The Ultimate Landscape Lens

Nikkor 14-24mm. I'm using it on my 5DC with an adapter, and it sure beats everything Canon has to offer, perhaps with exception of the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses.

My 2nd favorite landscape lens is the Zeiss 21mm. But I sold that one after I bought the Nikkor.

My experience is almost flaky in nature.
I shoot a ton of landscape images, for the most part I started with the 24-70 and loved it, I still do. Then I got a 16-35, Wow! Last year I purchased the 70-200 and I have a hard time taking it off of the camera. Once in a while I will go out with primes, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8 and 135L and get totally excited with the results.
So, for me it really depends on my mood.

As of this moment if I had to pick one, it would be the 70-200.
Please don't ask this again tomorrow.

SkipD wrote in post #15591013
I was responding to the assumption in post #10 in a way that supported the points made and illustrated in posts #2 and #4. There simply is no such thing as a single "best landscape lens" because "landscape" itself differs a lot from place to place as does the vision of different photographers. Even in the Badlands I've seen many different kinds of scenes that would call for anything from ultrawide to very long lenses.


There's no reason for your nastiness. A retraction would be appreciated.

normally i'd avoid this but i think he's right skip. you blasted him and insulted every photographer that doesn't meet your clearly superior standards. maybe you should consider retracting your earlier post.

The Badlands are just the tip of the iceberg in that area for foto-ops. It is really beautiful out there. the only thing i would add to your gear list would be a70-200 or 300l.
From Hill City to Deadwood is very scenic, Custer state park has buffalo and deer,there are several beautiful lakes around. Devils Tower isn't too far.

There's no such thing as best/ultimate lens. Sadly this means I have to bring more than one lens... I usually shoot with the 17-40 + 70-200 combo

I have a real urge to add the 17 ts-e to my bag. Gonna be a good trip I hope.

I would add snake bite chaps and some high boots for the area you are going in South Dakota:
http://www.amazon.com …ular-Inseam/dp/B001GXHI3W

They get hot in the warm months, but allow you to concentrate more on your compositions, and have less concern about where you are stepping around rock formations that serve as hiding places.

Considering the vastly changing situations a landscape photographer is presented with (or looks up actually), I'd start by making a list of features you want from a lens.
Obviously you will want several focal lengths, so I'll assume your landscape kit covers at least wide/ultra-wide (between 16mm and 24mm widest) and moderate telephoto (between 135mm and 300mm or longer). I'm not picking ONE lens between wide, telephoto or anything in between for versatility, but because I think that if you're serious about this stuff, you won't leave the house with less than 3 lenses anyway.

My list would look something like this;

For a wide angle lens:
- Sharp when stopped down.
- Good contrast.
- As little CA as possible.
- Little distortion, or distortion that can easily be fixed (so avoid moustache like the samyang 14mm).
- Very flare resistant.
- Able to use filters, preferably the same size between other lenses (77mm is a nice average).
- Uneven number of aperture blades for highlights in night photography is a nice bonus.

For a telephoto the same criteria count, but some more than others. CA and flare mostly but a stable tripod mount and relatively lightweight are important as well. Aperture blades is less important but a nice bokeh can be.

For the OP; weathersealing might be a very important feature, but for me it's not so much. I rarely go out in dreadful weather, and if I do, I protect with plastic bag contraptions ^^

I really enjoy the Canon 17-40 + Sigma 50mm macro + Tamron 70-300 VC as a landscape kit. Very basic, cheap and lightweight, but it does what I want it to and never really let me down.

The 17-40 is often trashed for not being sharp but I like it when stopped down and on the modest resolution of my 5Dc it's very sharp.
The Sigma 50mm goes all the way down to 1:1 when I find nice details, and it offers a nice middle ground between a fast 50 and a full blown macro lens. It's also ridiculously contrasty (don't know how, it just is) which is really nice to squeeze out details in early morning foggy shots.
For landscape use, the Tamron 70-300VC offers 95% of a 70-200 F/4 IS or a 70-300L for 25-33% of the price, and I rarely use it below f/8 for landscape use.

I'd really like a 24mm tilt shift as well, but it's a heavy hit on my budget, so I'm waiting to see what the samyang 24mm will bring when it comes out.

I'm fairly new at all this, but from reading this thread it appears that you can use just about any lens for landscape work given the right subject matter.

But having a filter kit (GND's) to use on all of your lens maybe the best thing to have.

I would bring a lot of gear. (I'm going there this Spring/summer) For me having many options is the beat way to go.

Last time I went thru the Badlands, I dropped my 1D2 & 16-35 on the 2nd day of my trip. I'll never travel without a backup again.

Tapeman wrote in post #15594005
I would bring a lot of gear. (I'm going there this Spring/summer) For me having many options is the beat way to go.

Last time I went thru the Badlands, I dropped my 1D2 & 16-35 on the 2nd day of my trip. I'll never travel without a backup again.

Ouch, that hurts just reading about it.
Guess that's why I always have that bothersome strap around my neck. Hate it, but id hate to drop my precious T3i even more, lol.
My precious....Mmmmm....m​y precious

rwhardy wrote in post #15591230
normally i'd avoid this but i think he's right skip. you blasted him and insulted every photographer that doesn't meet your clearly superior standards. maybe you should consider retracting your earlier post.

I have to agree with Skip here. After seeing the question with the WA response umpteen times, Skip might have been a little tired of this response. This is a common misconception on these boards: Landscape means WA or UWA. Lens selection for landscape (or any other subject) is completely dependent on the situation, and the result desired. While one member took offense, even though the comment wasn't directed at him, the statement is still correct, landscape does not mean wide. Blunt; yes, but blunt or no, still every bit true.

casaaviocar wrote in post #15594910
I have to agree with Skip here. After seeing the question with the WA response umpteen times, Skip might have been a little tired of this response. This is a common misconception on these boards: Landscape means WA or UWA. Lens selection for landscape (or any other subject) is completely dependent on the situation, and the result desired. While one member took offense, even though the comment wasn't directed at him, the statement is still correct, landscape does not mean wide. Blunt; yes, but blunt or no, still every bit true.

But that is in general...no lens dictates any type of photography. You can take any type of photos with any focal length. I've seen great portraits shot with a 24mm as well as a 300mm...yet when we discuss portrait lens, we always talk about the traditional portrait range of 50mm to 100mm...and no one seems to get their panties all tied up into knots.

I hate to be 'one of those people,' but I don't believe in an ultimate anything. What works in one situation won't help you at all in the next. I was drawn to the question because wide angle lenses sprung to mind first. I have a wide angle lens, but sadly it isn't anyone's ultmate: the EF 24mm f/2.8. It it useful when I need it, though, and it does a competent job.

In my bag, I suppose the ultimate landscape lens is the 50mm f/1.4. When stopped down it is amazingly sharp. If I'm in the right place to use it, it's definitely the best lens. That's the thing: it's not the ultimate in all situations.

If it is wide angle lenses that you're thinking of, then you're in the same spot I'm in. I am considering adding a new lens to the collection over the next 2 or 3 years, and it'll be a wide angle. Under consideration are EF 24mm f/1.4L, the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E, the ZE 25mm f/2, and the ZE 21mm f/2.8. If I wanted pure versatility and quality, I'd pick up the 24mm TS-E. But I have poor eyesight. That makes the 24mm f/1.4L the best pick. If your eyesight is better than mine, the Zeiss offerings are possibly even better. My choice is not written in stone yet. Far from it. I may find a reason to change my mind again tomorrow. That often happens when I peruse the 21mm f/2.8 ZE thread here on Photography-on-the-net.

It seems all I am lacking is a 70-200 with a extension maybe. And a patient wife!!