If Money Were No Object ..

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?

Freddy ..

Not a damn thing wrong with your thought, and yes... it would be my main lens, no matter what. Most of the time it is my default lens on the camera.

It is one of the most versatile lenses made today and is blistering sharp.

You can't go wrong with either the 17 or the 24. I like the 17 better, but only because I lean towards the wide side. I also think it's more versatile since it takes a 1.4 TC and becomes the 24, quite nicely too.

I'm not really into wide landscapes but yes, I fully understand where you are coming from & I'd have the same train of thought too.

If money were no object, then I would buy two of all the canon L and prime lens and 3 of each top dSLR.

If money was no object I'd spring for the $250,000 digital 8x10 back and just shoot 8x10 all the time.

alphamalex wrote in post #17511926
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?

No, it wouldn't be the only lens on my full frame body. In fact, I don't think it would ever be on my full frame body for landscapes. Why? Because I have never wanted to shoot any landscape at a wide focal length like 17mm. The newer 24mm T/S, maybe.....but even that is quite a bit wider than what I normally shoot landscapes at.

The 17mm T/S wouldn't be of any use to me at all for landscape photography.

Nope.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17512135
No, it wouldn't be the only lens on my full frame body. In fact, I don't think it would ever be on my full frame body for landscapes. Why? Because I have never wanted to shoot any landscape at a wide focal length like 17mm. The newer 24mm T/S, maybe.....but even that is quite a bit wider than what I normally shoot landscapes at.

The 17mm T/S wouldn't be of any use to me at all for landscape photography.

I agree. The 17mm would be a specialty lens for me...definitely not my go to lens for landscape and a big definitely not my only lens for landscape.

When I go shooting landscapes, I carry an assortment of lenses spanning from 16mm to 200mm and depending on what I am shooting, different lenses get used. I very rarely need the extreme wide angle view.

I love this lens on my full frame not only for it's sharpness and versatility, but also for it's perspective control in areas which when shooting, can be difficult to include everything that I want. That said, I don't think it would be my only lens, but it is certainly one of my favourites.

If I didn't need to worry about the cost? I would probably have a custom 8x10 digital single chip large format camera made with a set of custom lenses to go with it.

But seriously, wide angle lenses are good... for wide angle photos. Some of the best landscape shots I've seen have been from an 800mm, so I would still want a range of lenses that I could use as needed for different styles of photos.

Luckless wrote in post #17512275
If I didn't need to worry about the cost? I would probably have a custom 8x10 digital single chip large format camera made with a set of custom lenses to go with it.

Pretty close to my first thoughts.

If money were no object I'd get a nice medium format kit. Though a custom 8x10 digital camera would be nice too!

If cost were no object, I'd not be trying to limit myself to any one lens.

If cost were no object, Id probably have one of everything..

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?

Freddy ..

Heya,

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 645z
Pentax 80-160
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.

Very best,