# If you could only use one lens for landscape photography, which one and why?



## AlexB (Jan 3, 2015)

Hi guys

For all you out there doing landscape photography; I'm very interested in hearing about what would be your choice if you could only use one lens for shooting landscapes. Whether it would be a super wide angle, telephoto, something in between, zoom, prime, or maybe a specialty lens such as a tilt shift or macro?

(One other point that is beneficial to note is what sensor size you would use that with; full frame, 1.3x crop, 1.6x crop.)

And to try to avoid this being just another thread where various people list all the lenses in Canon's lineup, I would be very interested in _why_ you would choose that particular lens for your needs.

Hope this is not another dreadful repetition. I couldn't find anything like this in regards to landscape photography.

- Alex


----------



## Tinky (Jan 3, 2015)

I would go for a standard field of view, for me a 28mm on an aps-c body, or full frame users 40mm pancake.

Natural perspective, great depth of field even at wider angles, cheap to filter, easy to stitch, compact, light, low distotions, low vignetting stopped down, cheap.

With todays bodies I don't see the need to go tighter, there is enough resolution and enough sharpness from these lenses per pixel to crop with some abandon.

Kind of done with uwas and hdrs. Prefer to make a normal lens (and me) work a bit harder.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2015)

24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.


----------



## Policar (Jan 3, 2015)

AlexB said:


> Hi guys
> 
> For all you out there doing landscape photography; I'm very interested in hearing about what would be your choice if you could only use one lens for shooting landscapes. Whether it would be a super wide angle, telephoto, something in between, zoom, prime, or maybe a specialty lens such as a tilt shift or macro?
> 
> ...



90mm TS-E, although if the 45mm TS-E were better I'd choose it instead. 

I find shift necessary for perspective correction and I like compressing space into a texture.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 3, 2015)

I'm tempted to say the 24 TSE as well, but as the OP has said only one lens I'd be concerned with being stuck with that focal length, as I find that in landscape shooting flexibility of focal length is important, but so also is lens quality. I never use ultra wides ( ie wider than 24) on landscapes, I'd rather stitch as the far away detail seen through an ultra wide is microscopic. This is the same reason why I would choose FF over APS. When photographing things that are relatively close, like you could throw a ball and hit it, I cannot in all honestly tell any difference between FF and APS in good light, but when you are trying to resolve detail that is hundreds of yards or miles away it is a different story; you are stuck with shorter focal lengths on APS. 

So I wouldn't choose the 16 to 35 f4 as my only landscape lens, outstanding though it is. I think I'd probably go for the 24 to 70 f2.8 II. Not a lens I actually own because when it comes to shorter focal length I'd rather have a few lighter, high quality primes.


----------



## FEBS (Jan 3, 2015)

FF and the TS-E 24. If 24mm is not enough, you can go wider by stitching (shift in horizontal direction). It takes some time to get used to that lens, but it is such a excellent lens.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 3, 2015)

I like using my 16-35 f2.8 on my 5d3, because I can easily use filters, but I also love my Tokina 11-16 f2.8 on my 70D.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I'm tempted to say the 24 TSE as well, but as the OP has said only one lens I'd be concerned with being stuck with that focal length,........



So was I, that is why I sneaked in the TC's 

I 100% agree with distant detail too, that is why any lens I had to use would have to have movements. 

Here is a couple of shots with the 17TS-E, the first is at f4 with no tilt (I hate it when people say with an ultrawide everything is in focus!), the second a 100% crop. The third is the whole frame with a couple of degrees tilt, again at f4, the fourth a 100% crop.

For me that is a dramatic difference in resolution and detail.


----------



## tculotta (Jan 4, 2015)

The new 16-35 f/4. Hands down favorite, nothing else even in the equation. I use it FF on the 5D Mk. III.

It provides incredible range with phenomenal image quality and I can use whatever filters I choose. For me it is the complete package.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2015)

One I own? The 16-35 f/4L


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 4, 2015)

I'd go with the TS-E 17/4 on an FF sensor. I agree 100% with all the points PBD has made, but I find the versatility of the wider FL more useful (and I am not very good with shift stitching yet, plus shift stitching a 17 makes an 11, which is great!). The tilt function of the 24mm is probably more effective, and the ability to use filters is a big plus, but when I am trying to bring everything into focus the former is less of an issue and I haven't really mastered the use of ND grads yet for the latter to be a big inconvenience (and even then there's the Wonderpana system). Also, the use of the TCs make this lens into a 24 and 34mm lens, which are great focal lengths.


----------



## candc (Jan 4, 2015)

The 16-35 f/4 on a 6d may be kind of boring but it does a great job. I went on a week long canoe trip in Killarney pp last summer and its all I took. I never felt that I needed anything else.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2015)

Definitely my TS-E 24L II on FF.


----------



## surapon (Jan 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.




+ 100 For me too, Sir, Dear Teacher, Mr.privatebydesign.
If I have only one lens and one FF. Camera, I will have Canon 24mm. TS-E MK II with B+W KSM C-POL MRC. PL FILTER, ON MY Gitzo G1326 Mountaineer Carbon Fiber Tripods , On Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball Head, On Gitzo 1321 Leveling Head = Heavenly equipment in my hand, FOR SUPER SHARP DETAILS FROM CORNER TO CORNER, PLUS CAN SHIFT AND STICHES TO MAKE 3 TIMES OR MORE OF BIGGER MP..
Happy New Year 2015 to all of our friends.
Surapon


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2015)

candc said:


> The 16-35 f/4 on a 6d may be kind of boring but it does a great job. I went on a week long canoe trip in Killarney pp last summer and its all I took. I never felt that I needed anything else.


I love Killarney! what a wonderful place to paddle and take pictures!

My favourite landscape lens on a FF is the 24-70.... and on a crop camera the 17-55. Same logic for both, it gives me the best combination of flexibility and quality.


----------



## candc (Jan 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 f/4 on a 6d may be kind of boring but it does a great job. I went on a week long canoe trip in Killarney pp last summer and its all I took. I never felt that I needed anything else.
> ...



It is beautiful. I want to go back again and maybe go around phillip edward island too. I don't have a 24-70 but that might be better yet? The f/4 looks to be a good landscape lens.


----------



## wldbil (Jan 4, 2015)

I now have the 7Dii, I love my 24mm 1.4 Mark ii on it but if I was to go to full frame my favorites would be the 16-35mm f/4 for zoom and the 17 TS-E with my 24mm Mark ii next. I had a 17mm f/4 on my old Canon F-1 which I sold last year. I loved that lens for landscape.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2015)

candc said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


where is phillip Edward island, or do you mean Prince Edward Island?


----------



## tron (Jan 4, 2015)

24-70 2.8 II or 16-35 f/4 IS. It is a tough decision but I think 24-70 2.8 wins...

A landscape is not only something that demands an UWA lens...


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 4, 2015)

I agree in principle with the 24mm TS-E. However, given the fact that my vacations are not just photo-safaris, but taking two impatient teenagers to see the world, I would choose otherwise for the time being. I just went to NYC last week to shoot "urban landscape", and it rained all week (making changing lenses impossible with an umbrella in one hand and millions of people bumping you on the street), and the aforementioned teenagers (who already walk faster than I do when I'm just walking) unwilling to stop while I composed a masterpiece. I took a big kit carry-on, including 6D, 8-15mm, 50mm 1.4 Art, 16-35mm 2.8 ii, 24-105mm Art, and 70-200 2.8 ii plus teleconvertors. But, the only lens I used all week (except for my iPhone6 + for panoramas and when it was just plain raining too hard to take a camera at all) was the Sigma 24-105mm Art. Would I have liked to take some longer shots? Sure (but in the fog and rain couldn't go too far down range). And, would I have liked to go 8mm on top of the Empire State Building? Sure. But, it just didn't happen. Sooo, practically, when the kids are gone, one lens only, the 24 TS-E. But, given what I just went through (endured?), I got a lot of memories with another choice. 

p.s. I used to use the big white EF 35-350mm which was great, but sold it since DxO didn't have a module for it. Still a great single lens choice to get a little bit of everything. That plus the 24 TS-E for perfection. ))


----------



## steven kessel (Jan 4, 2015)

I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out. I've been absolutely blown away by this lens. It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly. I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40. For landscape photography I need nothing else.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 4, 2015)

500mm L on 1D IV or 1D x.

I like animals in my outdoor landscapes.


----------



## ejenner (Jan 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.



17 TS-E for me for exactly the same reasons (I get 17mm,24mm and 35mm), but I like to go even wider. I still do stitch the 17mm to get wider - often one for the sky and one for the ground.


----------



## fugu82 (Jan 4, 2015)

steven kessel said:


> I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out. I've been absolutely blown away by this lens. It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly. I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40. For landscape photography I need nothing else.



+1 on the 16-35 f/4L. Best all-around landscape lens I've ever used. I dumped my 2.8 version of this and never looked back.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 4, 2015)

Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?



Define 'better'. If you want wider than 24mm and scene motion precludes stitching, the 17mm is better. The 24mm is a bit sharper, but the 17mm does fine. The 24mm takes filters directly, the 17mm needs the Wonderpana setup (additional cost and much larger filters needed). 

I like not having to pick, as I have both...


----------



## KimH (Jan 4, 2015)

fugu82 said:


> steven kessel said:
> 
> 
> > I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out. I've been absolutely blown away by this lens. It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly. I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40. For landscape photography I need nothing else.
> ...



And another +1 --- I couldn't agree more. 

Best Indoor and Outdoor choice in my bag.


----------



## tayassu (Jan 4, 2015)

I see why people get UWAs for landscapes, but for me, I've created my best landscapes with a tele or supertele.
I love that compressed look and the possibility to separate a detail from the whole...
I sometimes even need a 400-500mm equiv., so for me it would be the 70-300L on my 7D for portability and FL reasons, which is what I actually use. A probably better, but also more expensive option would be the 5DIII and the 100-400II and the absolute dream combo is the D810 with the 80-400.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?



Due to the 1.5 x 1 format you get a lot of foreground and sky, with the rest of the landscape a tiny strip in the middle. That's fine if your landscape includes an interesting foreground - like at your feet in the case of the 17 mil, but this is often not the case. Narrower formats are often better adapted to many landscapes, so if you want to maintain resolution you have to stitch rather than crop top and bottom. Hence why I like the option of a longer focal length for landscape.

Also the 17 TSE has a huge bulbous front element that is all but impossible to shield when shooting across or towards the sun.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Those who have used both 17mm and 24mm TS-E, which one you'd choose? Sounds like 24 is more popular, yes? Is it better? You'd think for landscape the wider is better, but not this time?
> ...


I´m in the same situation. I end up using the 17 TS-E without filters. It´s too much hassle. When I want filters and go that wide, I use the Zeiss 15mm/2.8 and sacrifice the tilt&shift.

My most used landscape lens this summer was probably the Zeiss 15mm, a phenomenal lens, but too wide to be my One lens for landscape. 24mm is my favourite focal length, so the 24 TS-E, with its fantastic optics and flexibility would have to be a top candidate. But since i´m only allowed to have one ... it may be that I would choose the 16-35 f4L IS. I did not get that until later this fall, so I have done much less with it. I lose T&S, but the quality and flexibility of that lens, including weather sealing, is so good that I might be willing to accept that (and probably regret it on the first trip ...). The 16-35 f2.8 L II would not have been a candidate. I never liked that lens, even though I had three copies of it, hoping to get a better one every time.


----------



## symmar22 (Jan 4, 2015)

+1 for the 24mm TS-E. I have the 17 TS-E as well, but too wide for general use, and much less universal IMHO. As mentioned before it takes the 1.4x extender brilliantly, and ND and Polarizing filters are somehow mandatory accessories for landscape. I am used to work with a 4x5 view camera, so I feel kind of "naked" when I do not have optical movements. 

In real life, landscape with only one lens (prime) is a bit difficult, there's a lot of cases where a tele is required, that would be the 90 TS-E for me.


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 4, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> I agree in principle with the 24mm TS-E. However, given the fact that my vacations are not just photo-safaris, but taking two impatient teenagers to see the world, I would choose otherwise for the time being. I just went to NYC last week to shoot "urban landscape", and it rained all week (making changing lenses impossible with an umbrella in one hand and millions of people bumping you on the street), and the aforementioned teenagers (who already walk faster than I do when I'm just walking) unwilling to stop while I composed a masterpiece. I took a big kit carry-on, including 6D, 8-15mm, 50mm 1.4 Art, 16-35mm 2.8 ii, 24-105mm Art, and 70-200 2.8 ii plus teleconvertors. But, the only lens I used all week (except for my iPhone6 + for panoramas and when it was just plain raining too hard to take a camera at all) was the Sigma 24-105mm Art. Would I have liked to take some longer shots? Sure (but in the fog and rain couldn't go too far down range). And, would I have liked to go 8mm on top of the Empire State Building? Sure. But, it just didn't happen. Sooo, practically, when the kids are gone, one lens only, the 24 TS-E. But, given what I just went through (endured?), I got a lot of memories with another choice.
> 
> p.s. I used to use the big white EF 35-350mm which was great, but sold it since DxO didn't have a module for it. Still a great single lens choice to get a little bit of everything. That plus the 24 TS-E for perfection. ))



A sampling of what I was able to accomplish with one lens for "urban landscape" in a week of rain/fog/and escorting teenagers. Not really the best shots, but they are more personal. Not great artistry, but a lot of memories, and some interesting shots. Unfortunately, it looks like Photobucket really down grades resolution. ( http://s1368.photobucket.com/user/brettbolte/media/New%20York%20City-%20Christmas%202014/IMG_7477_DxO_zps3c907ab9.jpg.html?sort=6&o=73


----------



## candyman (Jan 4, 2015)

candc said:


> The 16-35 f/4 on a 6d may be kind of boring but it does a great job. I went on a week long canoe trip in Killarney pp last summer and its all I took. I never felt that I needed anything else.




Not boring. I use it as well on my 6D. 
I agree: it does a great job. And it is light to carry


----------



## candc (Jan 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



phillip edward island is in the georgian bay just south of kpp. it takes about 5 days to circumnavigate from what i have read. its popular with the sea kayakers but you can do it in a canoe because there are a lot of smaller islands to break the wind and waves. afaik its crown land now but may be annexed into the park along with some area to the southwest as well.


----------



## RobertG. (Jan 4, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



Hi! What kind of hassle do you mean? The LEE Filters adaptor ring of the TS-E 17mm lens works pretty well and is faster attached to the lens then a standard adaptor ring. The standard LEE filter holder and 100mm wide filters can still be used. But I have to admit that vignetting does occur with more than 5mm of shift.

I would choose the TS-E 24mm L II as my sole landscape lens, if I had no choice to take another lens. It is very sharp, has great resolution and contrast across the whole frame and has much less distortion than the TS-E 17mm. Stitching is easier with the 24mm lens than with the 17mm one. With the TS-E 24mm I can still use a pol filter and full shift with my standard LEE filters.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 4, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> Hi! What kind of hassle do you mean


In general I think the Lee filters are too much hassle. I may use them (I have a whole stack of them) when I go to a specific spot and spend a lot of time setting up for shooting just that one spot. But for 99% of my shooting I use screw-in filters and I limit filters to ND and CPL. Currently the 17 TS-E and the 8-15 zoom (plus the long whites) are the only ones I can´t use screw-in filters.


----------



## Johan Eickmeyer (Jan 4, 2015)

AlexB said:


> Hi guys
> 
> For all you out there doing landscape photography; I'm very interested in hearing about what would be your choice if you could only use one lens for shooting landscapes. Whether it would be a super wide angle, telephoto, something in between, zoom, prime, or maybe a specialty lens such as a tilt shift or macro?
> 
> ...




To be a great landscape photographer these days, it's all about versatility and portability. Prime lenses are not both. Way back in the film days, primes were vastly better than most zooms, especially wide angle ones. Also, back in the film days, we needed TS lenses to make up for the lack of controls found on larger formats. There was very little in the way of digitally altering these photos before printing onto paper. 

With the vastly better zooms and digital tools we have today, there is no reason to have a TS lens or even prime over a nice and versatile zoom for landscapes. If your goal is to go out and have fun with cool toys, then maybe it would be fun. If your goal is to go out and take the best photos you can with lots of versatility and creativity, then go zooms. 

I personally think a 16-35 F2.8 or 14-24 f2.8 are the best options for a single lens landscape system on full frame. They offer great zoom ranges and are fast enough to do all types of night photography as well. 

All of the images taken on my website were done with zoom lenses. I also often stitch and focus stack, so really no need for a TS lens. I also encounter some conditions that would not be suited for the open mechanics of the TS assembly. 

http://www.JohanEickmeyer.com


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 4, 2015)

If I had the means I would go for a TS-E 24mm on FF, but I have to settle for now with what I own - the EF-S 10-22mm on APS-C.
The challenge of stitching and properly utilizing the superb image circle of a TS would be fun and probably take me some time to master. I'll have to put it on my "if I ever"-account...


----------



## ecka (Jan 5, 2015)

16-35mm F4 can solo landscaping decently well, yeap, something like Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS should be perfect .


----------



## noncho (Jan 5, 2015)

I like telephoto lenses for landscapes, so I would have only 300L IS F4 or the new 100-400L 
Example at about 400mm FF equivalent:


----------



## Johan Eickmeyer (Jan 5, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Johan Eickmeyer said:
> 
> 
> > To be a great landscape photographer these days, it's all about versatility and portability.
> ...


Please refer to topic of thread. 

"Re: If you could only use one lens for landscape photography, which one and why?"

"are the best options for a single lens landscape system on full frame."


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 5, 2015)

By default, my 'landscape' lens is my 10-22 as I'm still on APS-C but hopefully come November 2015, I'll have both a full frame and the 16-35 f/4.0!

I do have the 24-70 but no filters for it yet 

For the record, my personal point of view is not to consider capturing a scene based on my lens's millimetres but rather to frame the scene in a way I find most compelling.
The beginning of 2014, I would never imagine capturing a landscape with a 70-200.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 5, 2015)

I would consider the new 16-35 f/4 (don't have it). My most used landscape and general-use lens on FF is the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4, a phenomenally good lens.


----------



## tolusina (Jan 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> .. I'd rather have a few lighter, high quality primes...


@Sporgon,
Hoping to not offend the many excellent landscape photographers here, from what I've seen of your landscapes posted here, I rather consider that you've mastered the landscape genre. 

With that in mind and along the theme of this thread, I'd like to know;
1) What "_few lighter, high quality primes_" make up your preferred landscape lens kit?
2) Is there one of that kit that gets predominantly more use than the others?
3) Is there one of that kit you'd choose as the only one if different from 2?

---
@Sporgon the 2nd comment, please, get thee to the Grand Canyon.
Of the many landscape and cityscape photos I've seen here that spark an interest and make me want to visit, the resent 'scapes of the Grand Canyon simply blew me away with the grandeur of the place. 
I'd sure love to see what you might bring back from there.

---
edit...
What comprises the 5% you mention in your profile?
...edit


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 6, 2015)

For full frame my favorites would be the 16-35mm f/4L IS for zoom and the 17 TS-E. When not carrying a tripod the 16-35mm f/4L IS works wonders, getting very sharp images at 1/4s.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 6, 2015)

tolusina said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > .. I'd rather have a few lighter, high quality primes...
> ...



That's very kind of you. 

I'm not suggesting that using primes produces better landscape pictures; the quality and versatility of a good zoom is undeniable. The trouble is I don't like a relatively large, heavy lens on a camera when I am roaming around the countryside on foot, but I do want speed and quality, so there is a conflict. I'm happy to carry a few light primes in lowepro cases on a belt. 

Also I don't like ultra wide lenses because they make far away detail microscopic, and although the light passing through them is very dense - bright - there is a low amount of volume. If my landscape pictures do have an edge it is probably that many of them are ultra wide angle but not shot on a wide angle lens, because they are stitches, so my prime landscape lenses are 135, 50, 40, and 28. Nothing wider. Of these I would say that the most commonly used are 50 and 40, followed by 28 followed by 135. I have an 85 but have never produced a panoramic with it.

However a lot of my panos have been shot with the 24-105L, using it at 28 to 60 off the top of my head, but the distortion at the wider end and longer nodal point can lead to problems that lead to more work. Again this is why I favour shorter primes; no distortion and you don't need a panoramic head as much for difficult to stitch scenes. The 24-105L is not a lens I would recommend as a single frame shooting landscape lens because it is weak at 24 - 30 region. the 24-70 f4 IS is much better here. The 24-70 f2.8II better still. 

Does one get used the most ? Yes, and its the cheapest of the lot, the 40mm pancake ! I love the way the camera handles with this lens on it but I don't love the fact it has no focus scale.

If I didn't have the 40 then I'd most probably be using the 50/1.4. If I didn't already have the 40 I would almost certainly have got the 35/2 IS to compliment the 28/2.8 IS. 

If I was shooting single frame landscapes then I would almost certainly be using the 24 TS-E in the mix. In fact I'm going to rent one of these shortly and do some back to back shooting comparisons between this lens and a vertical three frame 1.5 x 1 'pano' shot on the 40. A 40 mil in portrait has roughly the same vertical field of view as a 24 mil in landscape format. The advantage of the TS-E is that you can reduce the lower light volume by using a wider aperture and tilting, but I will be interested to see if i can see a difference at normal viewing sizes. If there is a difference it wont be the 50 mp of the stitch, it will be the larger format giving it the edge. 

One day I will get out to the Grand Canyon, but I am just so flat out busy it is difficult to get away for long. 

The 5% ? Well I have loads of gear that never gets used. In fact I'm having a clean out, so my little personal slogan may not be accurate soon. 95% of the time I am shooting with 5DII + 40 or 50. Loads of other gear, some that never get used: 300/4L, 100L, 100-400L, battery grip, 50 macro, 200/2.8L to name a few !


----------



## No Mayo (Jan 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.



+1


----------



## LightandMotion (Jan 6, 2015)

To the OP, I deliberately went through the same exercise prior to a trip last year given the airline I was traveling on was enforcing a strict 7kg cabin luggage limit. When I analysed my landscapes in the last few years, it was 50/50 with the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 and the 24mm TSE f3.5L II. I went with the 24mm TSE and a Zoerk Rear shift adaptor so I could shift pano easily to go wider if needed. I still love the perspective you get with UW like the Zeiss 15mm, but the 24mm TSE is so versatile. I managed to get under the 7kg limit with 1dx / 24mm TSE / various acessories & filters /RRS TVC-24 and BH-40 head.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Version 2 of the 200 2.8?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 6, 2015)

Outside of when I'm traveling I do little landscape photography, but when I travel I use the 17-40L for this. It's relatively affordable, compact, lightweight, weather sealed and with a modified EW-83H hood (trimmed side petals) I am able to use the same hood on both this and the 24-105L. For handling on a gripless 5D III, this lens is my favorite with that modified hood and it's great for adverse (dusty) conditions because the lens does not extend.

I suppose the new 16-35 f/4L has higher resolution but I use my 17-40L mostly at f/8 anyway. I would loose a lot of convenience if I were to trade in my 17-40 for this.


----------



## thedman (Jan 6, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I would consider the new 16-35 f/4 (don't have it). My most used landscape and general-use lens on FF is the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4, a phenomenally good lens.



That's it for me. Took the 16-35 f/4 to Banff last summer. Had the Zeiss 21mm with me too, but the 16-35 was so sharp I never used the Zeiss once.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 6, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Version 2 of the 200 2.8?



Yes, but I believe the only difference is the lens hood.


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 6, 2015)

Ive been using the 24-70II, but since I got the 16-35 f/4 IS. Its been my go to lens.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 6, 2015)

I don't think it's easy or even possible to answer your question - it suggests that all landscapes are the same sort of thing and/or that one wants to achieve the same sort of effect in all of them. It makes a difference whether you're at the bottom of a narrow canyon, on a lake surrounded by mountains, in an urban park, in gently undulating terrain, on a flat prairie, etc., and what you want to do with what you see. Wide angle primes/zooms seem to be the default answer, but for my taste anyway I tend to think they're overused (partly for the reasons given by Sporgon).


----------



## benperrin (Jan 6, 2015)

16-34 f4 IS for me. Since I seem to use that lens 95% of the time when taking landscapes anyway it seems like an obvious choice. YMMV.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 6, 2015)

16-35mm F4L IS. Coming from the 17-40L, that lens made me love UW again.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 7, 2015)

EF-M 11-22 IS on my EOS M and EOS-M IR conversion
actually its all i've been using lately... 

heres a couple from NYE on the bund in shanghai


----------



## Act444 (Jan 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Version 2 of the 200 2.8?
> ...



is that so...wow. 

That lens could be next on my list, it depends...so I appreciate the info.

Anyway, I'd have to join the chorus and say the 16-35 f/4 IS, although a close 2nd would be the 24-70 f/4. (Have the 24-105 as well, but it distorts too much at 24 to be the best choice.) Don't always need the ultra-wide perspective, although it's cool to play with the optical effects of a UWA sometimes (like making buildings look taller than they really are, etc.).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



Yep, from an image point of view they are identical, the optical formula is the same, the aperture is the same and the focus is the same, as is the closest focus distance. The body is slightly different but that is really because the MkI has the built in metal hood and the MkII had a separate, and longer, plastic hood. Oh, the MkII can take the tripod ring of the 80-200 f2.8, the ancient black zoom lens that preceded the white 70-200's, whereas the MkI couldn't.


----------



## noisejammer (Jan 7, 2015)

A choice of two, take images and stitch like crazy...

1. Hartblei 80/2.8 super rotator
2. Zeiss ZE or ZF.2 50/2 Makro

Both are superbly sharp and easily out-resolve my 5D2. The Hartblei also offers tilt-shift capability.


----------



## helpful (Jan 7, 2015)

This is right. 24mm as a normal lens would be my pick if restricted to ordinary lenses, but even better the TS-E 24mm. Like they say below, nothing comes close.



surapon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 24mm TS-E, on FF. Nothing comes close to camera movements for dof and prespective control and they are key landscape elements. The 24 can be shift stitched to make a super high quality double sized sensor with a 16mm fov, it can take regular filters and the 1.4 and 2 x TC's making it incredibly versatile.
> ...


----------



## martti (Jan 7, 2015)

The TS-E 24mm picture quality is unique. It is a beautiful piece of machinery, a pleasure to use.
But having it as your only lens seems an absurd thought. The 'one and only' could only be the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2015)

martti said:


> The TS-E 24mm picture quality is unique. It is a beautiful piece of machinery, a pleasure to use.
> But having it as your only lens seems an absurd thought. The 'one and only' could only be the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.



It seems to me that the absurd thought here is restricting oneself to just one lens. My current 'landscape/cityscape' travel kit comprises the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, the 24-70/2.8 II, and the 70-300L (along with the body and various filters, all of that fitting in a Lowepro Flipside 300 which for air travel I place in a Storm im2500 carryon hard case, just in case I'm forced to check it). Oh, and obviously a tripod, which straps to the outside of the pack when I'm walking/hiking.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jan 7, 2015)

I believe it was DeWitt Jones who called landscape photography "visual extraction" or something like that. Choose a quality telephoto zoom and you'll be happy.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 7, 2015)

20 or 21mm is my favorite focal length for landscape. I wish for 20mm f4 IS in pancake style - small & light weight. I'm willing to pay up $1k if IQ is similar to current 16-35 f4 IS or better.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 7, 2015)

JumboShrimp said:


> I believe it was DeWitt Jones who called landscape photography "visual extraction" or something like that. Choose a quality telephoto zoom and you'll be happy.



Good finding: I just wanted to propose
(1) f/4 / 70-200 if flexibility is needed OR
(2) f/2.8 100 Macro if macro is a concern
because I like to extract nice setting in landscapes.

But this might differ from landscape to landscape. Germany is one of the more dense crowded regions and therefor it is full of artifacts. So ultra wide will add to many artifacts and disturb the image ... or I am not good enough to integrate lots of artifacts in a landscape photo


----------



## Alefoto (Jan 7, 2015)

If the choice would be only one lens, I would use the Zeiss 85mm planar (would like the Otus version but cannot affor it...). I like this focal lenght especially for mountain stuff and this lens is nice, well built, light to carry, easy to focus and use. However since you are limiting the choice to one lens, I would add a panoramic head and then stich.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 12, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > The TS-E 24mm picture quality is unique. It is a beautiful piece of machinery, a pleasure to use.
> ...



I don't see absurd. I see whimsey, I see abstract almost, a willingness to hear how fellow travellers think.

I like questions like that. Gives one an insight you don't always get from a gear salesman.


----------

