# Which lens to start with?



## Jack56 (Nov 17, 2013)

In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
Also because of the sharpness of the 100mm.
In december I will travel to Scotland and hope to make some nice landscapes images and know I need a lens for that.
I've got doubts over the 24-105 (cheap) and the 17-40. That's why I thought about the 16-35/24-70. But because of the new releases in 2014 I am more confused. What would you do? Primes? The 24-105 and wait till first Q of 2014? Thank you for reading my question.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2013)

If you can afford the 24-70/2.8L II and have (or will get) a good tripod for landscapes, that's a great choice. Else, you really can't beat the 24-105L for value as a kit lens, and it's very good optically. If you can find the 24-70/4L IS for down near $1K (it'll be a 5DIII kit lens this month), that's worth considering.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 17, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
> I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
> I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
> I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
> ...



Given the heavy amount of rumors and multiple patents regarding a 24-70 IS, it may surface in 2014 with a price reduction to the 24-70 II.

My advice on the wide side, to go along with your 100L for now:
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html

It is currently the highest rated Canon lens on DXOMARK (definitely not the definitive source, but it means something) and can be had from anywhere between $499-549. On top of this it has image stabilization and is quite light&portable, thus can serve as a travel lens or backup to a 24-70 II if an IS version does not come next year. It also has a faster aperture than the 24-70 so a bonus there, too.

Some say that IS is not needed on 24-70, but I have done tests with my 70-200 w/ IS on and off, you lose a lot at 70mm with no IS in darker environments. Yeah, you can up the shutter speed or bump ISO but then you lose critical light or gain noise which is not ideal either.

So, I'd say go with the new 35mm IS prime, use it with your 100L, and wait to see what 2014 brings. The 24-70 II is certainly no deal at its current $2200 price IMO. If you are burning to spend money, go for the double dip on the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($1899 after MIR), can't complain about that amazing lens!

[email protected]&H super deal if you want to drop some cash, about $300 less than usual:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 17, 2013)

All good advice above. 

A comment on the 24-105. I find this an excellent landscape lens if I am stitching. Shoot in portrait and three across for 1.5x1. In this way you are a: not using the edges of the frame, and b: the enlargement is much smaller. Used in this way I find the 24-105 as good as _anything. _

However using this lens for single frame landscape I find it disappointing because of the soft(er) corners. 

The new 24-70 f4 IS is better across the frame, not as stellar as the 24-70 II but you get IS. 

The new IS primes ( 24, 28, and 35) are all very good. 

Also don't forget the 40 pancake, a really good landscape lens. I'd avoid ultra wides unless you already have the moderates.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Given the heavy amount of rumors and multiple patents regarding a 24-70 IS, it may surface in 2014...



The 24-70/2.8 IS rumor mill has been almost as active as that for the 100-400L II. We've all seen how predictive that's been... :


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 17, 2013)

Firstly, please note that the 100-L macro is phenomenally sharp so don't get your hopes up for getting wide angle lenses that are as sharp, you will just be disappointed.

The 16-35 is not the greatest ultrawide zoom and for landscape applications, I think the 17-40 is probably better if you can get your hands on a good copy. 16-35 is an event lens so it is more optimized for wide apertures whereas 17-40 is good when you close down the aperture, which is what you'd need for huge depth of field in landscape shots. The 17-40 also is lighter and slightly smaller so that's always useful when travelling. Rumors are that the 16-35 might also be replaced soon.

70-200mm IS can be used for extractive landscape shots (where you want to exclude certain elements from your composition) as well as giving realistic scale of background elements. If you can get a good price then definitely a good lens to buy.

The 40mm pancake is a fantastic lens, and one of my favourites. It is small, cheap, light and has good optics. It feels like a standard focal length on both crop and FF so I always recommend it as a lens to get early on when you start building your kit. You can always consider getting a fast 35mm in the future like (f/1.4 or f/2) but if I were I would hold off on that for the moment as 35mm f/1.4 is probably due for an upgrade soon. Not that you'd ever sell the pancake... nothing is as compact so there is always space in your bag for it.


----------



## Jack56 (Nov 17, 2013)

Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 17, 2013)

Never make a purchase decision based on the 2000 patents Canon files each year, or on CR1 rumors. You could be waiting for 10 years like some of those who sold their 100-400L or 400 5.6L.

The 24-105mmL is a good lens, but you do have to correct it a lot at 24mm. The 24-70 MK II is supurb, and has popped up for $1695 on B&H recently.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2013)

The TS-E 24L II is one of the best landscape lenses available...if 24mm works for you. The 24-70/2.8L II is among the best walkaround lenses on FF - if you really are a pixel peeper, that's the general purpose lens you want. Considering the 70-200, think about which you'd use more...for me, that's the 24-70 range. 

Pixel peepers should avoid the 17-40L...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 24-70 MK II is supurb, and has popped up for $1695 on B&H recently.



Wow that's a steal! In South Africa, with the current exchange rate, the 24-70mm II was about $2,600. It is now "on special" for about $2,200. In the 3rd-world get so F***ed over by global economics :'(


----------



## Ruined (Nov 18, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
> Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
> So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
> So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses



Just another note, I see you are going for a lot of the L lenses. While the L lenses are best if you need the f/1.4, you should really check out the new *35mm f/2.0 IS USM* and even the *24mm f/2.8 IS USM*. While not everything, DXOMARK rated both superior to the more expensive L lenses at the same aperature. This is due to both a newer design and image stabilization that the L lenses lack.

The 17-40/16-35 are both due for an update IMO as they are poor in sharpness compared to other lenses in this range, and I'd only get the TSE if you actually plan to use the TSE functionality due to the cost.

The 24-70 II is incredibly sharp but I'd be *shocked* if it were not updated with IS very soon, there is WAY too much demand (and it is not a niche lens) for Canon not to update it much like they did the 70-200 - not to mention Tamron already has out a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS and Sigma will have out an f/2 next year; Canon will be significantly behind if they do not release an IS model in 2014 IMO... just a matter of time I think. We also know for a fact there are 3 different patented Canon 24-70 IS designs plus rumors that it is being tested in the wild, I think they are just looking for the right blend of IQ & weight.

So again, before you jump straight to the Ls, take a look at the *35mm f/2 IS USM* and *24mm f/2.8 IS USM*. They perform extremely well (according to DXOMARK better than the Ls @ same aperature) and you can get both of them for almost half the price of an L lens. That will net you both a nice landscape lens plus a wide-normal prime. They happen to be on sale @ AMAZON and CANON DIRECT right now for 499/ea (usually are around 549-599). Next year, the 50mm f/1.8 IS will be released which could be a nice addition to the series. Once the 24-70 IS eventually comes out and you pick that up, the primes will be a lightweight alternative and/or backup if you do event photography. Sometimes you just want to use a light, low cost yet still excellent quality setup and these specific primes can do that for you.

If you really want to buy another L lens, get the *70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM* - it is virtually perfect. The *70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM* is also fantastic, but whether you'd have the speed of the 70-200 f/2.8 or reach+portability of the 70-300 f/4-5.6L is up to you.


----------



## Ripley (Nov 18, 2013)

I rarely recommend the 24-105mm and I think it will eventually disappoint you. The 40mm can't be beat for the price. I would be willing to try the 24-70mm f/4 in a kit, if the price were right.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you can afford the 24-70/2.8L II and have (or will get) a good tripod for landscapes, that's a great choice. Else, you really can't beat the 24-105L for value as a kit lens, and it's very good optically. If you can find the 24-70/4L IS for down near $1K (it'll be a 5DIII kit lens this month), that's worth considering.


+1 (or however many) on the 24-70/2.8L II - you won't be disappointed - this lens is spectacular and will bring out the best in your FF body. That and the 70-200 2.8 IS II are the two I would start with unless you have a specific need such as a larger aperture, tilt-shift, super tele, or ultra wide...


----------



## TexasBadger (Nov 18, 2013)

Get a tripod and practice taking multiple shots with the camera in portrait orientation using your existing 100mm lens. I would also recommend a circular polarizer. Overlap the stiched images by 25-30%. If you have the time to set-up and use good technique, you should get outstanding landscapes. Make sure you shoot manually and have a level tripod. If you already have a tripod and a polarizer, you have spent nothing.

If you really want another lens, I would consider the original 24-70 f2.8 L. It can be purchased for ~$1000.00. Stop it down to around 5.6 and it will be plenty sharp. However, it will not be as sharp as a vertically stitched 100mm. Just quicker and easier to get the shot.


----------



## alexturton (Nov 18, 2013)

Get the 24 1.4 ii. Wonderful lens for every occasion.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 19, 2013)

I would agree- 24-70 2.8 II with good tripod. The lens is great, just upgraded so you don't need to worry about it being obsolete.

Congratulations.

sek


----------



## mine1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Sigma just put out a 24-105mm F4, that you might want to look into. If they addressed some of the issues people have had with the canon one, and 1 stop better IS, I think it will be a hell of a lens. Isn't supposed to be out until the 9th though.


----------



## mine1 (Nov 19, 2013)

well I guess that if you don't use your 15-85 anymore you probably won't use the 24-105mm (just about the same range just shorter), but for travel I always recommend 1 lens if you can swing it (giving you time to enjoy your trip), or even 2 if the second one is something you don't think you will use much.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Hi,
I wouldn't invest in the Canon 24-105mm f4L but rather go for the any of the latest 24-70mm L versions (f2.8 II or f4IS) as when travelling a zoom is very convenient. 
However, people has suggested some lighter and less expensive alternatives that are sharp as a tack, the 40mm f2.8 package that retails for $149 now and the 35mm f2 IS (around $550). I personally own both and these two prime lenses will never dissapoint you.
Sometimes travelling light is better than carrying a heavy 'top L' lens.


----------



## Renaissance (Nov 19, 2013)

I've got the 100L just like you , and it is my favorite! 
What I decided to do is get a lens that would give me great versatility while I wait on the 24-70 L II.
Since using my friend's 24-70 L Mark 1, I found I shoot primarily between 30-50mm. 
So guess what became the perfect lens to accommodate that on full frame.. the 40mm Pancake!
So many great things to say about it; sharp, lightweight, and inexpensive.
Only drawback is an average AF speed.

So instead of waiting on what lens will come out, price drops, researching, etc. I can happily shoot
with my 40 Pancake + 100L and get all the shots I need.


----------



## mjardeen (Nov 19, 2013)

The f4 set for me is almost perfect. I do not shoot weddings or have a high need for a wider aperture. If I do then I have a couple Primes that do just fine for that. The only possible exception is a Tamron lens.

Basic lens
24-70 F4 IS L -- advantage is that it's a new lens then the classic, disadvantage is you lose some reach which limits it from being the perfect walk around lens.
24-105 F4 IS L -- this is my lens and the one I use the most
24-70 f2.8 VC -- Tamron delivers with a well priced lens that is tack sharp and gives you the extra aperture. I would take this over the 24-70 f4

Long lens
70-200 F4 IS L -- one of the sharpest lenses that Canon makes, it's compact, light and a breeze to use.

Wide lens
17-40 F4 L -- I love this lens and with Photoshops lens correction it gets rid of most of its only flaw, some distortion. I use this one all the time on my 5D and ever more as a standard lens on my IR converted body.

I own a bunch of primes of different types including the 50mm F1.8 mk I that I have had since 1989. 
I also own a bunch of primes many with adapter mounts to use on Canon bodies.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 19, 2013)

What, not a single recommendation for the Zeiss Otus? He'll need all the light he can get visiting Scotland in December, and f/1.4 is the minimum as well as making sure he doesn't get soft corners in landscapes.

The Otus not a lens to start with? Well, if you want to start with something cheaper and versatile, there is no better starter than the 24-105 L IS.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 19, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> ... I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
> Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
> 
> So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200. So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses



A) Zoom
Assuming, you may want "the best" available WW-to-normal Zoom in addition to the 100L Macro and 70-200 tele, then the choice is easy -> 24-70 L II. Neither the 17-40 nor the 24-105 will cut it for pixel peepers. 

or

B) Prime
Otherwise a light(er) "landscape lens". Focal length depends on your personal preferences. I'd most likely take the EF 24/2.8 IS, since I would shoot stopped down to f/8 most of the time anyway, with very little, if any visible difference to the 24 L II. But still the real advantage of having IS for longer slower shutter speeds. And a much better pricetag. 

I don't know, what lenses Canon will bring next, but I would expect a 35/1.4 L II to come in 2014. But not a 24-70/2.8 L IS.


----------



## zim (Nov 19, 2013)

Whatever you get make sure it's waterproof

......... oh yes and a pair of real warm gloves and a woolly hat, it's bleedin baltic here ;D


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2013)

Renaissance said:


> So instead of waiting on what lens will come out, price drops, researching, etc. I can happily shoot
> with my 40 Pancake + 100L and get all the shots I need.



+1! I can second this sentiment, although I have the non-L macro. I have often travelled light with 40mm+100mm. Another advantage of the 40mm pancake is that it is so short, you can easily put on extension tubes to get much more magnification than 1:1 macro, although this is only practical for static subjects that won't get spooked because the working distance becomes quite close. If you need more working distance then the 100mm is a better choice. Either way the 40&100 combo is very versatile to walk around with.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 19, 2013)

If the main objective is landscape with wide angle I'd have a look at the the Distagons. Something like the 21mm would be very high on my list.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 19, 2013)

I like the 17-40L. It's IQ is good and it's cheaper.


----------



## nvsravank (Nov 19, 2013)

Why does no body recommend the original 24-70 lens?
While it is not as sharp as the MarkII it is sharper than the 24-105 lens i thought.
You can get some good copies on ebay.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 19, 2013)

With regard to the "traveling to Scotland" aspect of your question, depending on where you're coming from and how you're getting there you may not want to be lugging around lots of heavy/bulky equipment, so as others have suggested I would recommend one or two of the more recent wide-ish primes to complement your 100L or, if that's not long enough an excellent zoom that's not too heavy/bulky. E.g.:

24mm IS + 35mm IS + 70-300L or 70-200L/IS/f4 or

28mm IS + 40mm pancake + either of the above zooms

24mm IS + 50mm 1.4 + 100L (you may want to add a 50 1.4 anyway if you venture into gloomy churches etc.)

or, depending on how wide you think you need to go, you could perhaps make do with just two: 28mm IS or 40mm + 100L or one of the zooms

If you want to spend a lot more and don't mind the extra weight and foregoing IS, the 24-70II + either longer zoom

If you don't want primes and do want IS and don't mind the extra weight, Tamron 24-70 + either longer zoom

If weight and price aren't issues, 24-70LII + 70-200 2.8 IS II + tripod.

(If it were me, I would probably take the second option, but it's not....)


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 19, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
> Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
> So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
> So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses



The OP's priority is landscapes/nature and doesn't think the 24-70II will be a good match for him. If he is serious about landscapes, then I'll assume that he'll be using a tripod most of the time. If so, then a TS-E 24 with a 1.4x might fit the bill. Add a 40mm or a 50 f/1.4 and/or a Rokinon 14mm, and he'll have most of the lower focal lengths covered.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 19, 2013)

What about the 40??? 

I agree with those recomending a tripod.... you tend to (or at least I do) take more time setting up your shot when on a tripod... and long exposure times change from being a problem to an opportunity...


----------



## Jack56 (Nov 19, 2013)

Wow. Very kind of you all to reply on my question. Not a fast answer, but with explanation why to buy a certain lens. really, I do appreciate this very much.
It gives me food for thought, that's for sure.
- Yes, I will bring some gloves and a woollen hat with me. Been several times in Scotland (Outer Hebrides) but not in winter. Do know that the days are short, but I can't wait to visit this beautiful part of the UK again.
- Yes, I've already got a tripod and I use it a lot. Also with the 100mm lens, it works fine for me.
- But now the lens to start with. The 70-200mm IS I love to buy and I think I will. It's not a lens that could be re-newed in 2014. A competitor is the 300mm. I've read on the net, that using a extender the 70-200mm will be slower and the IQ could suffer a bit.
What I told you, I am a pixel-peeper. And I like to invest in a good lens, but I don't want to not have the idea that next year a re-newed lens will come on the market (I realize that I can't predict the future). I've got a trauma since I bought an Imac years ago and a few months later Apple introduced the Intel-processor 
A tilt-lens is not (at the moment) for me. 
The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?
The 35mmL I love to buy, but for landscape?
Mmm, not easy. I will spend another night sleeping on it and again spend some time on the net. 
Hopefully there will be a magic moment and the right decision will be made.
Thank you all once again!!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 19, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?



Oh yes. Don't let the price fool you. And don't forget your midge repellant !


----------



## Hannes (Nov 19, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?
> ...



He's not going to need much insect repellant at this time of year  The winter climbing season just started in Scotland


----------



## Ruined (Nov 19, 2013)

While they are all noteworthy & popular for other reasons, the 16-35L II, 17-40L, and 24-105L are not particularly sharp across the frame.

For strictly landscape, I'd recommend the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM or the 24mm f/1.4L II USM if you think you need the 1.4 aperture. Given most landscape is shot at least f/8+ range for proper DOF, though, I am not sure it is worth the extra money for the 24mm f/1.4L II.

I'd consider the following kit to cover all bases:
*24mm f/2.8 IS USM* - LANDSCAPE $549 (VERY LIGHT+SMALL)
*35mm f/2.0 IS USM* - GENERAL PURPOSE $549 (LIGHT)
*70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM* - TELEPHOTO (VERY HEAVY+VERY LARGE) $2199

or another option for same cash:
*40mm Pancake f/2.8* - GENERAL PURPOSE (VERY LIGHT+VERY SMALL) $149
*24-70mm f/2.8L II USM* - GENERAL PURPOSE (LARGE+HEAVY) $1999
*70-200mm f/4L IS USM* - TELEPHOTO (VERY LARGE) $1149

All of these will provide sharp results. The advantage of the first set of lenses is that you get fast, high quality output from 24mm-200mm, but no zoom in the wide angle range. The advantage of the second set of lenses is that you have the flexibility of a super sharp standard zoom, though you lose f/2.8 in telephoto and IS in the wide range.

All of these lenses bolded above are quite sharp!


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 19, 2013)

Ruined said:


> While they are all noteworthy & popular for other reasons, the 16-35L II, 17-40L, and 24-105L are not particularly sharp across the frame.
> 
> For strictly landscape, I'd recommend the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM or the 24mm f/1.4L II USM if you think you need the 1.4 aperture. Given most landscape is shot at least f/8+ range for proper DOF, though, I am not sure it is worth the extra money for the 24mm f/1.4L II.
> 
> ...


Agreed, the 24 f/1.4 II is amazing at f/1.4-2.8, but beyond f/4, it's not much better than the other lenses. That's not to say it isn't a great landscape lens, but unless you need L build quality and shoot a lot of large aperture shots, your money is best spent on other gear.


----------



## Ripley (Nov 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?
> ...



+1 

All day long...


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?
> ...



its also a great lens for shooting panoramas because its light, sharp corner to corner with very little distortion


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Jack56 said:
> ...



Spot On !

Here's a panoramic shot with the 40mm. Sunrise at Flamborough Head on the Eastern coast of England. 

The only issue I have with the lens is that is doesn't have a distance scale, but 95% of the time it is not a problem.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Here's a panoramic shot with the 40mm. Sunrise at Flamborough Head on the Eastern coast of England.



Beautiful shot Sporgon!


----------



## Ruined (Nov 23, 2013)

I totally understand the draw of the 40mm pancake, but I don't think it is a good lens to start with.

The Canon 35mm IS USM is a much higher quality lens and very close to the focal length of the 40mm, thus I would recommend the 35mm IS USM instead.

I.e. http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1086/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/966/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/0


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 23, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a panoramic shot with the 40mm. Sunrise at Flamborough Head on the Eastern coast of England.
> ...



Thanks bholliman ! Worth driving up there at 3 in the morning for, despite the fact my face was as long as a week due to the overcast sky - thought it was going to be a washout. 

@Ruined; don't disagree with you. It's just the pancake is such good value, and that makes it very attractive to cheapskates like me !


----------



## Jack56 (Nov 24, 2013)

Thank you again for all your input.
I'm not lost anymore, but not convinced. I spent a lot of time on 500PX and (of course all sorts of lenses are used) the 17-40 mm is a well used lens. Ok, the pancake looks sharp, but not a lot of landscape images where made by this lens. I think I would love the 35mm, but again, when I had a look in the 35mm pool of Flickr, not a lens for landscape. 
Oops, difficult. Are there any users of the 17-40 mm here who love this lens?


----------



## Ruined (Nov 24, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> Thank you again for all your input.
> I'm not lost anymore, but not convinced. I spent a lot of time on 500PX and (of course all sorts of lenses are used) the 17-40 mm is a well used lens. Ok, the pancake looks sharp, but not a lot of landscape images where made by this lens. I think I would love the 35mm, but again, when I had a look in the 35mm pool of Flickr, not a lens for landscape.
> Oops, difficult. Are there any users of the 17-40 mm here who love this lens?



For strictly landscape these are your best bets:

1) EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - Best for starry sky (low coma @ 2.8 ), fast aperture, overall probably best lens for landscape:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm

2) EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM - When not shooting the stars, comparable landscape results for 1/3rd of the price of the 1.4:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_2_8_is_usm

3) EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - The widest & most flexible landscape lens due to zoom ability, but by far least sharp of the three:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

For landscape, those are your best bets. Pick #1 for uncompromised quality, pick #2 for excellent quality that is more affordable & more portable, and pick #3 if you want the widest angle & flexibility but with reduced sharpness. Up to you really, but these are by far your best landscape bets IMO.


----------



## Jack56 (Nov 25, 2013)

great list, thank you for the information. Will have a look on the site.
And, sorry for throwing in other options, the Zeiss Distagon 21mm?
That one looks very sharp as well.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 25, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> great list, thank you for the information. Will have a look on the site.
> And, sorry for throwing in other options, the Zeiss Distagon 21mm?
> That one looks very sharp as well.



Yeah, but it doesn't have autofocus, so I'll pass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2013)

Ruined said:


> For strictly landscape these are your best bets:
> 
> 1) EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - Best for starry sky (low coma @ 2.8 ), fast aperture, overall probably best lens for landscape
> 
> Pick #1 for uncompromised quality



While I agree that the 24/1.4L II is the best choice for a starry sky, I'd say the best lens for landscape in a 24mm focal length is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. About as sharp as you can get (better than the 24/1.4L II in that regard), and the tilt function lets you achieve deep DoF whne you have near and far subjects without stopping down to where diffraction costs you even more sharpness.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> While I agree that the 24/1.4L II is the best choice for a starry sky, I'd say the best lens for landscape in a 24mm focal length is the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. About as sharp as you can get (better than the 24/1.4L II in that regard), and the tilt function lets you achieve deep DoF whne you have near and far subjects without stopping down to where diffraction costs you even more sharpness.



TS-E lenes definitely have a number of benefits such as controlling dof, lines, etc... Just as a starting point, if I were to pick between the two I'd go with the 24mm f/1.4. The faster aperture in addition to shooting the night sky opens up other general usage creative possibilities. One really needs to know how to use a TS-E lens and commit to that style of shooting in order for it to be worth the cost, hence why I veered away from this as a lens to start with.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Dec 6, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
> I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
> I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
> I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
> ...



There's some awesome recommendations here for sure.

For landscape photographs I'd recommend the 17-40mm L. I have quite a few Canon lenses, including the 16-35 and Nikkor 12-24, Nikkor 17-35 F4 (canon adapter) and the 17-40 is my favorite with regards to quality and weight. 

Definitely pick up a 40mm 2.8 if you don't already have it, it's a good one for sure.







I also created a video for you and others here to see what I'm getting out of my copy of the 17-40. Shot this image a couple days ago, so it's after about 7 years with the 17-40. Check it out here: https://app.box.com/s/gve71fte4zrz9ppkoq0j (55MB)

Graham

grahamclarkphoto.com


----------



## scyrene (Dec 8, 2013)

Jack56 said:


> In a couple of weeks I will buy a Canon Mark5dIII.
> I'm the owner of a 60d, but I like to go FF.
> I've already got the 100mm L and I like this lens a lot.
> I shoot stills (nature) and with my 60d I hardly use the 15-85 anymore.
> ...



I haven't used to other wide Canon zooms but the 24-105 is a very capable landscape lens at the wide end. Shooting at f/10 it's fine. I know some people who criticise the distortion/softness, but I don't find that a problem, although there can be a bit of chromatic aberration that needs cleaning up (not hard though).

I've attached a couple of shots taken with this camera/lens combo in Scotland to illustrate, hope that's okay.


----------

