# zooms vs primes for landscape



## growler (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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?



takesome1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2014)

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


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

growler said:


> 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. 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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

growler said:


> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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 (Jan 25, 2014)

growler said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


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



+ 1 for me too.
Surapon


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 25, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> growler said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



+1

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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2014)

growler said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2014)

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. 




gigabellone said:


> 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. (Jan 25, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.


----------



## scottburgess (Jan 25, 2014)

growler said:


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



My take on this is that advice from other photographers _might_ give you some insight into the decision making processes they used, but many responses will rather be of the format "you should buy this 'cause I think it's cool." I don't believe the latter is useful to you at all. I've never asked for this sort of advice because it generally fails to address my photographic needs, and I don't really care what a lens fanboi thinks.

Great photography comes from within the photographer. The gear is a tool. There's a lot of spectacular iPhone photography out there, so don't elevate the tool to a higher status than it deserves. Art Wolfe, for example, mostly works with 2 zoom lenses and an extender and he's one of the very best.

I take a methodical approach to adding lenses to my kit. I review and categorize my images and decide where my lens kit is letting me down most frequently. *I add the lens that will improve capabilities on the highest percentage of shots I am doing/ I want to do.* My first Canon addition after my old original Rebel 35-80mm kit lens was a 100mm macro, because I was falling in love with macro and this added the most needed capability. Then I added a 28mm f/2.8--the wider angle lenses didn't work for me then in part because I was doing a lot of waterfall shots, and the wider lenses put me in the spray zone of too many of my region's large waterfalls; the f/2.8 had few groups/elements and controlled ghosting really well (a boon to waterfall photography). I upgraded the body to an Elan IIe in part because I needed mirror pre-fire. And so on. I've never had to regret a photo purchase so far and I use everything I own _regularly_, which I think are indicators of success with this approach.

Often I've reviewed my images and decided that a book on composition or a workshop would have greater impact on my art. If so, the money went there instead.

Some of the discussion here of prime versus zoom is relevant. I feel that zooms offer versatility and compactness, while primes are more forgiving across a wider range of apertures and light conditions. My kit is built mostly around primes, but I always take a wide-angle zoom because it encompasses so many focal lengths that it may offer the best composition control and minimal weight cost for part of a trip. A build around primes entails more weight, bulk and cost, and thus doesn't work for many photographers. A subset of my lenses can be pulled out separately for backpacking trips while retaining substantial coverage of my interests.

So my overarching suggestion is that you build your lens kit by internal reflection on your art. Some factual information from lens reviews and forum members may help you pare down the list a little once you know what you want, but I believe that your personal journey in photography should be the primary guide.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 25, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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


----------



## danuer (Jan 25, 2014)

I had the same choice and tried many lenses for travel photography, including 17-40, 16-35II, 35L, 50 1.8 and others,and ended up with this combo: TS-E 17, 24-70 II and 70-200 4 IS. All these lenses are very sharp, maybe 24-70 is litte sharper and gives more contrast. Since most of landscape photos are shot with aperture 4 and closer - there is no need for fast primes.


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 25, 2014)

Albi86 said:


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



I disagree with this statement and the previous post as well regarding the 24-70ii. Practically speaking the 24-70ii is about as good as it gets. While the 300f2.8ii is sharper then the 300f2.8i.... both lenses are razor sharp!!! Saying that canon's primes in this focal range has better IQ then the 24-70ii is just splitting hairs. 

Have you used the 24-70ii? With this lens... there are no compromises. Its tack sharp through the entire zoom range, from wide open through f/14 and all the way to the corners. Unless you really need faster then f2.8, this lens effectively replaces all primes in this focal range. 

Also to the OP... the 17-40 is not the best choice for a landscape lens. There is a ton of distortion, it's not all that sharp and has compatibility issues with some variable ND filters. I have used this lens extensively and unless I absolutely need wider then 24, I don't use it. It's just not that exciting of a lens.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 26, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


>


Great shot, GMC!! I love how the waterline takes the eye back to the sunset and the contrast between sharp rock formation and the soft water, beach, and clouds.


----------



## gshocked (Jan 26, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Zooms offer versatility, but it always comes at the price of compromising on IQ - in one way or another.
> ...



+1

The 24-70 f/2.8ii is outstanding


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 26, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Sell the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS and the Sigma 70-200mm. Get the 24-70mm 2.8L II, the 100L macro and 70-200 f4 IS and your set is complete and light enough for trekking.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 26, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Zooms offer versatility, but it always comes at the price of compromising on IQ - in one way or another.
> ...



If your only measure of IQ is resolution then you have a point. But then that isn't the only measure or the only factor that contribute to IQ. 

Here are a few hairs to split;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=787&Camera=453&LensComp=480

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

Vignetting and distortion at those levels are complete non sequiturs with the mp cameras we have and the vast majority of output scenarios.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2014)

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?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 26, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Sell the 24-105. Get a 24-70ii. (With this lens you can forget about primes in this focal length for landscape photography.
> 
> Get a rokinon if you need wider then 24mm. I rarely wish I could go wider then 24mm on ff.



+1. The IQ of the 24-70 is so much better than the 24-105 that it will suffice for 24mm (considering you are contemplating 24mm II). And for wider angles, get the Rokinon. It will be cheaper, and will give you the option of a faster lens throughout the 24-70 range.
I had a similar dilemma when moving to FF from APS-C. I didn't want to get the 17-40 because I hadn't liked it earlier. You are not getting much advantage for the price you pay going for the 17-40 and 24 II. Considering you are paying $ 2300 for that, you are actually better off getting the 24 TS-E which will be versatile in so many more ways beside being one most praised landscape lenses.


----------



## aroo (Jan 26, 2014)

Don't forget about the 40mm f/2.8 for landscapes. I use mine a ton. The detail from pancake + 6D at f/4 through f/10 is amazing. Plus it's so small and light (and inexpensive), there's no reason not to carry one.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 26, 2014)

aroo said:


> Don't forget about the 40mm f/2.8 for landscapes. I use mine a ton. The detail from pancake + 6D at f/4 through f/10 is amazing. Plus it's so small and light (and inexpensive), there's no reason not to carry one.



not to mention how cheap 52mm filters are for it


----------



## Aglet (Jan 26, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.



go with your option 2 and you'll spend and carry a LOT less than many of these guys are encouraging you to and have most everything well covered.
A light monopod with small ballhead can be helpful.
maybe add the excellent bang/buck 50mm f/1.4 USM instead of the 1.8 v2 

The 17-40 can be very soft in corners at times, stopped down to f/8-11 and pick your focus and composition to fit the lens a little and you'll do fine. Experiment with it to see where its weaknesses are so you'll know. It's otherwise not a bad lens and you can spend a lot more in this FL range for only slight improvements. (or Tokina 17-35 f/4)

14mm Samyang when you're ready for it.
consider 24-70mm Tamron too.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sell the 24-105. Get a 24-70ii. (With this lens you can forget about primes in this focal length for landscape photography.
> ...



+2 I shoot lots of landscapes and love my current set-up of Rokinon 14mm 2.8, EF 24-70 2.8 II and EF 70-200 2.8 II. I use the 70-200 2.8 quite a bit for portraits, if I was just using it for landscapes, the f/4 IS would be a better option (much lighter to carry on hikes!). The 100mm L Macro is also nice for landscapes. I take it as a tele option when I don't want to carry the 70-200 and is also nice for macro shots of flowers and other small objects encountered when hiking.

I'm saving up for a TS-E 17mm or 24mm as well. By the time I have the money set aside, I will hopefully have my mind made up as to which one!


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Vignetting and distortion at those levels are complete non sequiturs with the mp cameras we have and the vast majority of output scenarios.



MP of cameras improves Vignetting and Distortion? I didn't know this.
You can change these in defects in PP, so I guess we should use a lens that we know we have correct its problems.

The output scenarios we are talking about are landscapes.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Vignetting and distortion at those levels are complete non sequiturs with the mp cameras we have and the vast majority of output scenarios.
> ...



Correction of vignetting in post means raising exposure, which adds noise. With current sensors and since landscapes are rarely shot at high ISO, that's not really an issue. Correction of distortion in post costs sharpness. Higher resolution sensors mitigate the loss. 

Landscapes are the _input_. "Output scenarios" refers to how the images of the landscapes are presented - online or prints of various sizes. With higher MP sensors, most output scenarios involve downsampling the image, and that further mitigates the effects of correcting vignetting and distortion in post.


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



So you split some hairs... who cares. My point was that splitting hairs was a pointless exercise. When comparing sharpness of a 24-105 to a 24-70ii the IQ difference is obvious with big prints or even when viewing on the pc without any zoom. (IQ, Vignetting, distortion, CA, etc...)

What you showed me in those links are comparisons between 2 excellent lenses. Unless you need f1.4, there are no "practical" advantages of the 24mm prime to the zoom.


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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

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.

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.

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


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


EVERYTHING adds distortion or reduces light and contrast.

Software can correct for distortion or lighting, but always at a cost.

I think that all will agree that a lens of higher quality will result in less need for post correction through software, but the big question is what is an acceptable level, and that answer is on a case by case basis with so many variables as to render the question unanswerable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> 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. 




takesome1 said:


> 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. 




takesome1 said:


> 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. 




takesome1 said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > It really is subjective, why spend thousands of dollars on this equipment if we are not looking at using it at its limits.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2014)

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 (Jan 26, 2014)

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 (Jan 26, 2014)

growler said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2014)

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 (Jan 26, 2014)

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 (Jan 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2014)

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.



neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > mitigates or eliminate? Of course a few clicks of the mouse correct distortion in LR.
> ...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 26, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.





growler said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2014)

christianronnel said:


> 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 (Jan 27, 2014)

christianronnel said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2014)

Zooms are versatile, primes are not.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> 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.


----------



## romanr74 (Jan 30, 2014)

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

I believe there is no better choice for the serious landscape photographer, you can

- shift & stitch to increase the angle further
- tilt for perfect end-to-end sharpness

when already the TS-E 24L II offers the best image quality of all (Canon) 24mm lenses.


----------



## Zv (Jan 30, 2014)

canonrumorstony said:


> Zooms are versatile, primes are not.



Depends on the lens and what you mean by versatile. A fast prime lens is versatile as it can shoot in low light and offer a shallow dof compared with a slow zoom lens. A prime lens with IS is even more versatile!


----------



## chas1113 (Jan 30, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I'm going to take a little bit different approach. VERSATILITY/PRACTICALITY. If you are über serious about image quality, then the previous comments have given you much to think about.

Plan 1: Involves multiple fast(er) primes at differing lens/filter diameters (lens hoods, etc). If you think you will be using lots of various (expensive) filters to enhance your landscape captures, this could add up. Granted, the 35mm 2.0 IS and 100mm 2.8 IS L share 67mm filters as does the 70-200 f/4 IS. However, the prime set gives you all f/2.8 and faster optimum apertures which will aid your 6D center cross-type focus point. If you are only using LiveView focusing this may be a moot point.

Plan 2: Gives you more versatility and meshes well with your existing setup. The filter dilemma is minimized in that the 17-40mm shares 77mm filters with your 24-105mm and the 70-200 f/4 IS shares with the 100mm L macro.

I would love to have the luxury ($$$$$) of a dedicated landscape lens like a 24 or 17mm TSE, but I use my camera for everything, so every lens has to be versatile and lightweight. So I like a combination of slow zooms and fast primes........

Plan 3: Keep your 50 1.8 (until it breaks), keep your 24-105L (possibly the best bang for the buck L zoom lens), sell the others and add 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm 2.8 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS). All three use 67mm filters and lightweight. The 100mm L macro doubles as a great portrait lens, too. If you feel the 35mm isn't wide enough, then substitute the 24mm 2.8 IS and add the Rokinon 14mm as needed. 

(Disclosure) I have recently added both the 35mm IS and 100mm L IS; both great, lightweight SHARP lenses! I have the 17-40mm L, and while it was great on crop, full frame not so much.


----------



## gigabellone (Jan 30, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I'd sell everything except the 24-105, and get a 100/2.8 macro. The 24-105 has nasty distortion at 24 and it's not very fast, so you could switch to the 24-70/2.8 II as soon as your budget allows. If you really want to go ultrawide, the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 is the one: it's cheap and with good image quality.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2014)

24-105mm f/4L IS , 70-200 f/4 L IS and TS-E17 L are my minimal but effective landscape kit when I cannot carry a lot.

You can replace 24-105 with 24-70 2.8L II, add macro 100L 2.8 and a second FF body in the future and that's it!

(Sell the Sigma by all means)


----------



## chas1113 (Jan 30, 2014)

FYI: I just noticed over on the fm website there is a nice comparison between the 24mm TSE and the 24mm 2.8 IS...in the photo samples the 24mm IS holds up very nicely to the 4X $$$ TSE.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jan 30, 2014)

+ for the 35 IS it is very competent. For the tele you could also go with the 70-300 L which delivers outstanding image quality.


----------



## tron (Jan 31, 2014)

chas1113 said:


> FYI: I just noticed over on the fm website there is a nice comparison between the 24mm TSE and the 24mm 2.8 IS...in the photo samples the 24mm IS holds up very nicely to the 4X $$$ TSE.


In the-digital-picture site you can see comparisons between the 24mm 2.8 IS with the old 24mm 2.8. The old 24mm 2.8 holds up very nicely to the 2X $$ 24mm 2.8 IS....

But one thing is sure: the 24 2.8 lenses cannot tilt and shift and the old 24 2.8 does not have IS....


----------



## greger (Jan 31, 2014)

I used the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens with the 1.4 extender until I had to have more reach, then I got the 100-400 L which I like very much. The 100 f2.8 IS Macro is a good choice for portraits,flowers and Macro shots. For landscape I might go for the 16-35 f2.8 and use it with a tripod. I don't shoot many Landscapes so my 17-85 fills that part of my kit shooting HDR until it breaks. Sometimes I turn off IS for panning shots and really miss it when i forget to turn it back on. ;D


----------



## noncho (Jan 31, 2014)

It really depends what kind of landscapes you like. 
I like both wide and telephoto, and if you have enough primes you can make it. I think the long end have more lens opportunities for landscapes both for primes and zooms. At wide end something like 16-35 is much more usable.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 1, 2014)

I've been seeing a lot of neg. reviews on the 17-40 L? Is it really that bad?


----------



## Zv (Feb 1, 2014)

gshocked said:


> I've been seeing a lot of neg. reviews on the 17-40 L? Is it really that bad?



I don't think it is. Some people have high expectations. For the price, on FF, there isn't really much else. Knowing the limitations of the lens and using it at the optimal focal lengths and apertures helps a lot. If you buy it for 40mm f/4 ability you will prob feel let down. If you shoot at 17mm f/8 you might be pleased with the results. 

I upgraded from a 7D and EF-S 10-22 and in comparison to that I find the 17-40L sharper and with better contrast. The IQ is better than my 24-105L for sure. Maybe I have a good copy? Maybe my 24-105 is a poor copy? Who knows. In the end it gets the job done and that's all that matters.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 1, 2014)

Zv said:


> The IQ is better than my 24-105L for sure.



With a few caveats, I would agree with you.


----------



## christianronnel (Feb 4, 2014)

growler said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I recently came back from a trip from Death Valley and I've given your question more thought. In short, go with zooms, sell your Sigma and your 24-105 and get the 16-35 and a 24-70/2.8 either from Canon or Tamron. 

Here is why i think you should to that, the long version.

1. As you had mentioned, *weight* is a great factor. If your style of landscape photography is the "touristy" kind where you don't go too far from the car, then it's not a factor at all, by all means bring the sharpest primes. But if you are going to climb up and down dunes, canyons and mountains it will eventually sinked in (to your shoulders) that you need to lighten up your load. For weight savings I would go with zoom lenses. The weight difference between 16-35 and 17-40 is barely noticeable, same goes between 24-105 and 24-70. Get the 70-300L.

2. *Not having to change your lens too often*. If you are a very experienced photographer and you can "see" the shot and which focal length to use for it then by all means go with the primes. If you're like me, having to move around and zoom in out to see the best composition, well you know the answer. Having to switch lenses too often is really taxing to your gear too. The weather sealing on the camera and lenses is mute at that point. Sand and salty sea mist will easily get in your camera no mater how careful you are. So zoom wins in this regard.

3. *Versatility*. I guess this depends on how you view a versatile lens. Zoom is more versatile than primes, except for Tilt-Shift lenses for reasons already mentioned in this thread. Here's my take on versatility. Having F2.8 may not seem important at first for beginning landscape photographer. Don't think of F2.8 for shallower DoF. Think of it as having a versatile tool. Focusing is easier with F2.8 and I don't mean the cross-type focusing points on your camera. It would be much easier to see in the view finder compared to an F4 lens. Most landscape photographers using modern digital cameras uses live view for focusing. But there would be times when you absolutely cannot see anything in live view, like at night are with the sun behind you. The F2.8 would also allow you to take pictures of the Milky Way at half the time or ISO that you would need with an F4 lens. So stars would be sharper and less noisy skies. Hence, I recommend getting the 16-35 and a 24-70/2.8.

4. *Cost*. I didn't do the price comparisons between you plan 1 or 2 but it seems to me that having 3 zoom lenses would be cheaper than buying several primes to cover the entire focal length. You may not find the need the 100mm macro if you get the Tamron 24-70 or the Canon 70-300L as they both have shorter focusing distance compared to other zoom.

5. *Room in your bag.* Aside from weight, there is only so much you can fit in your bag. I have the F-Stop bags and my favorite is the Kenti model. With that I am able to carry, a 5DIII, 7D, EOS-M, 70-300L, 24-70LII, 16-35LII, Lee filter set, jacket, flash light, water, some snacks and my iPad. My point here is, if you can't carry it, you can't use it.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 6, 2014)

I have been a bit random about my migration to FF for landscape. I had intended to get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 as the "kit" lens with the 6D, but right there in the used lens section was a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for the same price as the Tamron. I made the "mistake" of trying it on the 6D, and ended up buying 6D plus 21mm. I am an "old fart" and am a sucker for manual focus. The lens is great, gorgeous color and contrast, sharp at f/2.8 corner to corner and sharp stopped down, doesn't have obtrusive coma at f/2.8, so it is good for astro-landscape. I already had a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that I had bought for astro-landscape and general fun on a crop camera, and a fast normal prime, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. So, for the FF normal and the medium telephoto, I am raiding the closet for late 1960s-1970s legacy all manual lenses in M42 (mine) and Nikon mounts (inherited). That covers the 50-60mm range and 105-135mm range for now - the old-timers are being tested for IQ and usability now. The old lenses are poor for astrophotography due to sizable coma, acceptable only at f/4. The fast normals have good color and contrast at f/2.8 and smaller, but are low-contrast at f/1.4, not surprising for lenses without aspherical elements or other fancy glass.

I will say that the primes approach can get heavy if you want to be ready for all eventualities. If you know what sort of shot you want, life is easier, you can take just one or two lenses. If you want to shake things up and just shoot with one prime for a day, that is good too. I have to say that I still see a lot of merit in taking my APS-C 60D and 15-85mm lens as a one lens solution on possibly long hikes in unfamiliar territory, when I am unsure of how long it will take me to get to point A, B, etc and when I really want to "take a sketch" of possible landscape shots to be set up at a future date for a better time of day, etc. I am also taking "ten essentials" just in case, plus an emergency space-blanket bivy. Some hikers froze to death in Missouri last winter after having gotten soaked.


----------



## tron (Feb 6, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I have been a bit random about my migration to FF for landscape. I had intended to get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 as the "kit" lens with the 6D, but right there in the used lens section was a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for the same price as the Tamron. I made the "mistake" of trying it on the 6D, and ended up buying 6D plus 21mm. I am an "old fart" and am a sucker for manual focus. The lens is great, gorgeous color and contrast, sharp at f/2.8 corner to corner and sharp stopped down, doesn't have obtrusive coma at f/2.8, so it is good for astro-landscape. I already had a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that I had bought for astro-landscape and general fun on a crop camera, and a fast normal prime, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. So, for the FF normal and the medium telephoto, I am raiding the closet for late 1960s-1970s legacy all manual lenses in M42 (mine) and Nikon mounts (inherited). That covers the 50-60mm range and 105-135mm range for now - the old-timers are being tested for IQ and usability now. The old lenses are poor for astrophotography due to sizable coma, acceptable only at f/4. The fast normals have good color and contrast at f/2.8 and smaller, but are low-contrast at f/1.4, not surprising for lenses without aspherical elements or other fancy glass.
> 
> I will say that the primes approach can get heavy if you want to be ready for all eventualities. If you know what sort of shot you want, life is easier, you can take just one or two lenses. If you want to shake things up and just shoot with one prime for a day, that is good too. I have to say that I still see a lot of merit in taking my APS-C 60D and 15-85mm lens as a one lens solution on possibly long hikes in unfamiliar territory, when I am unsure of how long it will take me to get to point A, B, etc and when I really want to "take a sketch" of possible landscape shots to be set up at a future date for a better time of day, etc. I am also taking "ten essentials" just in case, plus an emergency space-blanket bivy. Some hikers froze to death in Missouri last winter after having gotten soaked.


I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 6, 2014)

I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
[/quote]

I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release. The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.


----------



## tron (Feb 7, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
> ...


Maybe but future lenses do not take photos to day. Anyway, the 24-70 II coma performance is very reassuring and I hope that you will be proven right...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L



I guessing that Canon's coma performance will be improved during the next round of release. The 24-70 II is much better coma-wise.
[/quote]

Is Coma performance particularly important for landscapes? Wide open, how about at f11?


----------



## yorgasor (Feb 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Zeiss 21mm too and I quite like it, especially for astrophotography (not much coma and hard stop at infinity). Now even "modern" Canon lenses exhibit coma like: 24mm 1.4L II 35mm 1.4L 16-35mm f/2.8L
> ...



Is Coma performance particularly important for landscapes? Wide open, how about at f11?
[/quote]

Only for astrophotography. You don't want to stop down to f/11 as your photo will change from a 15-30 second photo at 2.8 to a 4-8 minute photo, and those bugger stars just don't hold still. I just got the Zeiss 21mm last week and took it with me to Moab to break it in. For an astrophotography landscape lens, I must say it is spectacular: 




Moonlit Bridge by yorgasor, on Flickr


----------



## tron (Feb 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Is Coma performance particularly important for landscapes? Wide open, how about at f11?


You got your answer already. If you had noticed I had mentioned astrophotography not landscapes in general...


yorgasor said:


> I just got the Zeiss 21mm last week and took it with me to Moab to break it in. For an astrophotography landscape lens, I must say it is spectacular:


YES! it is exceptional for sharpness across the frame, low coma and hard stop at infinity


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Only for astrophotography. You don't want to stop down to f/11 as your photo will change from a 15-30 second photo at 2.8 to a 4-8 minute photo, and those bugger stars just don't hold still. I just got the Zeiss 21mm last week and took it with me to Moab to break it in. For an astrophotography landscape lens, I must say it is spectacular: 




Moonlit Bridge by yorgasor, on Flickr
[/quote]
MAGNIFICENT! ... all you prime lens guys are tempting me into getting these awesome wide angle prime lenses for my Sony a7


----------

