# Landscape Lens advice



## joaopedroglm (Mar 29, 2013)

Hi Guys

I m a hobbyist and my current gear is: Canon 5d2, canon 7D, 17-40 F4, Sigma 35 1.4 and 70-200 IS 2.8 II. 

I m pleased with the results of the 17-40 for Landscapes, but it`s not stelar. I`m considering the Zeiss 21 2.8, any thoughts?

Thanks
João


----------



## willis (Mar 29, 2013)

Landscape lens, any wide angle like 14mm prime, 16-35mm, 17-40mm.


----------



## RGF (Mar 29, 2013)

Why are you not pleased with the 17-40 results?


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 29, 2013)

- nothing wrong with the zeiss 21mm; really a great lens, but...

what's your prefered focal? look at your past pictures and get an idea of most used with the 17-40
It might be that 17 is the most used - then you might find yourself unhappy with just 21...you get the point

zoom or prime?
budget?
MF or AF?
to use on the FF body?
can you rent/borrow it?


----------



## Schruminator (Mar 29, 2013)

For landscapes it's unlikely you'll need a wide aperture (unless you're shooting at night), so a f/1.4 or 2.8 isn't a must. 14L is the widest rectilinear lens Canon makes-- but sometimes I find it a bit too wide, making the composition difficult. the 16-35 is a favorite of many as well if you're wanting to stick with an L lens.

However, is there anything in particular you don't like about your 17-40? I don't know that the 16-35 or even the 14 will be a whole lot wider if that's what you're looking for.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

14L just doesn't look or work right for landscape photography. Plus it's too expensive and does too little.

If you REALLY want to go full-blast landscape, and are willing to put down the bucks, the 17-TS lens is probably the best, next to the 24-TS. Then I'd go Zeiss 21mm.

If you don't want to lay down all that dough, then it'll be tough because even the 16-35L II is expensive, and in landscape wouldn't offer much over your 17-40 at f/8. 

My opinion of course.


----------



## Policar (Mar 29, 2013)

Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Policar said:


> Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.
> 
> I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.



I'm weird but I actuall like 100 or 135 .


----------



## Niterider (Mar 29, 2013)

I would go with the 24mm TS-E ii F/3.5 over the zeiss. You would be able to take so many pictures you wouldnt have been able to take before.


----------



## hsbn (Mar 29, 2013)

If you choose Zeiss lens, you don't mind manual focus then I would get a Nikon 14-24 F2.8 with adapter.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

hsbn said:


> If you choose Zeiss lens, you don't mind manual focus then I would get a Nikon 14-24 F2.8 with adapter.



I think you'll lose a lot of sharpness/detail, which might be important for his type of landscape photography.


----------



## joaopedroglm (Mar 29, 2013)

I normally shoot between the 17 and 24 range of focal. I don't mind MF because i normally do it on the 17-40. The main down with the TS lens are the filters, that i use a lot. 

The 17-40 is good has i said, but the corners are not so fantastic. I thought the Zeiss because mainly because sharpness and IQ


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 29, 2013)

Joaop...If you aren't shooting buildings or other things with straight lines, then the Zeiss 21mm is supposed to be fantastic. I have not tried it, but have tried other Zeiss lenses, such as the 35 and 100 f/2. Be prepared to compensate with a tad of negative exposure comensation, unless you like blown out highlights (you could try HTP, but that's not always the best thing to use). Zeiss glass has a very wide dynamic range. And you probably already know, but the 21mm has "mustache" distortion that is hard or almost impossible to correct. I assume you aren't interested in going wider than 16 or 17mm?

I personally doubt you will prefer the Zeiss 21mm Distagon, over your 17-40L, given the price difference, and the fixed focal length. Sure it will be better, but the results you will get, won't be indicative of the price difference, in my opinion. If the price difference was a bit less, then I would probably say go for it. 

If you plan on even doing part of your landscape work in a city, then I would say either the 17 or 24mm tilt-shift lenses would be essential. Also, if you plan on shooting mountains, from a location well below them, in a valley or something...a tilt-shift would come in handy there as well. The same goes for if you are in a high location looking down on something.

You might also consider trying the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, since the cost is so low. I bought the 85mm 1.4, and it is extremely sharp. Its color and contrast are not "L" quality, but the sharpness is. My copy at least, also has essentially no CA. Of course there is no AF or aperture control via the camera body. I have no idea how the 14mm would compare; I doubt it is as good, and costs more than the 85, but it's a bit less than any other wide angle lens...and certainly a lot less than any f/2.8 wide angle.

Or, if you are open to other longer focal lengths, I can attest that the Zeiss 35mm f/2, is fantastic. I don't know how it compares to the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (for the money and the ability to AF, I would certainly buy the Sigma without hesitation...just based on what I have read and seen...and based on my experience with Sigma). But the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is supposed to be a tad sharper than the Zeiss f/2. I frankly don't know how you could tell on a (current) Canon full frame body, although you could certainly tell a difference, if there is much of one, on a D800.

I personally plan on getting the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, because it is optically superior in some aspects, to the 16-35 Canon, yet costs around half the price. I also need f/2.8 for night photography. If I didn't need f/2.8, I would have just been happy with the 17-40L like you have. It is one of the best lens values offered by Canon, or anyone.


----------



## Policar (Mar 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.
> ...



I do, too, but it's hard to get enough depth of field. Do you ever do focus stacking? I've been thinking about it. Lenses are so close to orthographic when zoomed in that a tilt/shift seems unnecessary if you do focus stacking.

I don't get why landscapes are so often associated with UWA lenses. I prefer much longer lenses for landscapes.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Policar said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



I agree with you. And no, I don't focus stack yet. Landscape photography is something I haven't really learned to do well yet, but something I'm going to try to learn this spring and summer.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2013)

The TS-E 24 is unquestionably my favorite -- nay, for me, the _ultimate_ -- landscape lens. It's the perspective I'm generally looking for, and it is truly unbelievable at how well it lets you incorporate elements both inches and miles away from the lens. Just last week I was at the Superstition Mountains on the east side of the Valley of the Sun. I haven't done the post-processing yet so I won't post the image, but a quarter of the frame was a basketball-sized clump of wildflowers about a foot away from the camera (which was almost on the ground itself), and the skyline was the jagged cliffs of the Superstitions themselves, dominating the sky but still distant. And everything in focus from here to there.

I find 24 wide enough to be expansive, but not so wide that it feels unnatural or that I have trouble framing the subject. For example, with the shot last week, the Superstitions would not have been so imposing, and there would have been too much uninteresting flat ground at the sides of the frame. I would have had to have gotten half again as close to the mountains...and then the perspective would have started to have gotten weird...and there didn't happen to be any wildflowers there, anyway.

And, when I _am_ looking for that type of wraparound all-encompassing view...well, for me, that's what my sniny new toy is for: the 8-15. Such as what I posted here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13771.msg249243#msg249243

from the same outing.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Mr Bean (Mar 29, 2013)

I must admit, the TS-E 24 is a cracking good lens. Its very sharp and the TS bit helps in tricky situations. I'll add that to the collection one day. But, after hiring and using the Zeiss 21mm for 2 weeks, I have fallen in luv with the Zeiss UWA lenses. So much so, I've plonked the money down for a 15mm Zeiss. And this from a guy who is a one eyed Canon person 

Note: I have particular needs for a lens like this, for use in astrophotography, where sharpness across for the FF is critical.

Perhaps you could hire the Zeiss, to get a feel for it?


----------



## charlesa (Mar 29, 2013)

The TS-E 24 mm version II. I caress that lens on every landscape and architecture shoot. Love it to bits.


----------



## willis (Mar 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> 14L just doesn't look or work right for landscape photography. Plus it's too expensive and does too little.


You are right but sometimes you need that extra wide lens but rarely, usually 16-40 is enough for landscapes.


----------



## Zv (Mar 29, 2013)

The 17-40L is fine if you stop down to f/8 or f/11, corners look fine around 24 - 40mm. But as you said you mainly use it between 17 and 24mm maybe a 17mm TS-E would be better. Personally I think with digital photography nowadays it's rather easy to correct the lens distortion, vignetting and perspective and apply sharpening (selectively). But then I've never used a TS lens before so I could be missing out. 

Landscape is a broad term. It really depends on the scene and which parts you are trying to capture. There's no right focal length. Sometimes the compression from a tele lens actually works better. Just my opinion.


----------



## chauncey (Mar 30, 2013)

The all-time best, IMHO, is the 180mm macro...but ya gotta be adept at photoshop and it's photomerge tools.
The quality is unbelievable.


----------



## joaopedroglm (Mar 30, 2013)

Thanks Guys, for your opinions.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 1, 2013)

I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well. I would also like to try a T/S lens. I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners. That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...


----------



## J.R. (Apr 2, 2013)

You may want to have a look at the 17mm TSE. 

I sold the 17-40 with the thought of upgrading to the 16-35 but going through my shots the other day and realised that almost 65% of my shots with this lens were taken at 17mm while shots over 24mm were almost 20%. So now I have dropped the idea of getting the 16-35 and will get the 17 TSE instead.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 2, 2013)

Replying to the OP's initial question - I have no experience with the Ziess 21mm, so I can't comment there.

I really like compression in many landscapes (and have a particular interest in landscape photos in the portrait-orientation, where that compression can also work beautifully in many compositions). Eg when I lived in Europe and visited Switzerland, taking photos of the Alps with details closer to the foreground ... magic!

Actually, I don't own a FF (my Canon DSLRs are 7D and 350D). My favourite landscape lens is probably the trusty Canon 15-85mm. It's got great IQ, and the USM AF and IS are very handy too. But perhaps more important than AF and IS is the focal range... from 24 to 136mm in 35mm format equivalent.

I find that 15mm on an APS (24mm in FF) - works VERY well for me for most landscapes. (I definitely *really * like those few extra mm compared to the 18-XXmm or 17-XXmm lenses). And 85mm on the tele-end is important for me (I find 50/55mm too short for a tele-end walkaround).

Though I do have an UWA (Sigma 10-20mm) - and it does come into its own in certain situations (and yes, there is a huge difference between 10mm and 15mm) - often I take my favourite landscapes around 15mm. I really like the flexibility of a zoom when out bushwalking, sight-seeing, etc (I currently live in Australia, but have lived and travelled extensively around the world).

I'm not planning to upgrade from APS-C (looking forward to what a new 7DmkII may have in store for us). Hope the OP will find the right lens for his/her needs.

Paul


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 2, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Replying to the OP's initial question - I have no experience with the Ziess 21mm, so I can't comment there.
> 
> I really like compression in many landscapes (and have a particular interest in landscape photos in the portrait-orientation, where that compression can also work beautifully in many compositions). Eg when I lived in Europe and visited Switzerland, taking photos of the Alps with details closer to the foreground ... magic!
> 
> ...



going somewhat off topic I'd be interested in a EF-M version of the 15-85  ..... for the lil old M i wonder if they could get smaller? since the 18-55 EF-M isn't much smaller than the EF-S 18-55 although it is optically better


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 2, 2013)

Niterider said:


> I would go with the 24mm TS-E ii F/3.5 over the zeiss. You would be able to take so many pictures you wouldnt have been able to take before.



+1 on this recommendation. I'm shooting Nikon with the 14-24 right now, but my real favorite is the Canon 24 TSE II. This and the 17mm TSE are my sharpest Canon lenses from frame far left to frame far right. And with their dual axis for tilt and shift this was a great combination on my 5D2. The 24 is the best overall because you can use a filter and/or polarizer on it as well as a minimum of distortion as long as your gear is perfectly level (except for the tilt). Perhaps renting a tilt shift lens first to get the hang of it would be a good idea but it is much better than the 16-35 (at least the copy I have). Try it out and see if you don't agree. (yes it is manual focus - I use live view with mag for my focusing. This allows me to move the focus box to my precise area that I want to focus on and then move it to where I get my meter readings. What a great tool.


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 3, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well. I would also like to try a T/S lens. I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners. That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...


You mean you like the telephoto FOV? 
To change compression in a landscape photo, you would have to walk several yards or miles, as only distance changes perspective


----------



## J.R. (Apr 3, 2013)

chauncey said:


> The all-time best, IMHO, is the 180mm macro...but ya gotta be adept at photoshop and it's photomerge tools.
> The quality is unbelievable.



Interesting ... would you mind posting some images?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 3, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> If you REALLY want to go full-blast landscape, and are willing to put down the bucks, the 17-TS lens is probably the best, next to the 24-TS. Then I'd go Zeiss 21mm.
> 
> My opinion of course.


I am interested as I have had the same thoughts as the OP and my widest is currently the 24-105. How would I benefit from the 17-TS?

thanks
J


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 3, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well. I would also like to try a T/S lens. I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners. That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...
> ...



Um, subject matter within the telephoto field of view, gets compressed...yes from a distance far greater than framing with a wider angle lens. Duh...that's self evident, is it not?


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 3, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well. I would also like to try a T/S lens. I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners. That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...



f8-11 may be necessary for decent corners when zoomed out wide for the 17-40 on full frame, but used on crop it behaves better- the corners are decent by f5.6, even wide open isn't really a problem, though used for landscape, corner sharpness/detail for distant subjects is never completely stellar. Probably not helped by the pixel dense 7D sensor!


----------



## Zv (Apr 3, 2013)

Only we photographers scrutinize corner sharpness. Most viewers just look at the image as a whole. The 17-40L is a fine lens if you have a tripod and shoot at f/8 and narrower (which is ideal for landscapes anyway). 

Also, I use the corner softness and vignetting wide open to my advantage for close up of objects to create some subject isolation.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 4, 2013)

This is good to know, regarding the 17-40. Thank you all. 

A friend announced to me yesterday, that he just bought the 16-28 Tokina, for his 7D. I hope to try it on my new 6D. Hopefully I will make the right choice. I have a feeling the right choice is to buy several lenses including a T/S, but I would rather not spend the money.

I wonder...does anyone ever try to correct rectilinear distortion? I guess I should google it. That distortion, is why people don't like shooting really wide angle. It's either that, or barrel distortion of a fish-eye...in some cases neither is preferable...which is where panoramas come in. But who has time to do stitched panoramas while visiting a national park or something? I would just wind up rushing it, and miss out on going to enough locations to take pictures. I'm always rushed...time is never on my side. Sort of like posting on here. I sign in to look around for 15 minutes, and an hour later I'm done.


----------

