against getting the 24mm f/1.4L for landscape use, since it's primary advantage is the f/1.4 aperture...something not generally needed in landscape shooting.

 

[sagittariansrock]

In cases where I don't I will probably take the 24 f1.4 and 24-105 IS with me. 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.

That being the case I am going to first try out the 24 2.8 IS and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, I think I will be able to get most of my money out upon resale. I'm still settled on the 70-200 f4L IS and the 100 f2.8L IS.

OP, I think majority of 24 TS-E and 24 II comments came based on your previous post where you talked about getting the 24 L II and the 17-40 which would have cost you more than the TS-E anyway. And it seemed to have few advantages. However, your decision to go for the 24 2.8 IS makes the most sense given the value for money.

When I first moved to FF, I had also decided on getting the 24 2.8 IS along with the 24-105 as a faster, better 24mm choice (and then the 24-70 II ended up being on sale, and I wanted to try it out, never looked back, etc. etc.) so I am sure you will benefit greatly from this decision.
Happy shooting!

 

[tcmatthews]

I don't know how I missed this response. Neuro explains perfectly the practical things and why you need Tilt-shift for landscape. Although I would add that the f1.4 would be beneficial for landscapes with Milky Way in the absence of star-tracking tripod mount.

The problem is that for most the 24L II has unacceptable Comma wide open. Everything I have read suggests the Samyang 24mm 1.4 would be better for that. That is the primary reason I suggested against the 24L the one case where 1.4 would be a benefit is its largest weakness.

 

[tcmatthews]

I wish canon makes a decent 20mm lens (Zeiss cost too much money).

I agree it is a shame the 20mm Canon is so bad. I am tempted to try out the Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5. Sounds like an interesting lens. But to be honest I think I will wait until after I buy a Sony A7 and get one of there Leica M mount lenses.

 

[canonrumorstony]

Zooms are versatile, primes are not.

 

[privatebydesign]

Zooms are versatile, primes are not.

You haven't used the 17 and 24 TS-E's, they are VERY versatile primes that can do things no zoom can, you can use them with TC's too, for added versatility with minimal IQ loss, and they are such high quality lenses cropping to get the same effective focal length of a zoom is not really an issue.

There are few black and white/right or wrong answers, just opinions.