alphamalex wrote in post #17511926
Maybe a simple question ...
If money were no object, and you shot a lot of landscapes, wouldn't a TS-E 17mm f/4L be the only lens on your FF camera?
Let's not complicate things by arguments like, "I shoot zoomed landscapes all the time", shall we?
All I'm saying is, if all you did was shot landscapes like this
, would you ever need a 10-22, or a 16-35, or what not? The TS-E's supposed to be (one of) the sharpest lenses ever, can do panos if shifted left and right (albeit quickly I presume), and if used properly, can make every blade of grass as sharp as a razor, etc. You wouldn't even need to worry about hyperfocus or anything like that. Only caveat being it's MF only, and has somewhat of a learning curve.
So what's wrong with my train of thought?
Nope. If I were to go to a single lens, ever, it would not be ultrawide, nor telephoto. I'd probably want a 24~35mm focal length for "my only lens ever" for this endevour.
If money were no object, why are you even considering serious landscaping with 35mm format?
I don't even know what the highest order of equipment is in the world of large sensors (8x10, etc). But I am familiar with medium format and would START there, rather than with some 35mm format with a big budget. When you see the quality of a large sensor, the dynamic range, you don't even have to use filters for huge range shots, etc. And I'd be using anything from 40mm, 90mm to 180mm. Probably 80~90mm mostly. You can get crazy with $100k in medium format.
However, money IS object here, and if my budget could handle medium format, I would definitely add it to my setup. I'd still use 35mm as my fast equipment option for telephoto reach and action, as it's superior for this by far. But for landscape and portrait, I'd love to have a meager medium format setup.
So, on a budget (money is an object in reality, no sense in trying to just guess at the most expensive or highest praised item that is modern), I'd want:
Pentax 120 macro
About $16k, reasonable, still costly, but reasonable. And not even the 'best,' not up there with a $30k Hasselblad. But better than 35mm format for landscape.